Forum:CT:Duels (second discussion)

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Duels (second discussion)

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: no consensus. --Imperialles 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed some inconsistency in whether a duel is included in a larger battle's article, or whether it gets its own article. Since the Duel infobox was invented, I don't believe we have made specific policies on it. (if we have tell me now and disregard the rest of my statements). In reviewing Trash compactor history, I see that they merged Duel on the Invisible Hand with Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars), but they left First Duel on the Anakin Solo separate from the Battle of Kashyyyk (Second Galactic Civil War) with a "Main article link" in the duel section of the battle article. There are many other examples of this (Movie and TV battles tend to keep he duel in the larger battle articles, whereas Novels, KOTOR comics, TOR, and Star Wars: Republic comics tend to separate them).

I propose that we allow duels to have their own pages even when they are part of a larger battle. This is for the same reason that the Duel infobox template was created in the first place: They are important, (fairly) rare events unique to the Star Wars Universe and they hold a special place in all our hearts. Furthermore, it would be nice to be able to see all the lightsaber battle chronologically by using the "next" and "previous" links in the Duel infoboxes. If they're merged in with battles, it makes that hard. I love to be able to go from one Dark Lord of the Sith to another in succession with the links at the bottom of their pages. Lets do that for Duels.

There is already a "Conflict" line to list the battles that they are part of. Now, this would be a special case (like keeping "Darth" in titles) concerning (for the most part) force user vs force user using lightsabers, so it wont lead to every fist fight or other little part of a battle having its own article. I know in this Merge-happy climate we have right now this may not be popular with some people. But it would be useful in navigating the various lightsaber duels throughout history and allow us to give blow by blow details of duels (especially ones in novels) without cluttering up battle pages.

Whatever is decided, lets make it consistent.

  • Note: From suggestions in the comments section I have reworded the options below from original. Based on voter explainations I don't think this will change anyone's votes, but please recheck your responses. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Duels should can have their own pages

  1. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Lightsaber duels are what bring some people into Star Wars in the first place; why not give them their own articles? Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. DarthDragon164BlackdragonDragon's Lair 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Call this the "whatever" vote. I would actually vote down in "no policy," but I want there to be some decision and I am more than capable of TCing anything I don't want to see an article for. In the meantime, what's the harm if it means things like more good and featured articles, happier authors, and more pages of content for the readers to choose more specifically to read about? Graestan(Talk) 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. With the exception of thing like Saber Lock on Alderaan. MauserComlink 05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was actually the author of that. I made a preliminary page based on the cliffhanger ending that made it seem that there was going to be a duel. When the next section was released, I fully agreed with the deletion. Sorry about that!IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Separate pages, but with a clear link in the battle article. As in, the battle page should have a section of Header: (name of duel), See Article (link), short paragraph summarizing the page. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. I don't really care. Maybe they should be taken source by source but the outcome would usually be this anyway. I choose this option because I don't wanna fight over this later. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 13:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per Grae. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jujiggum) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Because there are readers who want to read the duel article only, and but the battle article. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 15:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Since my question in the comments section hasn't gotten a satisfactory answer yet, I'll go here and let the definition of a duel be decided upon on a case-by-case basis. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Din's Fire 997 08:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Duels should only have a separate page when they were not related in any way to a large battle

