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 Opposed to proposed lightsaber notability guideline policy; agreed to Trash-Compact each individual lightsaber article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since this, so I figured, "What the hey." It's been kind-of a loose end in my mind, and I hate to leave it as an unanswered question.

Suggested Lightsaber Notability GuidelinesEdit

1. Is specifically named (like Darksaber and Jinzu Razor)
2. Has a unique history of its own that does not fit into one character's article" (Like Anakin Solo's lightsaber)

If these lightsabers can fit easily into another page, as a small subsection or a footnote, then they don't really deserve a page no matter how well written. Depending on the success of this CT, the policy may apply to things like Luke Skywalker's backpack or Individual Jedi Starfighters.

List of Suspect ArticlesEdit

Deleted or merged under proposed policyEdit

• Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber
• Kit Fisto's lightsaber
• Tera Sinube's lightsaber
• Palpatine's lightsaber
• Windu's lightsaber
• Dooku's lightsaber Dooku is a popular guy, but his lightsaber's large article is redundant with the wielder's history. It is notable for being Dooku's saber and little more.
• Yoda's lightsaber
• Darth Vader's lightsaber Same as Dooku's saber.
• Darth Zannah's lightsaber
• Luke Skywalker's lightsaber
• Aurra Sing's lightsaber
• Mace Windu's lightsaber
• Ahsoka Tano's lightsaber
• Ki-Adi-Mundi's lightsaber
• Qui-Gon Jinn's lightsaber
• Lumiya's lightwhip Could be merged into Lightwhip and Lumiya

Kept under proposed policyEdit

• Jinzu Razor
• Darksaber (lightsaber)
• Anakin Solo's lightsaber Needs serious work, but fits policy
• Anakin Skywalker's second lightsaber
• Exar Kun's lightsaber Despite having the same problem as Dooku's saber, Exar Kun's saber was still used (briefly) long after Kun himself died.
• Vima-Da-Boda's lightsaber The thing is 10,000 years old and had several owners, despite the article size. It's an artifact.
• Freedon Nadd's short lightsaber
• Sifo-Dyas's lightsaber
• Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber Needs work.

Suspect under proposed policyEdit

VotingEdit

In Favor of Policy (as is)Edit

1. SinisterSamurai 21:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

In Favor of Policy (with exceptions or changes)Edit

1. Kenobi's lightsaber has also a unique history, so it should be kept. Tyber ^{J. Kenobi's Droid} 21:48, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

   Mace Windu's saber should be kept, per the whole lightsaber-switching thing in the Republic comic that retconned his saber color. Fisto's saber was special for underwater usage, so unless another article along those lines is created I'd like it kept. Otherwise I concur. Graestan^(Talk) 22:03, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

   Thank goodness this came around. For Lumiya's lightwhip, that article is an FA, though. JangFett ^(Talk) 22:08, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Policy (Keep Individual Lightsabers)Edit

