Talk:Lightsaber

Noting Mandalorian info

I find it very underhanded that the info was added first to the Darksaber novel article (before getting moved over here) as a dimply defensive bulwark gesture to make a talking point at The Mandalorian article discussion page. When I tired to alter the text to reflect the source more accurately (and anyone should feel absolutely free to point out how I have misused the source) and avoided in-universe language, it was reverted. Twice. By yet another editor participating in the Mandalorian article seeking to link the Darksaber to that series without any primary sourcing. I reject that sort of gaming the system to rule lawyer your pov into an article, and I think that - until we have adequate sourcing that follows our policies, we should retain how it is in fat a speculation that source thinks it is said item. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the editor who added the "Other darksaber" section to the Darksaber novel, you should probably just ask User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång about it on his or her talk page, rather than complain about here behind their back. --Bold Clone 05:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hardly "behind their back" when it's on the talk page of the article with the disputed content. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is not on their talk page, so it hardly in front of them, Cole. --Bold Clone 05:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bold Clone, I find it depressingly hilarious that you think that me pointing out some sneaky maneuvering by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: is itself sneaky maneuvering. They know exactly what they did. More's the pity that you not only fail to see that, but are willing to let them do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, I am again disappointed in you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång made the edit, not me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång is accountable for his actions, not me. If you have a problem with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you speak to Gråbergs Gråa Sång, not me. If you think "sneaky maneuvering" occurred, then speak with an Admin, not me. I do not consider you to be doing "sneaky maneuvering" at all, and I am offended at your comment. At the end of the day, I am not responsible for Gråbergs Gråa Sång's actions. More's the pity that not only to you fail to see that, but are willing to condemn me for his behavior. --Bold Clone 05:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am going to suggest yiu re-read my post, Bold Clone. I wasn't blaming you for their action, but I am totally holding yiu responsible for supporting their bad act. There'a a pretty significant difference. But you know, nice attempt at parroting my words. Its a form of flattery, I guess. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not supporting their actions, Jack. What they've done, they've done. Your problem, not mine. You're reading into my silence as support for them. --Bold Clone 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be underhanded, sneaky, or a bad act, but fwiw, IMO "This article is about the novel. For the weapon, see Lightsaber § Colors." (at Darksaber) works fine too for my dark purposes (catering to this lot [1]). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am reading your revert back to their version a support of that version and that behavior. Were you opposed to it, you would have copy-edited a different, more neutral version of the statement in. You failed to do that. You simply reverted my attempt to make it more neutral. Taking responsibility for your own editing behavior and mistakes engenders trust among your fellow editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Assuming they have the page watchlisted, it'll show up in their feed. Generally when I make an edit of any significance to a page, I'll watchlist it. Regardless, it doesn't matter, he's been pinged twice now. And it's not like this discusshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darksaber&diff=next&oldid=933530280ion should be held anywhere else. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. I wish I had remembered the ping function earlier. --Bold Clone 05:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't on my watchlist (only one edit so far), but the ping (Bold Clone's) worked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I had tried to ping them in my post, but added an errant character, which malformed the ping function (edit: I've since fixed it). Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the "What links here" sidebar link indicate when a page is watchlisted by someone? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, watchlists are private. AFAIK there's no way to directly see what's on another editors watchlist (tho IIRC there is a way to make it public or share it, but it's not the default). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. The user has been pinged. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Now that we're all in one place (a generation lost in space), let's discuss how this played out:

1. In the Darksaber novel page, User: Gråbergs Gråa Sång adds the bit about the weapon appearing in The Mandalorian, and follows it up immediately thereafter with a source. (1, 2).
2. User: Oknazevad makes several formatting edits, including wikifying the Darksaber to Starwars.com
3. User:Jack Sebastian rewords Gråbergs Gråa Sång's edit to make it less in-universe and more reflective of the current state of the discussion of the Mandalorian article, to whit, that the item seen in the series was not officially identified and was in contention. (3)
4. User: Bold Clone reverts the rewording out, reinstating Gråbergs Gråa Sång's edit, using as an edit summary, "One thing as a time, please, Jack. Wait until a consensus has been reached." (4)
5. User: Deep Gabriel removes the entire section from the unrelated novel to the general lightsaber article. (5, 6)
6. User: Jack Sebastian, in the moved content, again restates the Mandalorian content as being the opinion of the source, and not an actual fact, noting in his edit summary, "Since the source utilized a speculation, and to avoid in-universe language as well as avoiding a multi-front discussion this ce appears to be the best way to present this info for now." (7)
7. User: Bold Clone then reverts the material back in (8)
8. User: Jack Sebastian again removes the in-universe, contested information, noting in his edit summary, "Do not create another discussion front. This info was added by an editor in another discussion as a bulwark defensive move. Uncool, See talk" (9)
9. User Bold Clone reverts yet again (10)
10. User: Locke Cole reverts User: Bold Clone (11)
11. User: Oknazevad reverts User: Locke Cole, with a particucularly uncivil edit summary (12)

...And here we are.

