Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Individual lightsaber

Individual lightsaber articles
Started with the creation of Tera Sinube's lightsaber

This is a completely useless article. Sure, his lightsaber was of a unique design, but so is Ahsoka's, and her lightsaber doesn't get it's own article; so was Lord Baras's lightsaber, but his doesn't get an article. The argument could be started that Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber get's its own article, but that is because his had several variations over the span of his lifetime as both Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 13:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable

 * Tera Sinube's lightsaber
 * Vima-Da-Boda's lightsaber
 * Freedon Nadd's short lightsaber
 * Darth Zannah's lightsaber
 * I don't agree with removing Zannah's lightsaber because it was unique enough and has a history that extends well past her usage of it. —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( Mechno-chair ) 16:57, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sifo-Dyas's lightsaber
 * Pre Vizsla's lightsaber
 * This article shouldn't be deleted because it's the first black-bladed lightsaber, making to unique from all the others. Marko14126 00:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Windu's lightsaber
 * Jinzu Razor
 * Palpatine's lightsaber - not notable enough
 * This article covers multiple lightsabers used by people other than Palpatine. It's also a decent article that has had alot of effort put into it. Jayden Matthews 17:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty lame reason, as Kota used it for all of a few moments. However, because the lightsaber was used in duels that helped shape the galaxy, I'll agree this should stay. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 18:03, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what a said before some wise delete my comment. Te Shukalaryc Mand'alor JaingHead.svg 22:11, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

 * Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber/Darth Vader's lightsaber - played important role on historical events.
 * Exar Kun's lightsaber - first known of the double-bladed design.
 * Anakin Solo's lightsaber - also played important role on historical events.
 * Darth Zannah's lightsaber - per Tommy's comments above
 * Palpatine's lightsaber - per discussion above

Delete those proposed above

 *  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 13:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( Mechno-chair ) 13:47, January 28, 2010 (UTC) This has changed too much from where it originally began for me to vote anywhere. —Tommy9281  Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( Mechno-chair ) 22:20, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete all

 * 1)  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 21:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 21:29, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my voting comment below: I would also support a Delete all vote, since anything in any of these articles should theoretically already be covered by the subject's main article: Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber should really have no info not already found in Anakin Skywalker, for ex. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) *Redirecting these to the main subject's article would probably be preferable, in fact. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) *Do you really think that's necessary? Definitely make sure all information is merged (if it isn't already) and then just delete. Honestly, is it more likely that someone will do a search for "Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber" or just search for "Anakin Skywalker" to find information about his lightsaber? -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 21:40, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) **Well, the existence of these articles to begin with proves to me that people are bound to search for "Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber," etc. It's best to take them to where the information is, rather than not taking them anywhere at all. And, it would prevent recreation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) ***Prevent recreation &hellip;good point. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 22:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) I've never been a fan of individual articles on lightsabers. There is no reason to have them - all info on them should be in the article of the respective maker/owner(s). Even the "X lightsaber is important because it was in an important duel" reason seems pointless to me. The lightsaber had no effect on the history of the galaxy; its owner did. That being said, I think it's about time we have an official policy on articles about lightsabers - preferably that we don't have articles on lightsabers. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 21:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 22:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Quickly.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 22:20, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Graestan ( Talk ) 23:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep all

