Forum:CT Archive/Duels (second discussion)

I have noticed some inconsistency in whether a duel is included in a larger battle's article, or whether it gets its own article. Since the Duel infobox was invented, I don't believe we have made specific policies on it. (if we have tell me now and disregard the rest of my statements). In reviewing Trash compactor history, I see that they merged Duel on the Invisible Hand with Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars), but they left First Duel on the Anakin Solo separate from the Battle of Kashyyyk (Second Galactic Civil War) with a "Main article link" in the duel section of the battle article. There are many other examples of this (Movie and TV battles tend to keep he duel in the larger battle articles, whereas Novels, KOTOR comics, TOR, and Star Wars: Republic comics tend to separate them).

I propose that we allow duels to have their own pages even when they are part of a larger battle. This is for the same reason that the Duel infobox template was created in the first place: They are important, (fairly) rare events unique to the Star Wars Universe and they hold a special place in all our hearts. Furthermore, it would be nice to be able to see all the lightsaber battle chronologically by using the "next" and "previous" links in the Duel infoboxes. If they're merged in with battles, it makes that hard. I love to be able to go from one Dark Lord of the Sith to another in succession with the links at the bottom of their pages. Lets do that for Duels.

There is already a "Conflict" line to list the battles that they are part of. Now, this would be a special case (like keeping "Darth" in titles) concerning (for the most part) force user vs force user using lightsabers, so it wont lead to every fist fight or other little part of a battle having its own article. I know in this Merge-happy climate we have right now this may not be popular with some people. But it would be useful in navigating the various lightsaber duels throughout history and allow us to give blow by blow details of duels (especially ones in novels) without cluttering up battle pages.

Whatever is decided, lets make it consistent.
 * Note: From suggestions in the comments section I have reworded the options below from original. Based on voter explainations I don't think this will change anyone's votes, but please recheck your responses.  IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Duels should can have their own pages

 * 1) IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Lightsaber duels are what bring some people into Star Wars in the first place; why not give them their own articles? Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) *Because not all of them warrant their own. This is a perfect example of just that type of situation. —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( No quarter given, all exits sealed ) 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  DarthDragon164 Black dragon.JPGn's Lair 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Call this the "whatever" vote. I would actually vote down in "no policy," but I want there to be some decision and I am more than capable of TCing anything I don't want to see an article for. In the meantime, what's the harm if it means things like more good and featured articles, happier authors, and more pages of content for the readers to choose more specifically to read about? Graestan ( Talk ) 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) With the exception of thing like Saber Lock on Alderaan.  Mauser  Comlink 05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *I was actually the author of that. I made a preliminary page based on the cliffhanger ending that made it seem that there was going to be a duel.  When the next section was released, I fully agreed with the deletion.  Sorry about that! IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9)  IFYLOFD  ( You will pay the price for your lack of vision! ) 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Duels should only have a separate page when they were not related in any way to a large battle

