Talk:Double-bladed lightsaber/Archive1

Merging
This shouldn't be merged with Lightsaber, i gave it a seperate article for the reason that its a seperate item. And secondly, it is given a seperate data-bank on starwars.com. So i don't think it should be merged. Jasca Ducato 17:26, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It should NOT be merged. TopAce 20 Sep 2005, 20:45 (GMT +1)
 * It should be merged. The article on the OS is an article about double-bladed lightsabers, which, in the EU, aren't exclusively Sith weapons. Besides, the OS has individual articles on things we've merged, so that shouldn't even come into the discussion. QuentinGeorge 06:37, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be merged, and i don't think it is desireable! It is a completely different weapon from the single bladed lightsabre. Sure they are basically the same but its what's inside the grip that counts! Give me proof that they are the same in the handel and i'll agree with a merge! Jasca Ducato 14:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It so should be merged, how is it so different? I mean it's basically just two lightsabers joined together, maybe sharing a larger powercell. It's a lot better to have it all in the same article instead of jumping back and forth. And I disagree with the title "Sith Lightsaber", Exar Kun had one and it was a possible weapon in KotOR, in which you weren't necessarily a Sith. Check this picture out, here just two sabers joint together. Xhysa 23:30, 26 Oct 2005 (GMT +1)
 * Why are you being so slow Xhysa!?! I've already said this. Exar Kun created the weapon, and was a Sith Lord when he did. That is why i called this page Sith Lightsabre. PS You got to this argument to late, the page has already been moved to another name! Jasca Ducato 09:04, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Crystal?

 * Do we have any info if this needed only one crystal or two? This has always interested me. - TopAce 20 Sep 2005, 20:45 (GMT +1)
 * It only requires one crystal to use. Jasca Ducato 14:57, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, are you sure? TopAce 19:28, 21 Sep 2005
 * Err, no, not really lol. I remeber reading it somewhere, i think it was an article on starwars.com (i dont trust Supershadow.com anymores. ut its a safe bet i would say. Jasca Ducato 18:38, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in the KOTOR games, all lightsabers &mdash; regular, short, and double-bladed &mdash; need one crystal (which determines blade color) and up to two optional crystals which give the blade bonus properties. &mdash; Silly Dan  02:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Several examples of double-bladed lightsaber have the ability to split into two standard lightsabers. These would certainly use two crystals. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how a regular double-bladed 'saber would only need one crystal. – Aidje talk 03:43, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Some sort of beam-splitting lens? &mdash; Silly Dan  03:44, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * So, why is each blade activated separately? (The real answer here is "For dramatic effect," but I'm wondering about a more mechanical reason, of course.) – Aidje talk 06:33, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Maul's lightsaber (and those allowing to separate blades) was of a different design than the KOTOR-era ones. It was basically two lightsabers combined. Sikon [ Talk ] 16:02, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it has stayed pretty much the same throughout it's history. The fact that you only needed one crystal to forge the Saberstaff in KotOR was a mistake. I mean, if you look at the anatomy of a Lightsaber it's pretty impossible to have it running off the same Crystal. In basic, the Doubled bladed Lightsaber is just two ordinary ones stuck together, as I've said above possible sharing a larger powercell. Therefore I deduce that it requires two crystals. Xhysa 23:49, 26 Oct 2005 (GMT +1)
 * Just a little info I agree with you Xhysa that a double bladed could require two crystal, because I also have put alot of thought into this and it is also back up in the game SWG which does require two tuned* crystals, therefore you woul dhave to have a minimum of two just to make it work. Now if you don't think you want to trust a game you have to look into buying Star Wars Technology, the book and look into how lightsabers are designed.. the power core has to "shoot" through the tuning crystal which is not possible in two directions because you don't have anything to bend light.(excluding light whip technology)However there are some questions this still left me with, like, could it be possible to have a double lightsaber with two different color blades? (only makes sense) can you have different properties on each blade?(talking mostly like in games, it makes sense too) and why can't you have a short on one end and a long on the other? ( should be possible though i can understand if it has something to do witht the power supply) (I apologize for spelling)Xdagger| 9:47, 1 Nov 2005
 * Thankyou for considering my point of view Xdagger, I appreciate the support. And yes I do beleive that you could have seperate properties within the Doubled Bladed lightsaber. As it is just two sabers in one then you could, in theory, create a dual phase lightsaber staff. I've heard this somewhere else, it could have been Kun, or someone, but he used a shortened blade on his lightsaber to fool the enemy and then strike rather effectively. And as you require two crystals, the two blades could easily be different colours as it is the Crystal that determines the colour of the blade. --Xhysa 16:22, 3 Nov 2005 (GMT)


