Talk:Lightsaber/Archive 1

message: Isn't a 3 foot long blade kind of long? I was always under the impression that the blade from emitter to tip was only 30 inches. Can we get some clarification on this?
:In I, Jedi Corran Horn states his lightsaber has a "... silver blade 133 centimeters in length. "  That equates to 52 and one-third inches, or almost five feet; that seems really freaking long, and I'm certain the blades in the movies (well, the original triology, at least) aren't that long.  But it there isn't any other reference... Raveled 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blade length 

message: This section looks kind of weird, is there any source material that supports its assertions?
:Please sign your comments to talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). I was thinking about removing that from the article, but it is actually correct information in terms of the Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy game. I'm not sure about the others, but in Jedi Academy you can choose your hilt for your lightsaber and those are options. I'm just trying to decide whether or not it is actually worth inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Deskana (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is hollow. It doesn't explain how hilts can be different. I say we merge all the possible differences of lightsabers in to a single subsection of "Lightsaber Varients."--ScipioAfricans 09:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilt Looks 

message: I don't believe the article has a section that actually explains when the lightsaber was invented. Disko 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy... that's a dilly, weren't they created a long time ago, and very gradually, initially using power packs and stuff? Tyciol 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not canon. A hilt can look like whatever the maker wants. These are just pre-made styles to choose from in a video game. Either we take it out, or we say these are the styles of hilts available in JA. Pawnofwhite 23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Lightsaber Invention 

message: If Sith Swords snuff out lightsabers, why aren't they still used? Disko 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some ideas on this (but they're just that, so you probably couldn't add them). They're heavy, meaning you have to apply physical force swords to use them. They're also bulky, you can't carry them around with just a handle like a normal lightsabre. You couldn't use them in the Iajutsu form, which might be an advantage in an advanced Jedi battle. It singles you out as a Sith, while they would probably like to remain in camouflage, and they may be more expensive and difficult to make. Tyciol 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, but the weight of the sith sword allows the user to sense their relative position without relying on the force. Disko 05:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Sith Swords are no longer used 

message: To be clear since as I see it this has not been addressed.  There is a difference between the lightsabers in the Star Wars movies and other Star Wars sources.  Lightsabers, as far as the movies are concerned, are four colors: blue, green, purple, and red.  All colors except red are used by Jedi and red is reserved for Sith or dark Jedi.  There are no differences between lightsabers in the movies, they all are the same strength and are not drastically specialized in any way.  In contrast the Expanded Universe section which is far less reliable because George Lucas for the most part has allowed people to write books and other articles that have changed many  basic rules from the movies.  One of the aforementioned rule's is the colors of lightsabers apparently they come in almost any color you would like.  Other things have changed as well such as the ability to change the particular use of the lighsabre.  Many feel that the only true resource to go by are the movies themselves because those are the only resources that are true to the original vision of George Lucas. --Anon.
:I somehow doubt Lucas is crying his eyes out because of a half-dozen lightblade colors. The double-bladed lightsaber was an EU invention, you know. --Jon Hart 01:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information on the different level of Star Wars canon and how they apply, see Star Wars canon. A large number of articles (both here and on Wookieepedia) rely at least in part on sources "below" G-canon. To say that the only true resources are the movies themselves would be ignoring a huge amount of information. --BinaryTed 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't remember any. It seems that y the time of the movies the sentinel's weapon has been used less, blue and green sabers being prefferred (and Goerge Lucas likes green+blue vs. Red for the movies - it's simpler for non Star Wars fans). -Xol 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies VS Expanded Universe 

message: Could someone please write on double-bladed lightsabers as mentioned in Darth Maul? Thanks! --Poli 04:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-bladed lightsabers 

