Talk:Foam weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Boffers and Latex Weapons

It seems inappropriate that latex weapons and boffers are discussed here under the title of "boffer". The term boffer is specific to the US, outside of the US that term is seldom used, and then almost always in reference to foam weapons of the typical US style and not to other styles of foam weapon.

However, latex weapons and US-style boffers are variations of the same basic idea: a sports weapon with foam padding to make it relatively safe to hit people with. So it makes sense to discuss them on the same page.

Could we use an umbrella term such as "Foam weapon" as the title for this article, with redirects from both Boffer and Latex Weapon, and discuss both types of foam weapon here on equal footing?

--Ryan Paddy 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "foam weapon" is not a term that is used by either "camp" and as such I honestly don't think it's a good idea (it may not even jive with WP:NEOLOGISM). Web presence and club counts throughout the internet tend to show that the vast majority of English-speaking boffer/latex weapon users are in America and use the term "boffer" so it is much more likely that the average user of Wikipedia would stumble upon this term more readily. However, that completely aside, I'd love to see the article a bit more balanced towards both camps (as it has proven more than difficult due to some extremely unnecessary animosity) and on a number of occasions I've tried to copyedit things in that direction. What suggestions do you have towards that goal? :-) אמר Steve Caruso 04:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've also noticed some of the Interwiki links: de:Polsterwaffe et:Boffer fi:Bofferointi sv:Boffervapen which tends to make me conclude that "Boffer" is the cognate to the majority of non-English speaking practitioners. אמר Steve Caruso 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Foam weapon" is not a neologism, it's a description. Wikipedia is fine with using descriptions as titles, and I think it's appropriate in this case because no term is universal enough. "Boffer" is extremely US-specific. In terms of demographics, have you researched live combat larp in Europe? I have, and especially in the UK, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden live-combat larp is absolutely massive. I believe that the total participation numbers in Europe are much higher than in the USA, although that's a very hard thing to judge. Pehaps you googled for "boffer"? That term isn't used nearly as much outside the USA, so it wouldn't be surprising if that returned a totally biased result, much like googling for "LRP" which is the term used in the UK would return a UK-slanted result. Also, note that Google is region-sensitive and if you're searching from the USA it may be biased towards US websites. Wikipedia is an international project. In Europe "latex weapon" is the standard term, because that's the standard construction. That's why the current state of having "boffer" as a catch-all title will not be not acceptable to most larpers outside the US. You won't find a consensus for having "boffer" as the title for an article that includes latex weapons, so let's come up with a compromise. --Ryan Paddy 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
See also the previously separate Latex weapons entry, which was clearly written mostly by Europeans or people most used to latex weapons in the European style. It refers to latex weapons as standard for larp (which is true in Europe) and doesn't even mention the word boffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latex_weapons&diff=52068093&oldid=52067983 I think the only way to get consensus is to either have a single balanced article with a neutral title, or to go back to two separate articles. But I think one article would be better, because from the perspective of an interested reader boffers and latex weapons are just variations on a theme.--Ryan Paddy 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur, a single article is what is warranted. Soft-weapon larp? --Eyrian 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the title could be "LARP weapons" with a balanced article on all live combat in LARPs and pure fighting groups that use the same weapons as LARPs? That would fit in well with the other Wikipedia LARP articles: LARP, History of LARP, List of LARP groups, etc. The only problem there is that I think some groups in the USA don't call themselves LARPS because they just fight and don't roleplay. To people who know more about such groups, does this sound like an acceptable approach? --Ryan Paddy 22:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A page titled "Live action role-playing weapons" could encompass the various sorts of padded weapons, the non-padded weapons used in some Eastern European and Russian larps (they often use wooden and metal weapons for larp), as well as commenting on firearms used in larp.--Ryan Paddy 02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"Foam weapon" might be a better fit afterall, as they exist in many places throughout the world as seperate from LARPs as a form of recreation or martial art (SCA events and boffer war groups are two strong examples of these). But then it does not take the non-padded phys-reps as you've mentioned into account. אמר Steve Caruso 05:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, metal and wooden weapons don't require much explanation anyway. They can just be mentioned in the main LARP aricle in passing (metal weapons already are). So yes, "Foam weapons" might be a reasonable title to include boffers, latex, and also the injection molding weapons that are gaining popularity in some places (esp Quebec I think, as brand name Calimacil). The only trouble with "Foam weapons" is that it may be overly broad, implying inclusion of foam-covered bokken (I've seen foam-padded Nunchaku) and foam children's toys shaped like weapons. But it's the best compromise I can think of for a universal title, other than "LARP weapons". --Ryan Paddy 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of boffer groups on the east coast of the United States alone that do use foam covered bokken and nunchaku. Similar more heavy weapons are used by the SCA where the core is made of solid rattan. These groups tend not to be of the "put the armor on the weapon" philosophy and wear protective gear and helmets. The Livingston Dueling Association (the group of which I help administrate) is rather open, provided safety isn't compromised. Once the move goes down, we'll need to do some copyedit on the article to reflect this as well as go over and fix any double redirects that may occur. אמר Steve Caruso 16:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's try "Foam weapons" and see how it takes. --Ryan Paddy 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Article move complete and double-redirects fixed. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, great work. Now if we can shape it towards neutrality and so forth that'd be cool. Given that it's "Foam weapons" it should probably cover traditional US-style boffers, the newer "ultra-light" boffers, latex weapons, and the newer injection-molded weapons even-handedly. Also, we might want to make the construction section more concise and cover other big areas like History, Industry (there are lots of professional latex weapon manufacturering companies, at least one injection-molding, and some boffer ones too), and Usage. Would be good to get some references in there too. I'll help where I can, although I'm mostly focusing on Live action role-playing game at the moment. --Ryan Paddy 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