Oppose Policy (Trash Compact each Individual Lightsaber)Edit

1. I think this is the best option at the moment. I'm not opposed to putting guidelines in place, but putting them in just for lightsabers is too specific and pretty pointless. If we want to have notability guidelines, they should apply to all objects, not just lightsabers. We shouldn't be treating lightsabers any different from anything else. If we're going to make a policy, let's do it properly and make one for all items/ships/individuals/etc. Grunny (talk) 22:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
   • Basically, I agree. There should be some policy regarding notability of possessions or objects. Lightsabers are the example here, and the policy can be amended to include more should it pass. I don't agree with dismissing this one because it's too narrow in scope, as I don't see it hindering future attempts at notability policy. Rather than outright dismissal, why not use this as a stepping stone? SinisterSamurai 22:48, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
2. Grunny's right. Graestan^(Talk) 22:17, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
3. 100% per Grunny. And I also disagree with putting Lumiya's lightwhip as an article to be deleted if this passes. Tommy's work on the article proves that it can contain detailed information that isn't suitable in Lumiya's article or the lightwhip article alone. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 22:35, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
4. We need a general notability policy, not one for each arbitrary category of objects. I'll start working on a proposal. --Imperialles 22:40, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
5. Really, I don't mind keeping the individual lightsaber articles. I used to be of the mind that lightsaber articles shouldn't exist, on the grounds that any information therein can and should just be included in the parent character article. I still agree with that, but there are instances, as noted in this CT, of lightsabers with unique history and information, which deserve to be kept. And Lumiya's lightwhip is a very nice model of how an article can be well-presented with both unique information and information that might otherwise just be presented in other parent articles, so why not allow it if people want to seek out that specific information? And, Grunny makes an excellent point of comparing lightsaber articles to individual starship articles. We create articles every day about "Terry Francona's starship" or "Bob Uecker's Executor-class Star Dreadnought," that in most cases are no different than these lightsaber articles, in that they have information that could just as easily be covered in the parent character article. And I seriously doubt we would start a TC or CT forum to get rid of all of those. So why are we treating lightsabers any differently? Above all else, I still believe either keeping all of them or keeping none of them is the way to go, so I would also support just keeping them outright. But if you want to delete them, start a TC forum for each one. If you want to create a CT policy, start one that treats all of these types of individual articles on equal grounds. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Grunny and Imp. Tyber ^{J. Kenobi's Droid} 22:45, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
7. Per all, basically. I guess it's the best choice. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:02, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
8. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 00:15, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
9. Per Grunny and Imp. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 00:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
10. Per everyone. Xicer9^(Combadge) 01:59, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
11. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 02:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
12. Per everyone above. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 13:31, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
13. I support the general ideas comprising the guidelines but, as said above, it should be made to apply to everything and not just lightsabers. NAYAYEN:TALK 19:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
14. Per Grunny and Tope. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 21:25, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
15. I did mention that it should include all inanimate objects (eg Grivooga) in that SH thread, but that suggestion hasn't been carried over here. I would support given some minor amendments to include this. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 00:13, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
16. Anything I say would be redundant, so per all above. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:16, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
17. I guess. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:14, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
18. Per Montana, but Grunny's right; lightsabers should not be the only things nailed to the cross. I wonder how willing the community will be to TC every personal item (building, vehicle, etc) article we have, which would be the only appropriate course of action following the conclusion of this CT.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 20:47, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
19. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 20:53, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
20. Per discussion below: Delete individual lightsaber articles on a case-by-case basis. This is not in support of a blanket deleted of all individual lightsaber pages. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 21:01, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