message: Lightsabers do not cut through anything instantly. Qui-Gon Jinn must press his saber into the door in the opening scene of "Phantom Menace". Also, Darth Maul is able to use his Double-Bladed saber to vault up for a kick. It doesn't slide right down into the floor, but in fact sustains his weight for a half second.
Luke used his lightsabre to knock somone off of one of those skiffs.
Maybee there is a setting to make it perform like this.
Dudtz 7/28/06 6:02 PM EST
More likely Luke used the Force, and as for the blast door in Episode I it was probably designed to handle extremly high temperatures; you'll notice that the metal starts to heat up after a second or two.  IF the lightsaber is a beam of pure energy, then it CANNOT have mass. -- Raveled 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber Mass 

message: Does the list of lightsaber users also include non-Force-sensitive people? -- Ed Telerionus 30 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)
:Leia is in there, although she is sensitive to the Force, being Anakins daughter, she is not a Jedi,Though
:I think that being able to block lasers  the dexterity might come from the force so not many regulars could use it -Jedi dude-
:General Grievous is unable to use the force -Disko
::That's it exactly. In the hands of an untrained non-Force sensetive user, the lightsabre is a very clumsy weapon. They'd get shot straight away. Deskana (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber users 

message: There is an illustration on the left side of the paper near all the stuff about Mace Windu. The illustration says Mace Windu's lightsaber but I don't think it's right. I could be wrong, could someone clarify it.
:It states it's his lightsabre from "The Phantom Menace", when he had a blue lightsaber that he was borrowing from someone. I believe it is actually the one he had in "The Phantom Menace". Deskana (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mace Windu's lightsaber? 

message: 69.251.152.102 got in some more vandalism when I reverted again. In the "History" section:
The line with "The Blood is the Life." should be blank.
Sorry about the vandalism making it through my original non-vandalism-related revert, BTW. --Ergbert 05:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got rid of talk page vandalism that 69.251.152.102 made as I wrote that. --Ergbert 05:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I had to correct this, the person obviously didn't know very much about Jedi in SWG. Mainly the fact that you can still power lightsabers in that game using normal crystals. I've replaced the whole Galaxies section with a Krayt section, since it was about Krayts anyway and I can add a little bit more on the subject. I also added some markup. --Rushyo
:I've made a change to your Galaxies entry in its temporality. Star Wars Galaxies was actually released before KOTOR (SWG in June 2003, KOTOR July 2003) so I removed the part where it says KOTOR was the earlier game. --Aooogah 04:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Galaxies entry 

message: Which is the correct spelling?
:Lightsaber would be American English, Lightsabre would be British English. Since it's mainly an American film, and made by an American man, the correct spelling would be Lightsaber. Deskana (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is correct. Yes, it was made by an American person, however the movies language-environment is very complex and within the Star Wars universe there exist both American and British pronunciation. This leads me to think that there may also be both American and British spelling possible. Fact of the matter is, we don't know if either one is the absolute correct one, until George tells us. (Or until we find some other kind of prove.) --llycatA (alkT - ontribsC) 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All my video games and books spell it "Lightsaber."Cameron Nedland 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan had British accents... but then again, their actors were British. I think Lightsaber is the best bet. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saber is the canonical spelling. _-M o P-_ 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber or Lightsabre 

message: I'm starting a section on Lightsaber Forms
Help would be appreciated :D --Scorpiusdiamond 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just link to the article on the matter? Luis Dantas 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It noticed that afterwards, but a shorter overview should be created for non-extreme fans --Scorpiusdiamond 09:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber Forms 

