Forum:TC:Individual lightsaber

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Individual lightsaber

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. Default to Keep.. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:36, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Individual lightsaber articles

Started with the creation of Tera Sinube's lightsaber

This is a completely useless article. Sure, his lightsaber was of a unique design, but so is Ahsoka's, and her lightsaber doesn't get it's own article; so was Lord Baras's lightsaber, but his doesn't get an article. The argument could be started that Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber get's its own article, but that is because his had several variations over the span of his lifetime as both Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 13:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable

  • Tera Sinube's lightsaber
  • Vima-Da-Boda's lightsaber
  • Freedon Nadd's short lightsaber
  • Darth Zannah's lightsaber
    • I don't agree with removing Zannah's lightsaber because it was unique enough and has a history that extends well past her usage of it.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (Mechno-chair) 16:57, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sifo-Dyas's lightsaber
  • Pre Vizsla's lightsaber
    • First canonically black-bladed lightsaber; mirrors Exan Kun's lightsaber description. Marko14126 00:30, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Now has a specific name: Darksaber Moon Demon 06:21, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't we wait until the episode airs? Maybe the weapon played an important role before or after it was stolen by the Mandalorians, which could make it a keeper. —Jawaman JaingHeadNo, I did NOT steal your droid! 18:40, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • It is also not shaped like a regular lightsaber, but more like a katana sword (weapon used by samurai wariors in real life, in case someone didn't know) which would make it (more than) unique for a lightsaber. —Jawaman JaingHeadNo, I did NOT steal your droid! 19:11, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • The fact that it's got a canon name, and is probably the singe most unique lightsaber in all of Star Wars canon, seems like reason enough to keep it to me. — Red XIV (talk) 05:01, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I think we should keep the article until the matter is clear - until all of the episodes with this saber (or event the entire Season Two) is aired, that is. Immo JaingHead (Let's move this bucket!) 19:12, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration] Trak Nar Ramble on 07:17, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • [Redacted by administration] and a lack of adherence to natural elements is not pure reason to delete it outright. CC7567 (talk) 07:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • Better save that book for Lucas. The whole thing was GL's idea, according the the IGN interview with Filoni. That said, the article is noteworthy. Aside from it's, uh, uniqueness as a Fanboy-Blade, the item in question apparently has a thousand year history, making it both a genuine artifact and heirloom. SinisterSamurai 18:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
        • As mentioned, this was created by George Lucas himself. Isn't it also the first lightsaber to be canonically black? McMuffin 02:15, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Windu's lightsaber
    • I believe we should delete this article, but where's the one about Windu's purple blade? User:Bonbondoodle 17:23, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree, this article doesn't deserve to be an article, its a disgrace!--Celtic22 19:25, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jinzu Razor
    • I disagree with this one, as it has a canonical name, not a conjectural one. As an encyclopedia, we have try to have articles for all Star Wars things with canonical names, but regarding things with conjectural names, we only have articles for the notable ones. As the Jinzu Razor has a canonical name, it should have an article of it's own, regardless of how significant and notable the Razor actually is. --Jinzler 16:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Palpatine's lightsaber - not notable enough
    • This article covers multiple lightsabers used by people other than Palpatine. It's also a decent article that has had alot of effort put into it. Jayden Matthews 17:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty lame reason, as Kota used it for all of a few moments. However, because the lightsaber was used in duels that helped shape the galaxy, I'll agree this should stay. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:03, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's what a said before some wise delete my comment.Te Shukalaryc Mand'alorJaingHead 22:11, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

Delete those proposed above

JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 13:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (Mechno-chair) 13:47, January 28, 2010 (UTC) This has changed too much from where it originally began for me to vote anywhere.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (Mechno-chair) 22:20, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
—Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  1. Per precedent set by Forum:TC:Anakin Solo's lightsaber. jSarek 11:58, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete all

