This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 00:02, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
After the recent No Consensus vote here, and before we start an official CT thread about a policy, let's talk about notability requirements for articles about individual lightsabers. Recently, some people have started making articles for Aayla Secura's lightsaber (CSD'd) and now Kit Fisto's lightsaber. So how do we decide what makes an individual lightsaber worthy of an article? - JMASHey, it's me! 15:05, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
The lightsaber was used during a significant galactic event (ie. Anakin Skywalker's/Darth Vader's lightsabers) (Struck in light of discussion and it's basically a more vague version of number 3 "unique history")
Did we not delete Luke Skywalker's lightsaber before (Even though it's back now)? Then it was rarer to have these. It was crap. Anyway, to avoid the needless surge of for the most part poorly written, or otherwise tiny, or further otherwise too long for their own good individual lightsaber articles, I say we should have none at all. NaruHinaTalk 04:30, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
"None at all" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Lightsabers like Anakin Skywalker's have more history than some characters, and anything with its own name is certainly worth at least a second look. The only guideline I don't care for is 1; it's too vague, and something like "the lightsaber Kit Fisto used when he got killed by Palpatine" would meet that requirement but not really deserve its own article. I think the other three cover the cases we'd want to keep, at any rate. - Lord Hydronium 05:24, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much what Hydro said. Kill the first guideline and I'd be willing to adopt the rest. Xicer9(Combadge) 05:30, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Per Hydro, and I have to agree with Chack, too. But when it comes to individual lightsabers, Anakin's second lightsaber seems more important, and it was also one of the original individual lighsaber articles. Seeing this article is nonsense. JangFett(Talk) 05:50, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
The last two look pretty good, but for the (new) 1st one, would it be the first in-universe or by release date for the sources in the real world? IMO, it's a little too specific. Really, anything notable under the first rule would most likely fall under the third too, and they could probably be merged together into one rule about the "uniqueness" of lightsabers. Also, is it possible for this rule to be expanded to include other inanimate objects like blasters or even tools like Grivooga? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 00:55, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
"The first of it's kind" Seems like kind of a weird rule. Wookieepedians could argue that Tera Sinube's is the first cane lightsaber. This does not make it notable. Likewise with Exar Kun's lightsaber. Yes, the article has a lot of content, but most of it is Exar Kun's history. With the exception of two paragraphs, the whole of the article is redundant. Kit Fisto's lightsaber is the same story. SinisterSamurai 00:07, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
I feel I have to agree with Chack also, this issue seems too sticky and complicated to be causing so much trouble. Really, in the end does it improve the wiki anymore to have an article of someone's individual lightsaber (would anyone miss it)? I feel that any noteworthy lightsaber would fit nicely in the generic Lightsaber article. Anyone could easily create a small section any lightsaber that's special. It also seems that any relevant info can already be found outside their article, whether it be the person who used it, Lightsaber combat, or the Lightsaber article.--CT-1987 17:29, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I think the lightsaber article is too long to hold information for sections for individual lightsabers, and that doesn't really solve the problem anyway—how would we decide which lightsabers are notable enough to warrant a section in the article? I agree with the two rules above as is, because simply put, there is some information about some of these weapons that just won't fit well into the character's article. And as an encyclopedia, it's our job to record available information; I don't think it's very encyclopedic to simply leave it out. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 17:42, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the proposed guidelines as well as the suggestion made by Jonathan. An excess of stubs with small unnecessary descriptions of character's lightsabers when they could just as well fit in with the character page is unnecessary. However lightsabers that have a history outside of there well known users I would certainly deem worthy of individual articles. I would say however any lightsaber of whom's history is directly linked to a single user and the events surrounding them should be placed within the characters article. --Drfaustxxx 13:06, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
The only guideline I'm in favor of is restricting lightsaber articles to lightsabers that have unique information; that is, if all you can say about it is "Saesee Tiin's lightsaber was a green lightsaber used by Saesee Tiin in 19 BBY," it's not worth an article. But something like Mace Windu's lightsaber, even if the article should probably be split, has enough unique information about the subject that, even without meeting either of the proposed guidelines, I can't see why we'd delete it. Sure, at least some of the information is going to be in Mace's article . . . but that's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Executor "because everything about it can be covered in Darth Vader's article." Havac 05:50, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Per Havac. I think any lightsaber article with unique information should be allowed. We're trying to be a complete resource. Grunny (talk) 05:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think the new proposals (1 & 2) are good. Chack Jadson(Talk) 19:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I would rather change number 2 to "has unique information about the object." Similar to what Havac said above. If an object/person/ship/whatever has unique information they deserve an article. If it's just "X was a lightsaber" then it doesn't, simple. I don't know why we are treating lightsabers so differently, this should be more a general discussion about objects and other things. Anything that has unique information should get an article, anything that doesn't have unique info, doesn't. As I said before we are trying to be a complete resource. Grunny (talk) 20:57, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
I would support the above rules, but I would want it as a part of a larger notability guideline for objects and not just weapons or lightsabers. And to that, I would want that "objects notability" to include any level of pseudo intelligence, such as an X-wing with a droid brain that interfaces incredibly well with its astromech. Or a sith artifact with a dire will. Such things would probably already have a name or independent history, but not necessarily. —fodigg(talk) | 20:22, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
I CT'd this a short bit ago. It failed spectacularly, for the reasons you mentioned. Either A) People didn't like it, or B) People didn't like that it was limited to Lightsabers, despite room for growth in the policy. The recent trash compactor throwdown seems to be going poorly as well. Not only has a particular admin accused me of disruption, but I can determine no clear consensus from the votes other than a broad desire to simply keep them. The voting bias I'm seeing doesn't really seem to promote any particular policy or standards. Anyone can have a separate lightsaber or unnammed starship in this climate, which is fine, I suppose.
However, If you wanted to start a new SH thread in an attempt at a Possessions notability policy, I'd suggest the following guidelines as a start. I didn't go with "Unique Information" because that's exceedingly broad. There are items currently TC'd that some people feel have unique information while others disagree.
Unique History/Multiple long term users. (IE, Ahsoka's Lightsaber wouldn't fit just cause it was stolen for a few hours. That event was a part of her history and fits within her article).
Named Item. If this has a non-conjectural, IU name, then it's notable.
Source book'd. Anything that has it's own titled section in a source book, such as Essential Guides or Visual Guides. The object would need to be the subject of it's own entry. A casual mention would in such a guide would be pushing it's notability. This essentially protects anything that LFL feels is notable.
Unique Construction or Design. It's construction physically differs in some significant way from other objects of the same type. This is basically for Lumiya's Lightwhip (I don't think any others are cat-o-nine-tails), and would cover Anakin's Azure Angel if it wasn't already named. This is really the only grey area, and leaves room for argument and consensus. Every lightsaber, for instance could be considered unique in design, and most of the Jedi Aetherspites are described as being modified in some way.
But I still think the current consensus will lean away from a definitive notability policy.SinisterSamurai 16:04, May 20, 2010 (UTC)