See Talk:Boffing Percy Snoodle 11:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boffer Image

While the image of the latex boffer is interesting, I don't think it is representative of a typical boffer. --George Hernandez 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems to strongly depend on where you come from. Such latex weapons are standard in germany (and europe, I think), they seem to be more rare in the US, it seems. If you have a different picture, feel free to add it. --Conti|✉ 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, latex weapons are standard in most larps except in the USA. They appear to be the standard in the UK, Quebec, and continental Europe, and increasingly in New Zealand and Australia. In most of these places the term "boffer" is not used, and terms like "larp weapon", "larpsafe weapon" and most frequently "latex weapon" are common. --Ryan Paddy 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] round blades vs. flat blades

with usa boffering, I've noticed a divide between using round blades (practically a single round piece of foam covering the pvc with no determend blade, kind of like a club)and using flat blades (using a tube of foam for the core and one or more half tubes to designate a blade, that goes with the idea that the part you are supposed to hit people with is safer than the flat. it also makes them look more realistic and stylized.). should this be mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.76.243 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be enough to say that there is a scale of shape from quite streamlined weapons that largely resemble the real thing, to more heavily padded and rounded weapons. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
although the round blade tend to have less padding than roughly half the flat blades, because they usually only use a single piece of foam, usually pipe insulation or pool noodles, where most flat blades use layers of foam to make the designated striking edge safer. there are those who who make flat blades out of camp foam, but I am not familiar enough with those to discus their padding. I know almost all the european latex swords and many of the cloth covered flat blades are made with camp foam or other foam mats so...I think it is a bit more complex than just a linear scale (I'm the same person as the 1st post, btw)
I think the kind of nuances you're discussing are too detailed to be appropriate to an encyclopedia article. It might be worth saying that some foam weapons use laminated layers of flat foam sheet, and some use foam tubes, and some use foam injection. Likewise it might be worth mentioning that shapes vary in size and in resemblance to the weapon they represent. But a catalogue of the varieties probably isn't appropriate. Bear in mind that there are a huge number of subtley different approaches to construction around the world. I think it's best to just mention the big, clear distinctions and not go into detail. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citations

This page has no references or citations... Bro2baseball (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've got a couple of books that mention foam weapons, will have a hunt through for suitable citations. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)