  1. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 21:29, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Per my voting comment below: I would also support a Delete all vote, since anything in any of these articles should theoretically already be covered by the subject's main article: Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber should really have no info not already found in Anakin Skywalker, for ex. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Redirecting these to the main subject's article would probably be preferable, in fact. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you really think that's necessary? Definitely make sure all information is merged (if it isn't already) and then just delete. Honestly, is it more likely that someone will do a search for "Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber" or just search for "Anakin Skywalker" to find information about his lightsaber? - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:40, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, the existence of these articles to begin with proves to me that people are bound to search for "Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber," etc. It's best to take them to where the information is, rather than not taking them anywhere at all. And, it would prevent recreation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I've never been a fan of individual articles on lightsabers. There is no reason to have them - all info on them should be in the article of the respective maker/owner(s). Even the "X lightsaber is important because it was in an important duel" reason seems pointless to me. The lightsaber had no effect on the history of the galaxy; its owner did. That being said, I think it's about time we have an official policy on articles about lightsabers - preferably that we don't have articles on lightsabers. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  4. CC7567 (talk) 22:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Quickly. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:20, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Graestan(Talk) 23:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Delete all except for Jinzu Razor. It has a unique canonical name for Waru's sake. MauserComlink 02:35, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Finally. I remember when I brought up Anakin's lightsaber articles on IRC back in October. JangFett (Talk) 04:07, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Move the viable information to the article of the character in an appropriate section. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:27, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  10. I see nothing besides the striked out articles that needs its own article. It's sufficient to write something in the article of the character. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Darth KarikaPlease leave a message after the beep. *boom* 19:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  12. This is why there is an equipment section for characters. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  13. If they have this, then they should have every blaster every stinking character has/had.—B-Boba Fett! Bounties collected JasterMereelsSigil-TESB 18:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  14. I really think this topic is big enough to warrant a CT for discussion instead of a TC, but since we're already here, I may as well vote. I say delete all except for ones with canonical names like Jinzu Razor. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 01:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Keep all

  1. We have dozens of articles on individuals lightsabers. There's no more sense in deleting this one than there is in all the others. Jayden Matthews 15:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 18:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  3. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 18:56, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  4. - Moon Demon 20:56, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can't subscribe to the idea that something is more notable than something else just because that something else just happens to be a stub. We shouldn't pick and choose what we think should be included in this wiki based on scope of information. If we have an article on one lightsaber, we should devote coverage to all. That being said, I would also support a Delete all vote, since anything in any of these articles should theoretically already be covered by the subject's main article: Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber should really have no info not already found in Anakin Skywalker, for ex. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    Consistency has been left to deteriorate for too long on Wookieepedia. Either we keep them all or delete them all, per Toprawa. CC7567 (talk) 21:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • For the record, it wasn't based on if it was a stub or not, but what kind of notable impact the lightsaber had on galactic events (ie. Kun's was the first of its kind, Palpatines was used at both the formation of the Empire and Rebellion, Solo's was made with a lambent instead of crystal and was then used by Ganner Rysode in a major battle, etc). But you know, I can completely see where you and Tope are coming from. I'll add the third option with my vote. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Although I'm changing my vote, I'd like to point out that we don't have the power to judge what is notable or not—or what "notable" is, as far as these subjects go. CC7567 (talk) 22:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  5. If for no other reason than the fact that I believe I have substantially proven how these types of articles can work through this example.