A few questions immediately come to mind, but let's address the most basic information first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång, why did you add the content about the Mandalorian to the Darksaber novel page? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I noticed the "Mandalorian War" at Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out via Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Does_consensus_trump_policy? and got a little interested.

My thinking was that as long as "Gideon cuts himself out of his downed fighter with the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." is in the article(s), some sort of expansion via wikilink was a good thing (add the media and people would look for it [2]) and Darksaber seemed the logical place, per title. The source IMO adequate for the purpose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding quickly, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. So, if I am to understand you correctly, you decided to add the text to Darksaber because you saw the edit in The Mandalorian? Were you aware that the identification of the item was being disputed? I sense you were, as you contributed to the Mandalorian article discussion about it, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I saw the discussion (but though I commented in it I still haven't actually read all of it) so I knew there was a dispute on what to include. If the above quote was removed my wikilink would be moot, so no problem there. And I have not seen any identification-dispute in sources, only among editors, which didn't stop me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If it matters, I didn't see the edit where "Gideon cuts himself out of his downed fighter with the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." was added, I just saw it was in the article(s). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I see, so you saw the edit naming the item and thought to likewise add that identification to the Darksaber article. Is that an accurate description of your action, Gråbergs Gråa Sång? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the edit, I saw "darksaber" mentioned in the article(s). When it appeared (I have no idea) did not affect my editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to illustrate how it looks to me, then. You saw an edit on the Mandalorian page speculating that the item was the Darksaber. You knew it was a point of contention before you added it to the Darksaber novel article (if necessary, I can provide diffs to indicate your participation there before your addition). You perhaps thought that it was okay to have that in the article and figured that the discussion would eventually allow for inclusion, and so added it despite its disputed status.

Your edit became a proxy fight for inclusion by at least two other editors (also involved in the same Mandalorian discussion as you). even after it was (correctly) moved to the Lightsaber general article. Editors in that other article pointed to your edit as proof that inclusion has already occurred. It requires an effort of almost Herculean proportions to continue to presume good faith. At the very least, your edit was exceptionally ill-advised. At worst, it was an attempt to game the system. I am willing to continue to presume good faith on your part, but you enabled at least three other editors to use your edit as a bulwark in their argument. Please be more careful in the future; actions have consequences. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Consider this, though. You keep repeating "speculation". But you don't know what checking the sources did, the people at USA Today and whatever may know people at The Mandalorian. They can communicate. "The Moff surveys the ashen landscape with a glowing black blade in his hand—the ancient Darksaber, one of Mandalorian culture’s most treasured artifacts." is stated as fact, your "speculation" is speculation. All sources can have flaws, but this one is well thought of at WP:RSP and assuming they make things up by default is not the WP way. Absent opposing sources, Wikipedians such as myself will see nothing unreasonable about seeing sources like that as a good Argument from authority. And WP also often includes well-sourced speculation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but - in the absence of any supporting references, press releases or interviews from those associated with the series' production, are you now willing to consider that the source was "taking poetic license" (speculating)? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

As with any source, it's a possibility. From the position of the WP-editor, though, IMO the way to go is to assume that USA Today etc (I haven't read them in detail) knows what they are talking about. If Favreau laughs "HA HA, FOOLED YOU" next week or at the start of the next season, we'll deal with it then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's TIME, also with good on-WP rep: "It’s called a Darksaber, and it used to be a prized weapon among the Mandalorians—before Moff Gideon got his hands on it." Stated as fact. "Moff Gideon’s unlikely survival at the end of The Mandalorian suggests that he will be the big bad in the second season of the series. We’ll likely see the darksaber again and, hopefully, find out how he acquired it." Stated as speculation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Noting Mandalorian info, part deux

While the earlier section went off on a tangent about the origins about why the info was cross-posted to the Darksaber novel article before being (correctly) moved here to Lightsaber (see above), the underlying problem remains. The same people arguing their guts out on the talk page at The Mandalorian have brought the fight to this page. While I am doing my level best to presume good faith, it certainly seems like those wanting to add the info are adopting a 'better to ask forgiveness than permission' tactic, and its a pretty cynical move on their part. I totally get why they are doing it, though; they think that if the notation appears in other articles, then it should appear in The Mandalorian as well. Fortunately, this sort of fait accompli is pretty transparent; when a user in the Mandalorian discussion tried to use the mention of the darksaber here as having appeared in the series, it was shot down pretty quickly by a sharp-eyed editor.
While it would appear that the initial addition was innocent enough, the back and forth removal of the info is anything but.
The point is, trying to end-run the other discussion is to be considered a Bad Thing, and I would urge all participants to stop waging a proxy battle here when your energies are better contributing to the primary article discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. We have dozens of reliable sources listed here and at the Talk:The Mandalorian page stating plainly what the Darksaber is and that it appears in The Mandalorian. Anything beyond that is just pointy and pointless. Just accept that your wrong and move on with your life, Jack. oknazevad (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that pointing out policy is disruptive. I would counter that, by attempting to use a contested edit in another page, you are seeking to perform a fait accompli - an end run around that discussion. Its a cynical attempt to game the system in your favor because you are not getting what you want at a related page, and (with all your experience) you know it.