 * Take a look at http://thelightsaber.com/anatomy.htm# It shows cutaway views of both a single lightsaber, and Darth Maul's double bladed lightsaber. the Maul one seems to show 2 power cores, and 2 crystals. I'm not sure if there is anything official about it, but it's interesting nonetheless. 70.109.238.5 04:35, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Title
Should this article really be titled Sith Lightsaber? I know that the capitalization is wrong, but that's not my point; the article is specifically about double-bladed lightsabers, not any lightsaber used/made by Sith. Such an article would cover things like the synthetic crystals used by the Sith, but this article covers only the double-bladed aspect. Also, not all Sith lightsabers are double-bladed. – Aidje talk 06:37, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC) PS I still believe it should remain under this article as it was created by the Sith and as such, is a Sith weapon. Jasca Ducato 18:33, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC) I don't know how I managed to miss this for so long. I'm of the opinion that this should be merged with lightsaber, or at least changed to double-bladed lightsaber. The current title suggests that it is something that only Sith use, if not every Sith uses, when in fact Jedi have been known to use them as well - a fact which has been mentioned several times. If it is disputed then we should vote on it to settle this rediculous debate. --beeurd 21:20, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC) User:Phillowe88  02:14, 04 Feb 2006
 * As I say above, it should be merged with the main article, and a section on "double-bladed" lightsabers added. There is no such thing as an exclusive "sith lightsaber". It is merely exactly the same as a Jedi's weapon, except the Sith tend to use artifical crystals. (but this is by no means absolute.) QuentinGeorge 06:38, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * As the lightsaber article is quite large, I don't see any harm in breaking it down somewhat into smaller articles. I agree with all of your other points. Actually, on looking at the lightsaber article, I see that it's not quite as large as I thought. It's probably okay to have it as one big article, but still, I think that it would also be fine to have it broken into smaller articles. – Aidje talk 06:44, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * This article should not be merged as i said before, adn im not just saying this because i created this article. If you look on the |official website it clearly shows that it is a Sith weapon that has been adopted by others as their own weapon in later centuries. the reason it doesn't cover things such as synthetic crystals is because such information has not yet been revealed. Jasca Ducato 19:40, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the article. It doesn't say anything like that at all. It's just a lightsaber, which is used by the Sith. Jedi ALSO use it - see Bastila Shan. QuentinGeorge 21:21, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Read my message, i said that others have adopted it as their own. This includes certain Jedi Knights! Jasca Ducato 07:55, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * So why is it a separate article? It's just a different variety of lightsaber. And for one, it's not a "Sith Lightsaber". It's a "double-bladed lightsaber". QuentinGeorge 08:05, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it's a seperate weapon! It is also under a seperate article on starwars.com. And it was created by Exar Kun when he was a Sith Lord! Jasca Ducato 12:44, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Quentin, consider the fact that we have separate pages for every model of blaster; I notice however that we do not have a separate article for blaster rifle. The analog of this would be to have one page, lightsaber, covering all types of lightsabers and then an individual page for every specific model of lightsaber. This would be ridiculous