message: "Lightsabers lose little power (and only when they come in contact with other objects), and thus can last almost indefinitely."
However, the very fact that they emit light and sound indicates that they do lose energy simply by being on. The only way for the lightsaber to be completely regenerative (barring contact with a solid object) would be if the blade was invisible and the saber emitted no sound.
:Perhaps the 'little power' is relative to the amount of power the saber uses in maintaining the plasma and magnetic fields (which would be considerably more than the amount lost in light and sound). They must have very intense power sources, as I'm sure most things do in the Star Wars universe. Tyciol 09:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deep evil 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The miracles of future technology - do you think the medieval man would have thought an iPod was possible? -Xol 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you two, he's right, it's simple physics, learn it. Remember, in SciFi even though it uses concepts not yet supported by science, there is an effort to define these concepts as scientifically as possible, rather than just saying 'it is magic'. It isn't, the force is explained by those Midiclorean things, and the sabers must hold accountable to physics. Tyciol 09:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple physics as we know it. That may sound silly, but we've never been out of our galaxy. Perhaps 3 light years away there is a Jedi temple filled to the brim with lightsabers. But back to the energy thing; perhaps they regenerate more energy then they expend. Or their crystals give unlimited energy. It did say they had to be plugged in somewhere in this article though... _-M o P-_ 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regeneration 

message: The prop replicas I see for lightsaber hilts don't look ergonomic at all. They are too thick or covered with bumpy bits.  I can't imagine such designs being used for handtools, let alone weapons.   Perhaps someone in-the-know should comment on what the designers were thinking when they proposed these designs.
:Got me.  Got two ForceFX sabers, one's the Blue Anakin, one's the Purple Mace Windu. The Anakin one is clunky and has all sorts of knobby bits that get in the way(so far, my opponent has cut my knuckle and abraded his thumb with the thing, in two duels), but the Windu one is actually pretty comfortable...but the Anakin one was  designed for episode IV, the Windu one for Episode II.  So I dunno.  :|  -Graptor
::From the pictures I have seen, Palpatine's hilt seems to be perhaps the most ergonomic of all canonical lightsabers. Luis Dantas 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is clearly why he was so good with it. Not cause he was a Dark Lord of the Sith or anything. Nah, it's all down to lightsaber hilts! Hehehe... Deskana (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilt ergonomics 

message: Well? --Pece Kocovski 04:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be more specific? Your comment is too vague to investigate. Deskana (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i wrote some jedi in the list from kotor 1 --Pece Kocovski 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long ago was that? You're not really giving me enough information to check what happened to it. Deskana (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it happened along time ago, but i recently checked out the list, it contains the jedi charaters i added from kotor: bastila, juhani anf jolee. --Pece Kocovski 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was wrong with what I added? 

message: From the article: "In some circumstances, the props cause a goof: they cast their shadow on floor, while the energy 'blade' shouldn't."
There's an interesting point with this, actually.  I just got a Master Replicas Force FX Saber() for Christmas. In terms of looks, it is by far the closest thing I've ever seen to looking anything like the sabers in the movies.  I don't think it glows quite as brightly, but it's really suprisingly bright.  I was somewhat suprised to discover that when it's on, it casts a very noticible shadow, even when it's very close to the surface the shadow is showing on.  Definately weaker than it would be, and definetly purple tinged, but any reasonably strong light source quickly overwhelms it and causes it to cast a shadow, even though it is itself casting light. In fact, it only doesn't cast a shadow when in dim lighting conditions, where it's the strongest lightsource in the area.  This actually may not be too far off, as in the movies, when they DO cast light on something they don't really cast all that much.
Now granted this thing's got a solid, opaque center...but you can't see through the lightsaber blades in the movies either(obviously because it's a solid prop, but who's to say a pure energy weapon couldn't be opaque?)  So the question is...is this really a goof, or just one of those things that common sense tells you wouldn't be the case when it, in fact, is?(or in this case, might be, as so many properties of the things are undescribed.)
Just an observation.
-Graptor
:You're right. It has been stated (I think in a Star Wars Insider issue) that the lightsaber blades are opaque - light can't go through them, even though they emit light. Common sense says that they shouldn't cast a shadow, but once you think about it, light can't pass through the blade of a lightsaber - how do you know this? - because you can't see through it. -Xol 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's opaque, it casts a shadow, because the light cant get the to spot where the shadow is, basically. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said that light can't pass through energy? Lightning doesn't cause shadows, does it? At least I think it doesn't. Its possible that light can go through the lightsaber, therefore making the saber cast no shadows. _-M o P-_ 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber Shadows 