 * 1) We have dozens of articles on individuals lightsabers. There's no more sense in deleting this one than there is in all the others. Jayden Matthews 15:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --Borsk Fey'lya  Talk 18:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) –K.A.J•T•C•E• 18:56, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) - Moon Demon 20:56, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't subscribe to the idea that something is more notable than something else just because that something else just happens to be a stub. We shouldn't pick and choose what we think should be included in this wiki based on scope of information. If we have an article on one lightsaber, we should devote coverage to all. That being said, I would also support a Delete all vote, since anything in any of these articles should theoretically already be covered by the subject's main article: Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber should really have no info not already found in Anakin Skywalker, for ex. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency has been left to deteriorate for too long on Wookieepedia. Either we keep them all or delete them all, per Toprawa.  CC7567  (talk) 21:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, it wasn't based on if it was a stub or not, but what kind of notable impact the lightsaber had on galactic events (ie. Kun's was the first of its kind, Palpatines was used at both the formation of the Empire and Rebellion, Solo's was made with a lambent instead of crystal and was then used by Ganner Rysode in a major battle, etc). But you know, I can completely see where you and Tope are coming from. I'll add the third option with my vote. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 21:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I'm changing my vote, I'd like to point out that we don't have the power to judge what is notable or not&mdash;or what "notable" is, as far as these subjects go.  CC7567  (talk) 22:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If for no other reason than the fact that I believe I have substantially proven how these types of articles can work through this example. —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( Mechno-chair ) 22:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm inclined to vote for keep them all, if a proper notability is given (would have to be defined here or someplace else). If it has a canonical name (see Jinzu Razor) it definitely deserves an article. 22:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Tommy. Also, there are some pretty convincing arguments above, however, if we argue that individual weapons don't have any direct effects on history, rather, their owners did, then we'd have to get rid of things such as individual starship articles, as well. For instance, any information present in the Millennium Falcon article should be present in all the other articles about its past owners, and thus by that line of thought, this article is unnecessary. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Jedi Beacon ) 23:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been torn on this, but per above. The same logic could suggest including all battle articles into an overall war article. The Lumiya's lightwhip article shows us that these articles can have detailed information that simply isn't suitable to be included in the owners article. Grunny  ( Talk ) 23:18, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) After watching the discussion, per above, particularly Tyber. Some of these do need to go, but we need to define what is notability with regard to individual weapons first, and that's not something that can be done here. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
This is pretty open and shut, so if you have an idea of a third option, please discuss here first. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 13:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Palpatine's, Vizsla's, Zannah's, Windu's, Dyas's and all the others? Jayden Matthews 16:16, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * There, that should cover it. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 16:36, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anakin's first, Jinzu Razor, Consul, Defender, Arbiter, Adept, Adjudicator, Guardian, Praetor, Sentinel, Retaliator and Firebrand? Jayden Matthews 16:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Jinzu Razor to the delete list. The rest are styles of hilt used by the NJO, not lightsabers belonging to specific individuals. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 17:05, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the same logic of non-notability apply? Jayden Matthews 17:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. These are "styles of lightsaber" used by different indivuduals. The individual lightsabers of individual people are non-notable. To have them means we should also allow Plo Koon's boots or Ahsoka Tano's tube top or Quinlan Vos's pants. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 17:12, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, as lightsabers are custom made, unique and singular to their owners. Clothing is not. Jayden Matthews 17:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you propose creating well over a thousand new articles that simply state "So-and-so's lightsaber was the lightsaber owned by so-and-so.? What about individuals like Luke Skywalker who used lightsabers created by others? Do you see where this is going? The idea is to not have a bunch of useless articles but to only have articles on individual lightsabers that are notable enough to have had an impact on historical events of the galaxy. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 17:31, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that this will also cover Aurra Sing's lightsaber and Lumiya's lightwhip, as they meet the criteria as well.  CC7567  (talk) 22:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to say, yes. Though the lightwhip is up for FAN right now. :\ -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 22:17, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this criteria that we are speaking of? —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG.jpg ( Mechno-chair ) 22:20, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I feel like this should be done on a case-by-case basis. The Jinzu Razor should stay in my opinion because, well, it has a name and that should honestly make it worthy enough of recognition. It's not just a weapon identified by its wielder. Hell, it even has its own card in the SWGTCG. I agree that lightsabers are too common to give articles for every specific one but some unique weapons like Lumiya's lightwhip are worthy in my opinion. For now I'll have to abstain from voting. Xicer9 [[Image:atgar.svg|20px]]( Combadge) 23:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto Pre Vizsla's lightsaber. It's notable as the only black-bladed lightsaber currently known. Moon Demon 23:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)