Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Distinction between Energy sword and Lightsaber

Currently our lightsaber article contains a few weapon types which in my opinion should be classified as energy swords in stead. My argument for this is that the saber article makes claims to ligthsabers needing Force sensitivity to create (because of the focusing crystals) and properly use (because of a strong gyroscopic effect). However, if these are the criteria for a weapon being called a lightsaber, then the Tonfa style lightsaber, and lightfoil strictly speaking should not be in the saber article. They were both used by non-Force sensitives, and no info indicated that the Force was required to neither create nor use the these weapons. It seems reasonable to assume also, that their cutting power was well below that of a lightsaber. They seem to have no legitimate place in the article.

So, where else should we put them? Well, we do have an article for energy swords, and this article [1] proves that there is a distinct difference between the lightsabers and energy swords. I feel the proper thing to do would be to move all energy weapons that doesn't fit the lightsaber criteria into a list in the energy sword article.DarthMRN 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It makes sense, seeing as the Tonfa-style hasn't actually been named, nor designated specifically as a lightsaber. However, the lightfoil does appear to simply be a weaker version of a lightsaber, so I'm not sure about that. Unless we take "lightsaber" to mean the weapons exclusively used by Jedi and Sith, rather than more of a catch-all title for laser swords - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 11:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If there are no objections, I will move the info from Tonfa style lightsaber to Tonfa style energy sword in stead. BTW, what do I do with the old article? Will the admins simply find it and delete it, or what?DarthMRN 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • To move an article, use the "Move" tab at the top of the page. The information is automatically transferred, and the old article becomes a redirect. Moving information yourself is a Bad Thing, as it doesn't transfer a page's history - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But using the move button will preserve the History? Or do you mean that I should just keep my sticky fingers to myself and bugger an admin to it?DarthMRN 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I think it does preserve the history. I think you can just go ahead and move it. KEJ 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • If there's no article where you're trying to move an article to (and, in this case, the redlink shows there's not), then any user can move the article using the move tab, exactly the same as an admin would (our special article moving abilities only come into play when there's something in the way like a redirect). And yes, using the move tab will take the article history with it to the new location. jSarek 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Awesome! My first article! :D DarthMRN 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.