  1. This one makes more sense to me. When people talk about the Battle of Endor, they're going to include the death of Palpatine in that, and so they're going to look for the Battle of Endor article to include pertinent information on the duel on Death Star II. It's a pain to the average reader to have to go find a second link when they just want to look up the final act of ROTJ. Same goes for other climatic multi-part battles (Battle of Theed, Geonosis, Coruscant in NJO, Star Forge in KotOR, etc.) Let's point the reader to one cohesive article on the topic, and not make things harder for the readers in order to adhere to an artificial organization system that we invented without any canonical necessity for doing so. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's what {{See also}} and {{Main}} are for. Slap {{See also}} on the battle and {{Main}} on the duel, each at the top of the article. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • While I appreciate and understand your argument, it's my belief that it's far more organized to simply have the battle and duel on one coherent page rather than splitting them up on two, which will require more work, be harder on the readers, and simply serve as an artificial construct to appease hypersegregationism. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I was about to lay down my vote for "No policy," but I think the Battle of Endor-Duel on Death Star II situation is the poster child for this debate, and I've been waiting for someone to create this CT for a long time. I've always felt that Duel on Death Star II should be merged with Battle of Endor, because, in a manner of speaking, it is the Battle of Endor. The conflict at Endor was entirely centered around Luke vs. Vader vs. the Emperor, and there wouldn't even be a space or ground Battle of Endor without that lightsaber duel. That particular case, and anything of similar circumstances, should be covered in one primary article. If there's a duel that is entirely independent of a major conflict, then indeed it should have its own article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that it is exactly the opposite as Toprawa and Ralltiir and Atarumaster88 suggest. A reader wanting to be reminded of how the lightsaber fight between Vader and Luke on the Deathstar went isn't going to type in "Battle on Endor." He is going to type in, "Duel on the Deathstar." If he gets redirected to the Battle page, he is going to have to wade through the page until he finds the right subsection (some of which aren't even entitled "duel"). I agree with Master Jonathan when he says on Battle pages, the hyperlinks to the duels' main articles and "see also" links are good for. Having a separate article doesn't diminish them as a deciding factor in any given battle. It accentuates it by saying, "this is important enough that we will talk about it in more detail in another article. The Duel and its results should still be briefly described in the Battle article just like any other aspect (Millennium Falcon run on the core) is. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Look, I don't think Wookieepedia is made to adhere to specifically what the reader wants. We try, but we aren't made to serve the reader. That the reader will now have to wade through larger articles is irrelevant: if they truly want to learn a few things from whatever they want to read, they shouldn't care. To me, including duels when they are part of a larger battle is just redundant and severely unnecessary. CC7567 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
        • As a wiki and an encyclopedia, our purpose is technically to provide accurate and canonical information on Star Wars subjects as thoroughly as we can. I always thought that because an encyclopedia is designed to be read by those curious enough to wander into it, we should also think of ways to make their lives easier without ruining information. Not that I've made a decision yet... and I might as well end up agreeing with you that duels that are part of a larger battle is redundant and unnecessary. Cyfiero 04:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per above, as well as per Cylka and Eyrezer's comments. There are even many more cases that could be argued to be "duels" when they are simply an exchange or two of lightsaber blows, and for consistency, the larger duels need to be part of the articles as well. Including duels in their "main articles" is personally too redundant for me. In any case, it seems to me as though all of the options on this page (except for this one) include "can" or "may", and are therefore not explicitly defined and open to exceptions, so I'm putting my vote here because it's the closest to what I believe. Both duels during the Battle of Teth were so closely related to the battle that it was rather redundant when writing the article itself, and I don't see the point of using two articles to state the exact same thing, even if the main article is shortened somewhat. CC7567 (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. If they're notable and are actually a duel. Touching lightsabers doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Anything but "should." The less duel articles, the better. Thefourdotelipsis 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • We all agree that touching lightsabers doesn't count. That's not the issue. Things like the duels on the Deathstar and Invisible hand are. From your comments, perhaps you'd be more interested in CHOICE 3, which deals with significance?IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Discussion here has been moved to Jorrel's talk page, to avoid cluttering up forum with off-topic personal debate. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Top and 4dot. Squash all the duel articles into parent battles. ASAP. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. —Lucius malfoy7 Life 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. One could make articles like Duel on Death Star II redirect to a section, like Battle of Endor/Legends#First death of the Emperor, if all the duel articles taking place during a battle were merged. Because of that particular case, I almost voted for the next choice down, but how significant is "very significant?" Is the duel at the end of the Legacy novels significant enough? What about separating Vader vs. Kenobi II from the article on the rescue from the Death Star? Maybe this is safest in the end. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. --Eyrezer 00:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Grunny (Talk) 10:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Lord Hydronium 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. Didn't take me long to make up my mind. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. The option closest to what I ultimately want. --Imperialles 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  17. --Golden Monkey 04:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Duels should may be merged with battles, but particularly significant ones (resulting in deaths of an important character, etc) can be separated

No policy should be made: Handle each duel/battle merger on an individual basis

  1. There's always going to be a situation where the other choices presented just don't cover all the possibilities.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Tommy. It sounds like a good idea, but it should be made on an individual basis, not as a whole. MecenarylordEnter if you dare 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. I'll go here. To go above would be an attempt to bring them down to size but I feel would still impact negatively on big battle articles. -- —Harrar (Villip) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Neither of the above options are satisfactory. We should not merge duel articles which might be related in some way to the larger battle, but aren't really part of the battle (think of the ROTJ duel -- yes, it's concurrent with the Battle of Endor and nearby, but it stands on its own and isn't really the same thing -- they're more like two related battles -- like the Battle of Lexington and the Battle of Concord -- than they are aspects of one and the same battle), but at the same time we should not have duel articles on all duels. If Luke and Vader had clashed lightsabers on Endor while Luke was attempting to get to the shield generator and Vader was defending it, that would be an aspect of the larger battle, and I would cry if we had a separate article on it. Havac 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Havac. jSarek 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. This seems the most sensible. Definitely per Tommy, Mercenary, Harrar, and Havac. Cyfiero 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Tommy Steves490 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • While I am not quite ready to cast my vote on this CT, I did want to point out something that I feel may become an issue, in terms of the wording of the policy. The first option states that duels can have their own pages, while option three states that duels may be merged with battles. In my mind, these two options are essentially the same. Furthermore, I believe that these two options also allow for the same policy as option four -- handle each duel/battle merger on an individual basis. The wording of these three options are leaving the decision wide open to interpretation. My suggestion would be to change the wording of options one and three. For example, option one could simply read that duels will have their own articles, and option three reads that duels will be merged with battles, but particularly significant duels will warrant their own article. There will still be an issue of what constitutes "significant," but I believe that a small change in wording will eliminate many issues. Cylka-talk- 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Why not something like:
      1. "Duels should have their own article even if part of a larger battle"
      2. "Duels should have their own article only if of particular significance (deaths of an important character, etc)"
      3. "Duels should have their own article only if not part of a larger battle"
      4. "Duels should not have their own articles" (I doubt this one is needed, seeing as we have Duel FAs... :P)
      • This wording seems clearer to me. --Eyrezer 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