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (Mechno-chair) 22:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  6. I'm inclined to vote for keep them all, if a proper notability is given (would have to be defined here or someplace else). If it has a canonical name (see Jinzu Razor) it definitely deserves an article. Tyber J. Kenobi's Droid 22:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Per Tommy. Also, there are some pretty convincing arguments above, however, if we argue that individual weapons don't have any direct effects on history, rather, their owners did, then we'd have to get rid of things such as individual starship articles, as well. For instance, any information present in the Millennium Falcon article should be present in all the other articles about its past owners, and thus by that line of thought, this article is unnecessary. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 23:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  8. I've been torn on this, but per above. The same logic could suggest including all battle articles into an overall war article. The Lumiya's lightwhip article shows us that these articles can have detailed information that simply isn't suitable to be included in the owners article. Grunny (Talk) 23:18, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  9. After watching the discussion, per above, particularly Tyber. Some of these do need to go, but we need to define what is notability with regard to individual weapons first, and that's not something that can be done here. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  10. The purpose of Wookieepedia is to create a comprehensive encyclopedia of all things Star Wars. This site was built to provide a place where even the most unimportant canonical detail can have a page. Each lightsaber is a unique object with unique properties and histories. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 03:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per Jonathan. Some are notable, some aren't, but such a thing should be decided in CT. OLIOSTER (talk) 04:18, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely not. Are we supposed to decide which of these are notable and which are not? No way, José. Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:17, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Until notability guidelines are created through CT. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:18, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:52, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Dangerdan97 21:47, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  16. I'll concede that we shouldn't have an article for every single lightsaber in Star Wars history. But if the lightsaber has enough information to fill a decent article, that's what should be done. That goes double for ones like Jinzu Razor & Darksaber, which have canonical names. Anything that's canonically named surely merits an article. As for less unique/notable lightsabers, a mention and description in their owners' articles should be enough. — Red XIV (talk) 05:11, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  17. I can see the general chaos of the redlinks, redirects and recreated articles arising from deleting them all in Appearances sections already. Nayayen—TALK 20:31, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Not that I really care about trying to change your vote, but I really hope that's not your reason for voting keep. This is why we have bots and diligent administrators who close TC threads to handle this stuff. Just FYI. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:52, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course not. Each of these has something unique that the generic ones don't. That or they've done more in the course of their use than cutting down some bad guys which, again, the garden-variety lightsaber won't have. Nayayen—TALK 22:43, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  18. I'm almost on the fence for this one, but I think Lumiya's lightwhip is a good example of why we should not issue a blanket ban on lightsaber articles. If there's enough information out there to warrant a separate page, do so. It's possible some of the examples listed above should be deleted, but I'd be more comfortable voting on a case by case basis, rather than the group nomination being discussed now. ~ SavageBob 00:24, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Havac 00:35, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
  20. I feel that any lightsaber with one or more of the following properties qualifies as notable enough to warrant an article: 1) Having been passed between users (the connection between the users making it notable) such as Anakin's lightsaber gifted to Luke. 2) Unique physical properties or were to first to show such properties (e.g., forked lightsaber, darksaber). 3) When it serves as an iconic "set-piece" of a particular character (e.g., Windu's lightsaber, Exar Kun's lightsaber). This would be, IMO, equivalent to giving Vader's Armor an article. I vote "keep all" not with the intention that every lightsaber in canon should have an article, but that any lightsaber which meets the minimum requirements of notability should. I do think that lightsaber-specific articles could be merged together if a user had multiple lightsabers of note (e.g., all of Luke's lightsabers on one page, Tenel Ka's first, failed lightsaber and then her correct one). fodigg (talk) | 21:54, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Struck second point as per my comment in comments section. Keeping my vote in "keep all" until notability requirements are detailed. Also, would add 4) Has great impact on the galaxy or as an important narrative McGuffin (e.g., Anakin Solo's lightsaber.) —fodigg (talk) | 21:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  21. Xd 19:39, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This is pretty open and shut, so if you have an idea of a third option, please discuss here first. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 13:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • What about Palpatine's, Vizsla's, Zannah's, Windu's, Dyas's and all the others? Jayden Matthews 16:16, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • There, that should cover it. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 16:36, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Anakin's first, Jinzu Razor, Consul, Defender, Arbiter, Adept, Adjudicator, Guardian, Praetor, Sentinel, Retaliator and Firebrand? Jayden Matthews 16:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
