Forum:TC:More individual lightsabers

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:More individual lightsabers
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. 1358 (Talk) 17:11, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Multiple personal lightsabers

Looking through Category:Personal lightsabers, I have narrowed down those that I believe do not satisfy our notability policy.

Namely, I believe that only the lightsabers that satisfy the following conditions should receive articles, and the rest should be simply merged with "Powers and Abilities" section of the respective character articles.

A similar Trash Compactor has already been passed at Forum:TC:Individual lightsaber. Unless there is something special about a weapon, it really doesn't deserve an article. Most of the articles below are copies of each other, or are simply summaries of the wielder's life.

So, after having gone through each lightsaber in the category, I have separated them into two sections.

Delete as non-notable

Keep

Voting

Delete as non-notable

  1. As proposer. Geez, there are a lot more that survive then I thought. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 04:13, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Please. Dear God. Per nom. Stake black msg 04:19, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Though I'm sure the lightsaber fetishists will bury this, even the "notable" ones should be merged with their owners' articles. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:24, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
    JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:35, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  4. I'm skeptical about some of the ones in the "notable" list, but this is a great first step. As GT said in the old CT to which you linked, "This is why there is an equipment section for characters." Menkooroo 05:24, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  5. I simply find all individual lightsaber articles to be non-notable. Slot them into the character's "Equipment" section and be done with it. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:46, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Frankly, I just don't understand the craze with giving everyone's lightsaber it's own article. I'm wholely in favor of deleting all of the lightsabers pegged as "non-notable", and I also think that Palpatine's blue-bladed lightsaber should be added to the non-notable category, because all the information on it is already covered in the 'Palpatine's lightsaber' article. Jensaarai 06:10, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Trak wholeheartedly. I would rather see all lightsaber articles gone/merged into their owner's Equipment section (barring unusual circumstances like a lightsaber passing down generations or something). But this is a good start. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 12:40, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
    I'm strongly against deleting all lightsaber articles (we keep tons of other individual items, e.g. personal starships, which are far less unique than every single lightsabers is), but I'm okay with kicking out the ones with no notability. My only hesitancy here is the possibility of extreme subjectivity with regard to "unique histories," "unique crystals," and "unique functions." Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:56, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of the "keep" lightsabers will be the subject of another TC after this one, assuming it passes. My definition of "notable history" is that the weapon was lost, passed down, damaged, stolen, etc. As for crystals, Zayne's crystal is a fusion of the dead Padawans' crystals, which is unique and notable. As for functions, lightsabers like Fisto's, which can work underwater, or Corran Horn's, which is multi-phases. And the "specifications" is when the inner workings are featured in a guidebook or something. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 18:14, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
      • Cool, sounds good to me. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:56, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
        • After more consideration, I'm striking my vote for now. The problem is that every single lightsaber in existence (except for the Imperial Knights', of course) is by definition unique. The only reason I'm not switching to vote keep just yet is that I'm not convinced we should have "Unidentified so-and-so's lightsaber," either. And though I like the idea behind the notability requirements suggested, the more I think about it the more I feel like they're still too subjective/even a bit arbitrary for our purposes—especially since we know for a fact that they're all unique. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:24, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Per Culator. All the relevant information on these weapons should be merged into their owners' articles. This is a start. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:47, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
    Entirely per Jon. —MJ— War Room Thursday, June 7, 2012, 18:10 UTC
    Striking for the same reason as Jon. Will think this over a bit more. —MJ— Comlink Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 02:09 UTC
  9. Knew this would happen. We let some through then stopped paying attention to ones being created. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 20:46, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Yes please. 1358 (Talk) 17:00, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I'm going to have to vote keep on this one. The Star Wars Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook says that for a Jedi to pass the Trials to become a Jedi Knight that they must personally construct a lightsaber. Therefore most/if not all of the articles up for deletion are personally constructed items. In my opinion, a personally constructed item should receive its own article. If any can be determined to be personally constructed I think we should keep them. Also, I am hesitant to agree with guidelines suggested, they seem too open to interpretation in my opinion. In short, cut the fluff in the articles, and focus on the weapon, not the individual who used it. Maybe just mention the battles it was used in.--19:20, June 6, 2012 (UTC) —Unsigned comment by Exiledjedi (talk • contribs)
    • Quick question: what would you suggest we do if some source mentions that so-and-so Jedi ignited their lightsaber? Should we make an article for the lightsaber, even though we know literally nothing except that that Jedi owned it? (Remember: some people used lightsabers they didn't construct initially, e.g. Luke Skywalker using his father's; so unless the source specifies that the Jedi constructed it, saying that much is speculative) Also, what if the Jedi is unidentified? Do we make "Unidentified Human Jedi (brown hair)'s lightsaber"? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:45, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I never said that we should speculate about whether the lightsabers were personally constructed or not. For a lot of the Rise of the Empire era and New Jedi Order era Jedi, the Roleplaying books state whether they constructed their own lightsabers or not. I'll check all of the ones in question as soon as I can. Moving on to your two questions, I would say that articles should not be created unless there is some kind of defining information about the lightsaber. (Note: I do not think that color or appearance should count as defining information.) My claim is that we should have articles for all lightsabers that we know to be constructed by a particular individual or for those lightsabers with distinguishing features. I'll add which of the lightsabers up for deletion were personally constructed in the comments section.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 02:02, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Per Exiled. 501st dogma(talk) 20:19, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Meh. I'm voting keep on the same grounds that I did during the previous lightsaber TC episode, which is more or less summed up pretty good by Tranner here. Individual lightsabers by their very existence are "unique." Lack of IU information should never be a justification for deletion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:31, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Cumulonimbus Cloud (Meeting Room) 20:14, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Agreed. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 20:22, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Isn't this another clash between inclusionism and mergism? Anyway, I vote keep. Granted, many lightsaber articles are sketchy at best and do not contain convincingly relevant bits of information. But they're still canon and distinct items. An article doesn't have to go because it's short or doesn't have many things to say. --LelalMekha 20:34, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, you all do realize that we are suggesting the lightsabers be merged with their owner's P&T/equipment sections? Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 20:41, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Agree. DarthRevan1173 01:28, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Changing my vote, based on Jon's reason above, and Tope (by way of Tranner). - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:57, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I've been willing to vote since two days, but must say I don't know what to do. I know most of the articles proposed for deletion here do not contain much information in the first place, but the notion of "notability" remains fuzzy IMHO. We have articles on couches, chairs and tables, you know... I must also add that, as a hyperinclusionist, the aforementioned articles do not bother me the least bit, even if I admit they are not very useful. --LelalMekha 19:21, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Self-built lightsabers

There we go, all of the following lightsabers are said to be self-built. Still looking for some of the other ones.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:36, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • B. F. D. A goddamn metal tube is a goddamn metal tube. It still belongs in the builder's article, not its own. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:40, June 7, 2012 (UTC)