considering that every lightsaber is unique. Instead, I'm proposing that we have a page for a distinct type of variation. Even if you still disagree about whether or not this article should exist, do you agree that if it does exist it should be located at double-bladed lightsaber? It seems that we at least agree on that point, so I'd like to move it there even if it is eventually decided that the article is unnecessary. Jasca, I have to agree with Quentin that this is not a distinctly Sith weapon just because the first one was created by a Sith. – Aidje talk 13:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility, but i would still like for Sith lightsabre to link to that page, as it is a weapon that finds great usgae among the Sith. Jasca Ducato 17:09, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only Bastila Shan, but also Jedi Master Zez-Kai Ell. I propose moving it to Double-bladed lightsaber. - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:57, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Like i said before, i wouldn't mind that aslong as Sith lightsabre links towards it and that that name is mentioned as an also known as.... So long as it is not merged with the Lightsabre article.
 * We have no confirmation that it was created by the Sith. Well, its first known user is indeed a Sith, but why can't there be Jedi wielding double-bladed lightsabers before Exar Kun? (By the way, what kind of lightsaber was Exar Kun using when still a Jedi? - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:28, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I should note that there was nothing special about Kun's sabre - it was merely two normal Jedi lightsaber's fused together. So it's hardly any different from a normal lightsabre. Merge. QuentinGeorge 05:17, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should VfD it if you think it should be merged. I believe that VfD covers issues such as this. – Aidje talk 05:49, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * VFD is not for cases such as this. At least not on Wikipedia. It's strictly for keep or delete (or transwiki, which deletes the article on Wikipedia itself anyway) issues, not keep or merge ("merge" can be a VFD result, but one does not nominate an article on VFD believing the material should be preserved in some way). I think a vote on the Talk page (keep, rename to something Sith-neutral, merge) will be enough. Sikon [ Talk ] 13:04, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a case for mergeing. That has already been discusseded and discounted. Apart from having two blades on his lightsabre Exar Kun modified his weapon so it became to dual modulation weapon like Vader's was during the OT. The reason there wasn't any dual-bladers before Kun is because he invented the weapon when he was a sith. Jasca Ducato 14:26, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, it's only been discounted by you. Others agree with me. Whether it was dual modulation or whatever is irrelevant. It isn't a purely Sith Weapon. Besides, its no more different from a regular lightsaber than the dual-phase ones, and they're on the main page. QuentinGeorge 20:31, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Due to the consensus of the majority, I've moved this article from Sith Lightsaber to double-bladed lightsaber. I will now open a vote regarding the merge. – Aidje talk 22:35, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Another reason this move was good &mdash; three out of four Sith Lords in the movies use single-bladed sabers. &mdash; Silly Dan
 * I think we've waited long enough, it clear the result of the vote was to keep seperate so i'm removing the merge notice on the article page. Jasca Ducato 12:27, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Bit late to throw my bit in here but if i remember rightly the "Sith lightsaber" was the reward for completing Naga Sadow's tomb in KOTOR1. In KOTOR the Sith lightsaber is just a regular single saber with Sith markings.