        • Added Jinzu Razor to the delete list. The rest are styles of hilt used by the NJO, not lightsabers belonging to specific individuals. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 17:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
          • Doesn't the same logic of non-notability apply? Jayden Matthews 17:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
            • No, it doesn't. These are "styles of lightsaber" used by different indivuduals. The individual lightsabers of individual people are non-notable. To have them means we should also allow Plo Koon's boots or Ahsoka Tano's tube top or Quinlan Vos's pants. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 17:12, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
              • I would disagree, as lightsabers are custom made, unique and singular to their owners. Clothing is not. Jayden Matthews 17:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
                • So you propose creating well over a thousand new articles that simply state "So-and-so's lightsaber was the lightsaber owned by so-and-so.? What about individuals like Luke Skywalker who used lightsabers created by others? Do you see where this is going? The idea is to not have a bunch of useless articles but to only have articles on individual lightsabers that are notable enough to have had an impact on historical events of the galaxy. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 17:31, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that this will also cover Aurra Sing's lightsaber and Lumiya's lightwhip, as they meet the criteria as well. CC7567 (talk) 22:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • I would have to say, yes. Though the lightwhip is up for FAN right now. :\ - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 22:17, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I feel like this should be done on a case-by-case basis. The Jinzu Razor should stay in my opinion because, well, it has a name and that should honestly make it worthy enough of recognition. It's not just a weapon identified by its wielder. Hell, it even has its own card in the SWGTCG. I agree that lightsabers are too common to give articles for every specific one but some unique weapons like Lumiya's lightwhip are worthy in my opinion. For now I'll have to abstain from voting. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 23:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ditto Pre Vizsla's lightsaber. It's notable as the only black-bladed lightsaber currently known. Moon Demon 23:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Moon Demon beat me to it; Pre Vizsla's lightsaber is the first known black-bladed lightsaber.Marko14126 00:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, no, it is not the only black lightsaber known, nor is it even the first black-bladed lightsaber currently known. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:40, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • Is that image canon or customizable game content/mechanics? Because Pre's is for sure canonical. That image of Galen is of DLC and as noted in his article, the only lightsabers he used were his red Sith saber and Kota's green saber. The black crystal in the game is an example of custimization and thus falls into the same category as Revan's face/true name. Moon Demon 01:05, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • So I suppose that I can look forward to articles like Han Solo's blaster, Greedo's blaster, Unidentified Ithorian Jedi Master's lightsaber, etc., if this TC thread results in the survival of these lightsaber articles. Because that's where this will go if we don't draw the line somewhere. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:41, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, it looks like this TC will fail, so I propose we draw a line at lightsabers (and lightwhips and the like). I just really hope we don't end up with something like Greedo's blaster, because really, that would be downright stupid. I know there are people who will disagree with me about this, but I think we need a limit of some kind. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree that the line should be drawn at lightsabers. While they are custom built by the owner, blasters and the like are mass-produced and uniform across the board, differing only in slight cosmetic or internal modifications. Moon Demon 01:15, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • If this TC fails, we'll need to do more than just draw the line at lightsabers. We'll need some kind of notability rules regarding articles on lightsabers. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • Which is what the people voting keep have been suggesting... Grunny (Talk) 01:15, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • Then why are you and the others voting for "keep all" if you want notability rules regarding lightsabers - rules that would result in the deletion of some of those articles? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:16, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
            • Because there are currently no rules defined. When they are defined, then we can delete those that don't meet the requirements. Grunny (Talk) 01:18, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
              • Perhaps a CT should be started now, while this TC thread is still active - that way, the result of the CT can be directly applied to this TC. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:20, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