message: I could use some help here...this article EV suits appears to be about a fictional device, but the article doesn't make it clear.  Since the creator of the article has mostly created Star Wars articles, I think it might be a Star Wars thing.  Could somebody check it out? NickelShoe 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be talking about envirosuits (from KOTOR) - I bet there's an article about those somewhere... okay, maybe not. But I'm going to move the article to envirosuit (this is referenced elsewhere in wikipedia (Mira), but there's no article. EV suits was linked to by Moon, Kr, a Star Wars article. -Xol 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[EV suits]] 

message: Under the "other variants" section it lists the "Lightrapier" used by Dooku and the "Lightclub" used by Gork.  I have never heard of any of these terms being used other than this article and I wouldn't be surprised if they were just made up.  I could be incorrect however as I can not claim to having read all EU material.  However, I object to the term "Lightrapier" and its description on the principle that rapiers, both classical and modern, do not have handles curved in that fashion.  The closest match to such a curved handle that I know of would be the French grip which has only a very slight curve.  The main distinction of the rapier from other swords is the blade and the resulting fighting style, since the blade of Dooku's rapier is seemingly no different than most other Lightsabers, I do not see why it should be called a Lightrapier.  In this case, any difference in the grip/fighting style should be attributed to personal preference of the user rather than an entire new subset of lightsaber.  As for "Lightclub", the only distinction between this Lightsaber and any other is the size of the grip and blade which is just a concession to the size of the wielder himself.  His fighting style maybe a little heavy-handed due to his physique and lack of finesse but I doubt this term has any credence as well.  It is fundamentally the same as any other single-bladed Lightsaber, just larger and thus if it were to garner any distinction, which I do not believe that it shoud, it would be a Great Lightsaber or some such.  I am removing the other variants section as these are the only entries under it and I believe it should stay that unless somebody can come up with some sort of canonical proof that disputes my argument.
BadgerMan 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightrapier and Lightclub 

message: Too many images! I think this article has a bit of image overload. Deskana (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There really are too many images on this page. Take a look at Wikipedia:Fair Use. "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.". I'd say one photo of lightsabres of different colours, and two or three hilts would be pushing it, and there are at present more than this. I'm going to remove a few. Deskana (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are two pics of Anakin and Obi-Wan holding blue lightsabers (one posed, one combat) necessary? I would prefer to see only one or the other (probably the "action shot") in the article. We could probably also stand to remove one other picture from the "colors" section... maybe Plo Koon (he's a relatively minor character compared to the others depicted.) And would it be possible to have one solid closeup of a hilt for the "construction details" section? I think it would be beneficial to have at least one good picture showing as many of these parts as possible. --BinaryTed 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images have been trimmed out; it now effectively shows examples of lightsabers dueling, a double-bladed lightsaber, and lightsaber colors. _-M o P-_ 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images! 

message: Why are there two entries on light dagger/knife? I think the second one should probably be deleted... Tyciol 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the two sections. Deskana (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! :) Tyciol 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Lightdaggerage 

message: I've put in a citation needed tag on a comment stating that lightsabres are actually being develeoped for military use, I find the idea questionable and require a source. Anyone want to second that? There's no room for lies, and if it IS true it definately deserves a much greater exploration, that's damn interesting. Tyciol 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it would probably be possible to create something that resembles a lightsaber. However, the hilt would more than likely be so hot that it burns your hand off, and if the containment failed you'd get superheated gas escaping all over the room and killing everyone! Deskana (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no scientist, but you'd think the beam would keep going and going like a laser beam.Cameron Nedland 20:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't have a scientific background but I think it may be possible to produce an emfield that is violitial to anything it touches causing a lightsabre like reaction--TrueOberon 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Check on real-world military developement of lightsabres 