If you truly feel I am engaging in POINT, I urge you to take the matter up at ANI. I stand by my actions and assertions. You are trying to add information that is at best speculative. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. Any reference to an unidentified item seen in the last moments of a season finale are going to be kept out until we have confirmation as to the nature of that item from a source that isn't spinning fan forum shop theories. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Is ask you not to assign motives to what I'm doing. Whether it's relevant to the individual episode, the series, and the general depiction of lightsabers across the franchise are related, but also distinct.

But it's not worth the headache. I won't make further edits until confirmation from a primary source or a producer can be referenced, and won't make any edits to this page (which I've had watchlisted for years, by the way) for a while. oknazevad (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the conclusion (?) of Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out I think the current version is ok-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Noting Mandalorian, part III

So, I'm reopening discussion here. Obviously, as I mentioned in my previous comment, we now have confirmation from a primary source (namely an article on the franchise's official website) that it is indeed the Darksaber that appears in The Mandalorian. As such, we don't need to say anything more than include it in the list of appearances alongside The Clone Wars and Rebels, per the KISS principle. Other edits to trim wordiness or address tags were also performed, either by removing unsourced trivia or by removing tags where the source is already included in the sentence itself. Those edits should removing regardless of anything to do with the Darksaber. oknazevad (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are fair points all, Oknazevad. I agree that the Kenner and other toy-related material should probably be excised. Removing all of the Expanded Universe content, however should be tightened up instead of removed. Just because it suddenly became non-canonical doesn't mean it doesn't have encyclopedic value. Canonicity means absolutely nothing in Wikipedia. As for mentioning the Mandalorian, I am convinced that we should wait for the final consensus version of the Darksaber's mention, so as to avoid the appearance of trying to end-run that consensus. We both know of at least one editor in that discussion who sought to piggyback a mention here as reason to include it there; I'd prefer to avoid that drama again.

I think we can work togehter to edit the Kenner and Expanded Universe stuff into something that removed the cn-tagging. I'll give it a whirl and we can work together to shape it better. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'd just rather remove the Kenner action figure mention unless there's a reliable source pointing out it's importance. I know it's occasionally mentioned as a source of childhood confusion by fans of a certain age, but it's trivial and unsourced.

As for the other stuff, I agree about canon (and have spent far too much time dealing with certain editors who just don't get that) and that should continue to mention the video games and other noted depictions. Though for the most part only the Knights of the Old Republic games assign any significance to the color, which is the topic of the section. (Notably that was indeed picked up by The Clone Wars and Rebels TV series; apparently showrunner Dave Filoni is a big fan of the games and used elements from the games in the series, such as the yellow lightsabers. He's mentioned it in interviews before.) that's why I trimmed to focus on them, as they're the only games to really deal with the color specifically. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the toy stuff entirely, as it is indeed crufty, and I couldn't find sources for either color-scheming in the toys and only fan boards when it came to the coloring of the video games; you might be able to find better sources than I could. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The color coding in the KOTOR games is actually part of the game mechanics themselves, so doesn't really need any additional sourcing (not unlike an uncontroversial plot summary for a film). oknazevad (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I tend to work on articles with an eye to getting them to GA and FA quality. I'd rather avoid the GA and FA evaluations asking late in the game to supply a source for the game mechanics. If it can be found, that would be great. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, when it comes to game mechanics, I'd take a look at how the video games wikiproject handles sourcing. Heck, it might already be sourced in the article on the games and therefore can simply be copied over here.

Meanwhile, it seems that there's been a solid consensus reached at Talk:The Mandalorian. With that settled, would you object if I were to simplify the sentence here in line with my previous edit? oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In light of the consensus emerging from the discussion at Mandalorian, I think a version of your edit would be fine. I am still a little concerned with the bit, "...it is described as an ancient lightsaber created by the first Mandalorian to become a Jedi, and later serves as a symbol of Mandalorian authority.". Imo, that belongs in the article for Clone Wars, and I am concerned of taking information from CW and connecting it - even obliquely - to Mandalorian assumed facts for the latter series that are not in evidence as of yet. I'm fine with adding the Mandalorian. I am less so with adding details about it until they emerge. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think your concern is alleviated by the starwars.com ref. We're not making an original connection here, we're repeating what has already been said. That it's the same Darksaber is explicitly stated by the official website of both series (all three, including Rebels). oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a copyedit to clarify where certain info came from. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Made an additional tweak for grammar and flow. oknazevad (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Which also looks good. I think our work on this specific issue is done. Good to finally work with you. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

David W. Collins on Visions sound design

Whether or not it'll pass WP:TWITTER and if there's relevancy and space here, I'll leave up to you, but just to make a note of it because it's potentially useful, idk: David W. Collins writes a little bit about the sound design for lightsabers in Visions on Twitter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Schwartz references

I've removed these references, as they don't seem to have any connection to Lightsaber. As far as I can see they're only tangentially relevant to Spaceballs itself - Brooks having been represented by a lawyer named "Schwartz".

The first is behind a paywall and the last is dead. That only leaves the Kaplan reference, which makes a passing mention of the lawyer Schwartz. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

References