With these options, perhaps it would be wise to first define what a duel is. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

  • Well the Lightsaber duel article states, "A lightsaber duel occurred when two or more combatants armed with lightsabers, or one party using lightsabers against another wielding a melee weapon capable of sparring with the former engaged in personal combat." For old republic stuff (where there were opposing armies of lightsaber weilders) each individual fight in the melee obviously wouldn't be a duel. I think the idea of a melee and a duel are pretty clear in the star wars universe. There was one discussion as to whether a duel could only be between 2 individuals, and whether showdown was a better term. I believe there are in-universe instances of calling a lightsaber battle between small groups (2 on 1 or 2 on 3, etc.) duels. I don't think there is an instance when this is really unclear, even in the KOTOR or the Darth Bane era. Almost every time, during a battle, the duelists remove themselves from the battle, or their support troops simply fight around them. I believe the phrase, "Leave him/them to me" is often uddered. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • IthinkIwannaLeia, your last two sentences there state it perfectly. Duels are rarely, if ever, truly part of the larger battle, which is just another reason to give them their own articles. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • So then even a short saber lock becomes a duel as long as it's one on one? We recently TC'ed one such article. Where do we cut the line? At what point does a clash of lightsabers become an actual duel? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I believe you refer to Duel on Alderaan. I jumped the gun on this when I made it based on the last panel of a TOR release. In the next release, they didn't end up fighting, so we deleted it. What makes up a duel is not really an issue. (no one is saying Vader dueled younglings because they had sabers) The issue before us is whether actual duels, especially the galaxy changing ones, deserve their own article rather than being lumped in with a battle. I think because some of them are so important certain battles and the galaxy as a whole, they deserve to be separated from the battle as a whole. They also usually take place in their own separate world. It is not often that someone is blocking blasters and fighting in a saber fight. Duelist during battle are usually left alone by both sides (although some like to force throw troopers at one another). Sorry I am commenting so much. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
          • No offense, but that's still not answering the question; "actual duels" are still not defined. Unless there's a basis on what a duel actually is, I can't understand your reasoning. CC7567 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, if the words "can" and "should" are affecting your choice for choice 1 let me know. I put "should" just to be consistent. Since this vote is so close, I would hate to have wording, as oppose to general principle, be the deciding factor! IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't decide. My main problem with duels being incorporated into battle articles is this. Lets face it; when five giant fleets clash over a planet while a ground assault is in progress, the order in which X struck Y's blade and how he used shiak to end the fight isn't relevant. I'll stand by that and say that I think the Battle of Endor article would be affected adversely by the inclusion of Vader's taunting, the Emperor's cajoling and Luke's saber style and use of reverse bloody dun moch. The important factors I'd place in the article would be "meanwhile, Skywalker duelled Vader aboard the battlestation" and later "ultimately, the Alliance hero was able to appeal to his father's humanity, with the result that the Imperial executor turned on Emperor Palpatine and cast him down a reactor shaft to his death". Why do we need any further detail than that? Everything else should be in their character articles. The other option is obviously to have separate duel articles, as we do now, but clearly that's exploded out of proportion and is now being used as a chance for amateur editors to create duel articles seemingly because they're simple and easy to write in a play-by-play style and because its fun to play with an infobox. Look at the atrocious Second Duel on the Anakin Solo for an example. On the other hand, there are many good duel articles that reflect the importance of the personal in Star Wars such as Second Duel in the Iron Citadel. And yes, I know I'm guilty but I've long since changed my views. -- —Harrar (Villip) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you said it perfectly Harrar. But remember, poorly written articles can be rewritten, so why can't you decide. I will shut up now and stop hogging the convo..I promise this time. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.