 * 1) This one makes more sense to me. When people talk about the Battle of Endor, they're going to include the death of Palpatine in that, and so they're going to look for the Battle of Endor article to include pertinent information on the duel on Death Star II. It's a pain to the average reader to have to go find a second link when they just want to look up the final act of ROTJ. Same goes for other climatic multi-part battles (Battle of Theed, Geonosis, Coruscant in NJO, Star Forge in KotOR, etc.) Let's point the reader to one cohesive article on the topic, and not make things harder for the readers in order to adhere to an artificial organization system that we invented without any canonical necessity for doing so. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *That's what See also and Main are for. Slap See also on the battle and Main on the duel, each at the top of the article. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I was about to lay down my vote for "No policy," but I think the Battle of Endor-Duel on Death Star II situation is the poster child for this debate, and I've been waiting for someone to create this CT for a long time. I've always felt that Duel on Death Star II should be merged with Battle of Endor, because, in a manner of speaking, it is the Battle of Endor. The conflict at Endor was entirely centered around Luke vs. Vader vs. the Emperor, and there wouldn't even be a space or ground Battle of Endor without that lightsaber duel. That particular case, and anything of similar circumstances, should be covered in one primary article. If there's a duel that is entirely independent of a major conflict, then indeed it should have its own article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) *I think that it is exactly the opposite as Toprawa and Ralltiir and Atarumaster88 suggest. A reader wanting to be reminded of how the lightsaber fight between Vader and Luke on the Deathstar went isn't going to type in "Battle on Endor." He is going to type in, "Duel on the Deathstar."  If he gets redirected to the Battle page, he is going to have to wade through the page until he finds the right subsection (some of which aren't even entitled "duel").  I agree with Master Jonathan when he says on Battle pages, the hyperlinks to the duels' main articles and "see also" links are good for.  Having a separate article doesn't diminish them as a deciding factor in any given battle.  It accentuates it by saying, "this is important enough that we will talk about it in more detail in another article.  The Duel and its results should still be briefly described in the Battle article just like any other aspect (Millennium Falcon run on the core) is. IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) **Look, I don't think Wookieepedia is made to adhere to specifically what the reader wants. We try, but we aren't made to serve the reader. That the reader will now have to wade through larger articles is irrelevant: if they truly want to learn a few things from whatever they want to read, they shouldn't care. To me, including duels when they are part of a larger battle is just redundant and severely unnecessary.  CC7567  (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Per above, as well as per Cylka and Eyrezer's comments. There are even many more cases that could be argued to be "duels" when they are simply an exchange or two of lightsaber blows, and for consistency, the larger duels need to be part of the articles as well. Including duels in their "main articles" is personally too redundant for me. In any case, it seems to me as though all of the options on this page (except for this one) include "can" or "may", and are therefore not explicitly defined and open to exceptions, so I'm putting my vote here because it's the closest to what I believe. Both duels during the Battle of Teth were so closely related to the battle that it was rather redundant when writing the article itself, and I don't see the point of using two articles to state the exact same thing, even if the main article is shortened somewhat.  CC7567  (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) If they're notable and are actually a duel. Touching lightsabers doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Anything but "should." The less duel articles, the better. Thefourdotelipsis 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Top and 4dot. Squash all the duel articles into parent battles. ASAP. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No policy should be made: Handle each duel/battle merger on an individual basis

 * 1) There's always going to be a situation where the other choices presented just don't cover all the possibilities. —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( No quarter given, all exits sealed ) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Tommy. It sounds like a good idea, but it should be made on an individual basis, not as a whole.  Mecenarylord Enter if you dare 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * While I am not quite ready to cast my vote on this CT, I did want to point out something that I feel may become an issue, in terms of the wording of the policy. The first option states that duels can have their own pages, while option three states that duels may be merged with battles. In my mind, these two options are essentially the same. Furthermore, I believe that these two options also allow for the same policy as option four -- handle each duel/battle merger on an individual basis. The wording of these three options are leaving the decision wide open to interpretation. My suggestion would be to change the wording of options one and three. For example, option one could simply read that duels will have their own articles, and option three reads that duels will be merged with battles, but particularly significant duels will warrant their own article. There will still be an issue of what constitutes "significant," but I believe that a small change in wording will eliminate many issues. Cylka  -talk- 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Why not something like:
 * "Duels should have their own article even if part of a larger battle"
 * "Duels should have their own article only if of particular significance (deaths of an important character, etc)"
 * "Duels should have their own article only if not part of a larger battle"
 * "Duels should not have their own articles" (I doubt this one is needed, seeing as we have Duel FAs... :P)
 * This wording seems clearer to me. --Eyrezer 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

With these options, perhaps it would be wise to first define what a duel is. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie the truth  ) 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Well the Lightsaber duel article states, "A lightsaber duel occurred when two or more combatants armed with lightsabers, or one party using lightsabers against another wielding a melee weapon capable of sparring with the former engaged in personal combat." For old republic stuff (where there were opposing armies of lightsaber weilders) each individual fight in the melee obviously wouldn't be a duel.  I think the idea of a melee and a duel are pretty clear in the star wars universe.  There was one discussion as to whether a duel could only be between 2 individuals, and whether showdown was a better term.  I believe there are in-universe instances of calling a lightsaber battle between small groups (2 on 1 or 2 on 3, etc.) duels.  I don't think there is an instance when this is really unclear, even in the KOTOR or the Darth Bane era.  Almost every time, during a battle, the duelists remove themselves from the battle, or their support troops simply fight around them.  I believe the phrase, "Leave him/them to me" is often uddered.  IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IthinkIwannaLeia, your last two sentences there state it perfectly. Duels are rarely, if ever, truly part of the larger battle, which is just another reason to give them their own articles. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, if the words "can" and "should" are affecting your choice for choice 1 let me know. I put "should" just to be consistent.  Since this vote is so close, I would hate to have wording, as oppose to general principle, be the deciding factor! IthinkIwannaLeia  WaddaUthink?  00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)