Talk:Cloak and Dagger

Untitled

Some years ago I saw an article about an organization (in London, I think) teaching combat with 'cloak and dagger'. I believe it was a revivalist form of martial art, along the lines of Ninjitsu in Japan (i.e. reviving a historical martial art form and teaching it again). Does anyone know anything about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.221.61 (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a secret society at Georgetown University by this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.149.181 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Style

There is a martial "cloak and dagger" or "cloak and rapier" in which these describe the weapons used. The dagger or sword is held in the dominant hand, while a cloak or light coat is held in the off-hand. The cloak is used to distract the opponent (such as by hiding one's blade or body position or throwing it over the opponent's head) and it can also be used to absorb the inertia of slashes or entangle the opponent's blade. I have some old Spanish paintings that depict fighters dueling with short cloaks and navajas (large Spanish knives), and there are classical Italian depictions of using a rapier or stiletto with a cloak or drapery in the off-hand.Legitimus (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The info about the phrase itself clearly does not belong on the disambiguation page, according to the most basic tenets of the guidelines MOS:DP and WP:DAB. If that info should remain on Wikipedia, it should be on a separate page. It would not make sense to remove the disambiguation content from this page and leave it a page about the phrase, because this page is already set up as a dab page. I have no objection if someone wants to put the deleted info on another page and link to it from here, and if there were a proposal to move the disambig page to Cloak and dagger (disambiguation) and make the phrase the primary topic, located at Cloak and dagger, they could make that proposal. But the status quo is for Cloak and dagger to be a disambig and that extra information does not belong on a disambig. Propaniac (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I like your later suggestion.Legitimus (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cloak & Dagger which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cloak & Dagger (1984 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloak and dagger (disambiguation) → Cloak and Dagger – Cloak and Dagger currently redirects to the 14-sentence WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Cloak and dagger, the sole entry among the 13 listed at Cloak and dagger (disambiguation) that uses the lowercase "d". The remaining 12 entries are all titles which use an uppercase "D". A related triple nomination in July 2011 was successful at Talk:Cloak & Dagger (1984 film)#Requested move. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The only subject at the lower case d would already be reached through the base name, so the DAB page should be capitalized.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and WP:DABNAME. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support someone capitalizing the "D" is unlikely to be looking for the general concept and can still find it on the 1st line anyway like Friendly Fire. Views[[1]] show the general concept gets 2,470 but everything else gets 36,806 (including titles with "&") and there are 3 mainspace links all of which appear to be for the comics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.