A lot of discussion already took place here, so try to add new stuff. If I'm missing a particular Lightsaber article, or you feel I've mis-catagorized one, mention it here. SinisterSamurai 21:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber to keep, per IRC. SinisterSamurai 21:54, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Lumiya's lightwhip should not be listed as suspect. The article's quality does not make it exempt from the rules proposed here. --Imperialles 21:59, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, if this, or any one article is widely contested, I'll move it (back) to suspect. SinisterSamurai 22:04, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Lumiya's lightwhip is not your standard lightwhip. Graestan^(Talk) 22:05, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
• If this does go through, I'd still like to see the wording changed from unique history, to unique information. Anything with unique information should be worthy of an article, and I think wording it as unique information is clearer. Grunny (talk) 22:06, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Grunny here, too. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 22:35, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, FWIW. Lumiya's lightwhip, again, is a perfect example. The article might not have that much unique history, but it certainly has plenty of unique information, so it deserves to be kept, IMO. There is a distinction between unique info and unique history that must be acknowledged. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:21, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • What about events? How do we codify a notability rule for those articles? We already have some rules in place for duels, mind. How do we bring this limitation to event articles in general? I think we can all agree that not all events deserve articles, but how do we convey that through a policy? These are just some of the issues that must be addressed. --Imperialles 23:42, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually thought that was pretty straightforward: if an event happened, and if the article is written in order to contain detailed information that does not fit in the charcter's article, then the event deserves a page. That's how I've always seen it done and that's how I thought we've always treated it here. In the incredibly rare case that an article for an event is made but does not deserve to have its own article, then we can always just TC it. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 00:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
      • To bring back an old example, do you think Dinner at the Lars homestead deserves an article? It's an event that happened, and by going very in-depth on the subject (describing the food, tablecloths, each line of dialogue) I am certain this article would come to contain information that wouldn't fit into the involved characters' articles. My point is, following your logic, any event ever can/should have an article, so long as it's written in enough tedious detail. This is not encyclopedic, and encourages play-by-play descriptions and original research. Consider also Order 66. Do you think we should keep an article on each individual attack on each Jedi? There needs to be some sort of limitation, and it has to be worded in a very precise manner to avoid articles such as my examples. --Imperialles 13:25, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
        • The fact that you define "Dinner at the Lars Homestead" as an event on the same level as something like a battle is very worrying to me. Things such as missions, battles, duels, funerals, some assassinations, massacres, wars, campaigns etc. are events. I don't understand how, when looking at this practically and with common sense, you can consider a dinner to be an event at the same level. So no, it would not be encyclopedic to keep content on that dinner, but neither would it be encyclopedic to leave out important content either. I see no reason we can't employ the use of some common sense when dealing with event articles: a dinner is not an event, but any mission/battle/duel etc. that is defined by the source as a mission/battle/duel etc. is an event. That's how we've always done it, and frankly I don't see any problem with it. As I said, in the very rare case that an event article is created that does not deserve an article—and some of the only ones I can think of, such as this skirmish and this battle, were deleted because there wasn't any actual evidence that they ever even occured—then it can always be TC'd. Regardless, let us endeavor to keep this discussion on topic. This is not a proposed policy for event articles, but for individual object articles. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 14:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
          • You don't understand. By saying "these events are okay, but these events aren't" you are making some sort of arbitrary mental distinction. I am not saying I disagree, but when we are attempting to codify notability criteria, we need to either account for all events (i.e. limited excerpts of time in which objects interact in a geographical location), or we need to put down in writing what type of events are notable. The fact that we have established consensus limiting the creation of duel articles sets a precedent for all articles on events—and that needs to be reflected in an eventual policy. This is very relevant to the topic, as we are discussing notability guidelines for in-universe articles, which has to include events. --Imperialles 14:12, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think any of the "suspect articles" or any of the individual lightsaber articles should be deleted. My vote is that this CT be suspended until Imp can work up a broad notability policy. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:48, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • No... Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:14, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
• So I have to ask, because I am having difficulty understanding all that I am reading here. Will Lumiya's lightwhip be deleted upon the conclusion of this CT?—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 20:33, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Assuming "deal with each lightsaber separately" wins, (which it probably will be) the lightwhip will not be deleted per this CT. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 20:38, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • The point I was trying to convey was rather that Lumiya's lightwhip isn't exempt from policy just because it's well written. It won't be affected by this CT at all (assuming the consensus in this thread doesn't change, which I doubt it will), nor will it probably be affected by any future proposals for notability policies. --Imperialles 20:46, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • I guess that's what I needed to clarify then. "Oppose Policy (Trash Compact each Individual Lightsaber)" makes it sound like every individual lightsaber article will be deleted. Am I misunderstanding this? Is this meant to mean that each individual lightsaber will be deleted or TC'd on a case by case basis? - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 20:56, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's just an odd way to say "decide notability on a case-by-case basis for now." --Imperialles 20:59, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
          • I didn't think it was odd, at the time, but yes. That's what I meant. What I do find odd was how the discussion in the SH seemed to end generally in favor of the policy, but gets a huge oppose bandwagon here, with a couple of shifty votes. SinisterSamurai 21:16, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
        • Basically it means oppose this policy, until a proper notability policy is created, but if people have an issue with any lightsaber article they are free to TC it, not that every article will or has to be TC'd. Grunny (talk) 21:01, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
          • I had intended to personally add each article to the TC on a one-by-one basis (rather than all at once)in the event of a fail. Might be kinda fun seeing twenty things in there at once. Depending on how close Imperialles is to a discussable policy, though, I'm very willing to hold off. SinisterSamurai 21:16, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
            • I have a rough outline ready; the plan is to have a proposal ready tomorrow (I'm on CET). I'll bring it up in SH first to see if we can't perfect the wording before proposing it as policy. --Imperialles 21:19, May 11, 2010 (UTC)