                • This TC would finish before the CT anyway, regardless, more thought and discussion should be put into what the rules should be than rushing into a CT now. Grunny (Talk) 01:22, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like articles for individual items are the third area where hyper-inclusionism clashes with deletionism (after generic real-world terms and unidentified extras of course). Because if we purge all those lightsabers, then why not Brejik's gloves? Or Jolee's robe? Or Darth Bandon's fiber armor? However, I do agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, because otherwise we'll end up with people who will create a short stub for every single item EVAR, just like the other useless articles like permafrost or Unidentified brown-haired female (Void Station). See, every attempt to establish some rules for redundant articles ends up with some people coming in and saying "Tables are canon. So are Coleman Trebor's lightsaber and that unidentified Rodian in the crowd. End of story." However, what some people may forget is that Star Wars canon is established not even by published sources, but by that amazing thing called the Holocron continuity database, which, of course, none of us fans has access to. You really thing Chee would bother to have entries for those things on there? And while official authors and artist have Chee's Holocron to consult with, most fans looking for information would come to us. And when the come, do you really think they would spend time reading definition of terms they already know (like Wallet) or articles that basically describe what's happening on a single picture (Unidentified compassionate Jedi, I'm looking at you). I think it's time for us to remember that Wookieepedia exist for its readers first and foremost and finally establish a notability policy to avoid having articles which cannot potentially present any new info to anyone. If the article cannot have enough sufficient, relevant content, it has to go. The criteria I'm currently thinking of are: Nameless extras must only have articles if there's enough information to be said about them besides simply describing a single picture they're in; real-world terms must only be allowed if Star Wars definition of them differs from the real-world one (like bounty hunter), otherwise they should serve as disambigs and redirects; individual nameless items must only be given articles if the information cannot be fully present in respective character's article (Boba Fett's armor can). But while the idea has been set for months, I am reluctant to bring it to CT, because of the reason I've mentioned above: the idea would be screwed by people who think we should have articles for everything. That's why I think we should agree that we all need notability rules before even discussing which exactly it will be. Sorry, I got a little to far from this particular TC, but I strongly believe that it is not a matter of individual article, or even a dozen of them, but a site-wide decision. MauserComlink 02:35, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • Fully agreed. It's past time for an IU notability policy. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:39, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • This times a thousand. We need to decide on this once and for all. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 04:20, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me. The significance of such things or items must be noteworthy - see Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber for an example, which went through different hands in its time being (Anakin > Obi-Wan > Luke > Mara...). It simply cannot be described in the one person's article (here Anakin) to describe the full history or IU notability. Well, this example wasn't discussed in this TC, but I intentionally picked it to illustrate what I was meaning. Tyber J. Kenobi's Droid 20:38, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Mauser, we think alike. Anyway, is it time we do the dreaded deed and propose a notability CT? It's going to be immensely difficult, and I'd prefer we didn't have it, but as long as people can interpret the rules to mean "let's create articles on everything" (and I'm not bashing them; they feel that the Wook should be that way, and the rules don't say anything about not doing it) then we need a policy, IMO. Again, I'm aware that I may be in the minority in this matter, but hey. About Mauser's proposal now, after briefly looking at it, it looks good. I'd like to hear what people think about it. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:29, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • I completely agree with everyone's comments since Mauser's paragraph. Item such as personal lightsabers (including clothing, blasters, etc.) should have somewhat of a history and have effected the course of IU history in at least one way. Also, would this topic apply to foods? --Darth Shohet 02:00, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Tera Sinube's lightsaber, perhaps an article that focuses on it as a unique variant (I propose the name "sword cane lightsaber" to differentiate it from a lightsaber cane) rather than the SPECIFIC lightsaber used by Master Sinube? After all, we have articles for all the OTHER notable variants (long-handled lightsaber/lightsaber cane, lightsaber pike, etc.), and having this really neat variant on the standard hilt design NOT have an article just seems... wrong, somehow. And in fact, one could argue that it is USED somewhat differently than a traditional lightsaber- Sinube wielded it one-handed, holding the rest of the cane in his off-hand and also using THAT as a weapon as needed. To me, the variant used by Sinube deserves an article, or at the very least a mention on the main lightsaber article as another notable variant. That way, it gets mentioned AND we avoid having it split off in its own article and have it be so short...

