Contents 1 Properties: Breaking, longevity, and maneuverability 2 Users list 3 Source 4 From deleted talk page before merge/move

Properties: Breaking, longevity, and maneuverabilityEdit

Okay. The maneuverability bit comes from the AOTC Visual Dictionary. The blade breaking bit comes from the Fightsaber article from the Insider. But what's the source on the crystal's longevity and how long it lasts before burning out? Cutch 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The blade-breaking bit seriously comes from Fightsaber? I doubt it. Stronger, yes, blade-breaking, no. And the logevity seems like fanon to me. Anneddu's lasted for thousands of years.--The Erl of the Synthetic lightsaber crystal ^{talk What I do} 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Darth Anneddu's crystal lasted so long because it wasn't used. Synth-crystals exhaust their properties as they're being used, not just when they're sitting there. As for why it exhausts it properties, same principle as a battery. Higher output equals shorter life.user:Darth Vatrir
  • And what does "manueverable" even mean?--The Erl of the Synthetic lightsaber crystal ^{talk What I do} 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I can swear to you 100% that the blade-breaking bit is true—I just reread that bit of the Fightsaber article about a month ago, looking specifically for that part (I'm currently separated from my Insiders). As far as the maneuverable bit goes, it comes from a brief bit about Anakin's blade in the AotC Visual Dictionary. I'm assuming that one can move it through the air with less effort than a red blade, ala a fencing foil versus a claymore. A claymore could definitely be described as less maneuverable than a foil. That would correspond with the more powerful blade bit, too. This being said... remove the longevity bit and take off the disputed canonicity part? Cutch 20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I took off the longevity bit. Varas Halcyon 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Sounds good. I still think that the "breaking" thing is bull, as well as the manueverablility (it DESTROYS THE AIR! IT HAS NO RESISTANCE), but if it's canon . . . *sighs*--The Erl of the Synthetic lightsaber crystal ^{talk What I do} 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Such is our lot in life. I wish that the Death Star II wasn't a giant IG-88 either, but... Cutch 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I really hate that story! Why did it have to be canonical <:'( KEJ 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the synth crystal produces stronger, shorter lived, less maneuverable blades then can overpower a regular blade is repeated twice, and the first time it is said takes a whole paragraph, while the second time it takes less space. Why is the longer fact kept and evertime I remove it it is reverted.Largoss21 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Users list Edit

This HAS to go, or at least to undergo major cleanup. Most of these are little more than conjecture, since the red crystals they used may just as well have been natural. Especially dubious for Revan and Malak, given their origins. - Sikon 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, during the KOTOR games the red crystals were naturally occurring, they could be found in the crystal cave on Dantooine. Revan, Malak, Sion, Nihilus, and Traya should be removed - 2:14, 15 November 2006
  • Removed. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SourceEdit

"In fact, because Sidious had most of the sites where crystals occurred naturally looted or destroyed, the New Jedi Order had to rely on synth-crystals almost exclusively."

Source? Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From deleted talk page before merge/move Edit

I say this page shouldn't be deleted because that is the proper name for synth-crystals. They should be known by their proper name, not an abreviation. Darth Vatrir

• It needs deleting so that synth-crystal can be moved properly. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)