Forum:CT Archive/Individual Lightsabers

It's been two weeks since this, so I figured, "What the hey." It's been kind-of a loose end in my mind, and I hate to leave it as an unanswered question.

Suggested Lightsaber Notability Guidelines

 * 1) Is specifically named (like Darksaber and Jinzu Razor)
 * 2) Has a unique history of its own that does not fit into one character's article" (Like Anakin Solo's lightsaber)

If these lightsabers can fit easily into another page, as a small subsection or a footnote, then they don't really deserve a page no matter how well written. Depending on the success of this CT, the policy may apply to things like Luke Skywalker's backpack or Individual Jedi Starfighters.

Deleted or merged under proposed policy

 * Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber
 * Kit Fisto's lightsaber
 * Tera Sinube's lightsaber
 * Palpatine's lightsaber
 * Windu's lightsaber
 * Dooku's lightsaber Dooku is a popular guy, but his lightsaber's large article is redundant with the wielder's history. It is notable for being Dooku's saber and little more.
 * Yoda's lightsaber
 * Darth Vader's lightsaber Same as Dooku's saber.
 * Darth Zannah's lightsaber
 * Luke Skywalker's lightsaber
 * Aurra Sing's lightsaber
 * Mace Windu's lightsaber
 * Ahsoka Tano's lightsaber
 * Ki-Adi-Mundi's lightsaber
 * Qui-Gon Jinn's lightsaber
 * Lumiya's lightwhip Could be merged into Lightwhip and Lumiya

Kept under proposed policy

 * Jinzu Razor
 * Darksaber (lightsaber)
 * Anakin Solo's lightsaber Needs serious work, but fits policy
 * Anakin Skywalker's second lightsaber
 * Exar Kun's lightsaber Despite having the same problem as Dooku's saber, Exar Kun's saber was still used (briefly) long after Kun himself died.
 * Vima-Da-Boda's lightsaber The thing is 10,000 years old and had several owners, despite the article size. It's an artifact.
 * Freedon Nadd's short lightsaber
 * Sifo-Dyas's lightsaber
 * Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber Needs work.

In Favor of Policy (as is)

 * 1) SinisterSamurai 21:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

In Favor of Policy (with exceptions or changes)

 * 1) Kenobi's lightsaber has also a unique history, so it should be kept. 21:48, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mace Windu's saber should be kept, per the whole lightsaber-switching thing in the Republic comic that retconned his saber color. Fisto's saber was special for underwater usage, so unless another article along those lines is created I'd like it kept. Otherwise I concur. Graestan ( Talk ) 22:03, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank goodness this came around. For Lumiya's lightwhip, that article is an FA, though.  JangFett  (Talk) 22:08, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Policy (Trash Compact each Individual Lightsaber)

 * 1) I think this is the best option at the moment. I'm not opposed to putting guidelines in place, but putting them in just for lightsabers is too specific and pretty pointless. If we want to have notability guidelines, they should apply to all objects, not just lightsabers. We shouldn't be treating lightsabers any different from anything else. If we're going to make a policy, let's do it properly and make one for all items/ships/individuals/etc. Grunny  ( talk ) 22:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Grunny's right. Graestan ( Talk ) 22:17, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) 100% per Grunny. And I also disagree with putting Lumiya's lightwhip as an article to be deleted if this passes. Tommy's work on the article proves that it can contain detailed information that isn't suitable in Lumiya's article or the lightwhip article alone. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 22:35, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) We need a general notability policy, not one for each arbitrary category of objects. I'll start working on a proposal. --Imperialles 22:40, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Really, I don't mind keeping the individual lightsaber articles. I used to be of the mind that lightsaber articles shouldn't exist, on the grounds that any information therein can and should just be included in the parent character article. I still agree with that, but there are instances, as noted in this CT, of lightsabers with unique history and information, which deserve to be kept. And Lumiya's lightwhip is a very nice model of how an article can be well-presented with both unique information and information that might otherwise just be presented in other parent articles, so why not allow it if people want to seek out that specific information? And, Grunny makes an excellent point of comparing lightsaber articles to individual starship articles. We create articles every day about "Terry Francona's starship" or "Bob Uecker's Executor-class Star Dreadnought," that in most cases are no different than these lightsaber articles, in that they have information that could just as easily be covered in the parent character article. And I seriously doubt we would start a TC or CT forum to get rid of all of those. So why are we treating lightsabers any differently? Above all else, I still believe either keeping all of them or keeping none of them is the way to go, so I would also support just keeping them outright. But if you want to delete them, start a TC forum for each one. If you want to create a CT policy, start one that treats all of these types of individual articles on equal grounds. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
A lot of discussion already took place here, so try to add new stuff. If I'm missing a particular Lightsaber article, or you feel I've mis-catagorized one, mention it here. SinisterSamurai 21:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber to keep, per IRC. SinisterSamurai 21:54, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lumiya's lightwhip should not be listed as suspect. The article's quality does not make it exempt from the rules proposed here. --Imperialles 21:59, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, if this, or any one article is widely contested, I'll move it (back) to suspect. SinisterSamurai 22:04, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Lumiya's lightwhip is not your standard lightwhip. Graestan ( Talk ) 22:05, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * If this does go through, I'd still like to see the wording changed from unique history, to unique information. Anything with unique information should be worthy of an article, and I think wording it as unique information is clearer. Grunny  ( talk ) 22:06, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Grunny here, too. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 22:35, May 8, 2010 (UTC)