Merge vote
It has been proposed that this article be merged into the article lightsaber. Please vote/discuss below. – Aidje talk 22:38, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Merge

 * 1) Unless we are planning separate article for the curved saber that Dooku uses, I say Merge into the main article with a subsection named "Saber Variants". QuentinGeorge 06:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) It is essentially just a variant of the standard lightsaber. If this were together with the main article, you wouyld have the history and evolution of the weaopon all on one page, instead of having this stub-sized article separate. --beeurd 15:10, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) TopAce 22:53, 20 Oct 2005 (GMT +1)
 * 4) "Saber Variants" sounds good to me. --Xhysa 16:36, 27 Oct 2005 (GMT +1)

Keep separate

 * 1) Based on the precedent set by separate articles on blaster and specific blaster types like the Xerrol Nightstinger, I say keep them separate.   &mdash; Silly Dan  02:55, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 03:59, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Riffsyphon1024 04:07, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Sikon [ Talk ] 05:32, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Jasca Ducato 18:47, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Xilentshadow900 20:40, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Kuralyov 17:48, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Thanos6 00:10, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) KEJ 01:00, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I agree that because it is now a type of lightsaber, with enough information of its own, that it can warrant its own article. Also because it is not just Sith lightsaber, it is not so generalized. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:07, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm against a merge period! I agreed to change the name so long as Sith Lightsabre remained linked towards and mentioned in the article. But I do not believe it should be merged, we have seperate articles for each blaster, so why not for a lightsabre. Jasca Ducato 09:27, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * PS The lightsabre Count Dooku used is not a variant of a normal lightsabre. All he has done is curve the end of the grip to better suite his lightsabre form. So this just further supports my arguement. Jasca Ducato 09:33, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It has the exact same crystal as this weapon. If Dooku's lightsaber is no different, how is this one different? QuentinGeorge 20:43, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * All that has been changed on Dooku's sabre is that he has moulded the end of the grip. He doesn't have another sabre blade jutting out of it, does he!?! Dooku's weapon is a single-bladed sabre. Maul's, for example, however has. And where does it say that the Dbl has the exact same crystal as a normal sabre. It would seem only common sense that in order to produce two blades (thus requiring more power) that a more powerful, maybe an entirely different, type of sabre crystal would be needed. Jasca Ducato 08:56, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * The construction of the double-bladed saber is described in the Darth Maul Journal. Basically, it is just two normal lightsabers fused together. It uses two synthetic crystals - exactly the same as any other Red lightsaber. (except there are two, obviously). And extra power just means a different battery, but since no two lightsabers use quite the same battery this point is moot. QuentinGeorge 09:01, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, other than describing that it requires two crystals. I fail to see how this answers me points. So no, its not moot! Jasca Ducato 09:17, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That it's not built any different from other lightsabers? It's just two of them stuck together, basically. QuentinGeorge 09:32, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is, but its more different than Dooku's. Even you can't deny that! All i'm saying is that it is deiiferent enough to warrant an article of its own, just like with the blasters. Jasca Ducato 09:37, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Because blasters are different, they have different rates of fire, firepower, range, accuracy and general use. I totally agree with QuentinGeorge here, I mean it's just two ordinary lightsabers stuck together, so that a person can utilise two blades at the same time. Its exactly the same apart from doubled.. --Xhysa 16:40, 27 Oct 2005 (GMT +1)
 * Darth Maul's lightsaber may have been two lightsabers fused together, but the ones found in KOTOR games only required one crystal. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:41, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that this arguement is over. No-one has voted in about a week, i think it should be kept seperate and that is my final discision. Jasca Ducato 09:06, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1) Polls stay open for at least two weeks, unless I'm mistaken. 2) "My" decision, you say? Sorry, but that doesn't matter in the least. You have your vote, but you don't make the final decision on your own. Consensus rules. – Aidje talk 19:43, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * PS Its exactly the same apart from doubled That only serves to support my arguement! Like i said (and you conveniently ignored), ths Sith Lightsabre is more different than Dooku's is! And a lightsabre can be modified just as much as a blaster. Ever heard of dual-modulation!?! Jasca Ducato 09:09, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm apt to leave it as its own article under the current title because information on the killing potential of a double-bladed saber warrents it is something different, even if it is just two lightsabers put together. One needs to analyze the history behind the upgrade and place it here. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:52, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Aidje, if you read my message properly you will notice i said that i think it should be kept seperate and that is my decision. And my opinions do matter! Thankyou Jasca Ducato 17:39, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it safe to declare the vote over and in favor of keeping separate? -- SFH 05:22, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Can i end this vote, its pretty obvious that the two weeks are up and that people want this article kept seperete? Jasca Ducato 19:35, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)