Again, I'm just suggesting alternate routes that can be taken to keep the information on this hilt variant that DOES seem to differ in both design AND usage (Sinube's inclusion of the rest of the cane as a weapon in his off hand alters his style), and yet not just have an article for something so minor. Dewback rancher 03:30, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • If you ask me, Dewback Rancher, I think what you are suggesting would be placed as a section in Sinube's article. His lightsaber's custom design is not notable enough as of now to gain it's own article, let alone placed in the Variations and Specializations section of the article on lightsabers. --Darth Shohet 19:32, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • But could you not say the same thing about the Crossguard lightsaber article? It also is a unique lightsaber design, but one we've only seen a single instance of. Should it be merged with Roblio Darté's page? I agree with Dewback Rancher on this. If the only notable feature of a lightsaber is unique design, then an article should be made about the design and mention the jedi who uses it, and the jedi's article should mention the design, but no article for that specific lightsaber. —fodigg (talk) | 21:42, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • To be fair, there's a difference between a unique hilt design of a lightsaber owned by Jedi X, and a regular lightsaber that Jedi Y used in many battles over the years. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:02, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't dispute that, but the lightsaber in question, Tera Sinube's lightsaber, is also unique as a sort of "lightsaber cane" that stands somewhere between the Long-handle lightsaber and a Lightsaber pike. And the cane section could be removed from the hilt section. Were you suggesting instead that the cane itself should be getting the article and that the hilt+cane does not constitute a new style of lightsabers? I could buy that. Or were you instead just speaking generally? If "generally", then I think it'd be better to think of the distinction as a lightsaber (Z) that impacted the galaxy in a significant way (or was an important plot device for a story) vs. "a regular lightsaber that Jedi Y used in many battles over the years." The former would be Anakin Solo's lightsaber, and should get an article; the latter would be Mace Windu's, and should not (IMO). In your example, I'd do X = general design article, Y = nothing (mention on character article). I just also think you forgot about Z. Or anything with a canon name (e.g., Darksaber). —fodigg (talk) | 22:34, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
          • This is getting so out of hand. Sinube's lightsaber is not any sort of "cane", the hilt of his lightsaber was a part of his actual walking cane. The actual hilt itself is shorter than the lightsaber used by the Dark Jedi in this image, and is nowhere near the length of either a long-handle saber or a saber pike. Please folks, please let's stop reaching for what's not there. Just because the old guy pulled a neat trick by attaching his lightsaber to a cane for convenience lol, doesn't mean it warrants its own article. I'm pretty sure no one who's arguing for keeping it has any intention on taking the article to GA or FA status anyway.—Tommy 9281 Mechnochair-NEGWT (Mechno-chair) 22:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm just going off of what I'm reading in the article description. If he didn't fight with the saber attached to the cane, then yeah it's just a cane. If he did, it reminds me of Paired lightsabers, which are just saberstaff lightsabers except can detach, yet they get an article. —fodigg (talk) | 15:00, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
              • The reason I find Sinube's lightsaber so intriguing is that it seems EXPLICITLY based off a real-world weapon- the sword cane/ cane sword/ swordstick:[1] The sword cane is a weapon that features rather prominently in spy fiction and such, due to the way the blade can be concealed and drawn at a moment's notice, in order to surprise unsuspecting attackers. Sinube's saber's hilt, like that of a cane sword, is the head of the cane, which detaches from the length. Now, the shape of the saber DOES make its use differ a little- given how far away the blade emitter is from the bend in the head of the cane, Sinube's saber's design actually appears to PRECLUDE the use of any two-handed grips. There's just not enough ROOM. Besides which, Sinube holds the rest of the cane, separated from the saber part, in his off hand, and does seem to use it as an impromptu weapon fully incorporated into his style- which we saw in the episode itself when, after disarming Cassie Cryar with the lightsaber in his dominant hand, he used the cane held in his off hand to crack her over the head for a clean KO. I guess I just don't understand why, if it is both designed AND used differently- and in fact, the design seems to mean it HAS to be used differently- it doesn't count as a separate variant. I'm just really, REALLY confused here... Dewback rancher 19:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
                • None of the disseminated material thus far states that Sinube's lightsaber is based on the swordstick, therefore making any sort of correlation between the two pure speculation at this point. All of the details you've explained above can fit quite perfectly in the character's actual article.—Tommy 9281 Mechnochair-NEGWT (Mechno-chair) 20:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
                  • Thank you for the extended description. I was picturing a weapon where the emitter was directed away from the cane section of the weapon. It seems to me that this is more a fighting-style thing re: Sinube, and not a unique saber variant. Equivalent to Corran Horn fitting pieces over his lightsaber to make it look like a hydrospanner. Sinube could have drawn, and then discarded the cane. That he chooses not to do so says more about him than the weapon. —fodigg (talk) | 21:34, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
                      • Ah, okay. Like I said, I wasn't saying you were wrong, just saying that the decision didn't make sense. Now that you took the time to explain it to me like this, I get it now. Dewback rancher 02:24, February 4, 2010 (UTC)