message: I noticed Mith deleted it without explanation. My assumption was that it was viewed as advertising. Despite that, if it's the only official lightsabre being sold, it might still be relevant. Either or, it's best to discuss mass deletions in Talk before going through with them, or at the very least, use the 'editing info' box to describe why. Tyciol 06:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I took it off because there is already a link to the site on the bottom and because the average user of Wikipedia doesn't need to know about a company's specific products. I think there should be a note put down on their link though that they are the only place that makes them officially but I wasn't sure what the wording should be. Right now it says a site for collectors specializing in making different props from the Star Wars movies. What are official lightsabers called? Offical? Certified? Licensed? Adding that to the link would be fine. I think the user's smart enough to find products for themselves if they want an official lightsaber. Mithridates 06:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ForceFX Lightsabre toy mention deletion 

message: I find this article to be entirely excessive. The Star Wars dorks have taken this over and made it way more than it needed to be. Seriously though, somewhere around the Contents box there should be an italicized note that says "Everything thing from here down is fictional explanation of how the light saber is integrated into various Star Wars storylines."
Also I agree that there should only be one picture and that these multiple images are in violation of Wikipedia Terms of Use.
--Dino213aa 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely overdone 

message: Scientists have utilized a laser to create hot focus points in mid-air, resulting in flashes of plasma.  Thus, the illusion of a lightsaber using plasma is possible without having to resort to magnetic containment.  This is different than what is posted under "Lightsabers in reality" where plasma is only mentioned in being sustained by massive energy inside a magnetic confine.  This technology can also potentially lead to StarWars-type 3d displays.
http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html
24.55.81.122 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Plasma Technique 

message: ===Supreme Lightsabers===
Only one is known to have existed, which was held by the Supreme Grand Jedi Master Claytonium. Made from pure light of the Force, the energy inside was more powerful than the death star could create. It would glow a brilliant and blinding white light from which yellow electric blots would climb up its 10 foot length. It would be only usable to that Jedi welding it and would destroy any other object it would come into contact with due to the immense Force concentrated energy.
The dark side may weld one as well. It is pure black which is created out of the hatred and evil in the Force. With red like waves crawling up its saber it admits a field of pure aggression and hatred that anyone who were to be on the same planet would succumb to its dark power.
I've never even heard of this and I'm pretty into Star Wars. The entire description sounds made up, could someone provide a source? I checked Wookiepedia. Supreme Grandmaster Claytonium isn't an entry and neither is supreme lightsaber. Supreme lightsaber also doesn't appear in their lists of types. I removed it until substantial evidence can be given. --Swali 02:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like more of that SuperShadow crap has leaked into an article. The Wookieepedian 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like total crap. :-P --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In these cases just don't assume good faith. "held by the supreme Grand Jedi Master Claytonium". Hmm, what a nice bogus title. "Made from pure light of the force... 10 foot length...". Wielded by the "supreme jedi master" but yet a weapon made by Sith methods. Wow. _-M o P-_ 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Lightsaber? 

message: Only one is known to have existed, which was held by the Supreme Grand Jedi Master Claytonium. Made from pure light of the Force, the energy inside was more powerful than the death star could create. It would glow a brilliant and blinding white light from which yellow electric blots would climb up its 10 foot length. It would be only usable to that Jedi welding it and would destroy any other object it would come into contact with due to the immense Force concentrated energy.
The dark side may weld one as well. It is pure black which is created out of the hatred and evil in the Force. With red like waves crawling up its saber it admits a field of pure aggression and hatred that anyone who were to be on the same planet would succumb to its dark power.
I've never even heard of this and I'm pretty into Star Wars. The entire description sounds made up, could someone provide a source? I checked Wookiepedia. Supreme Grandmaster Claytonium isn't an entry and neither is supreme lightsaber. Supreme lightsaber also doesn't appear in their lists of types. I removed it until substantial evidence can be given. --Swali 02:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like more of that SuperShadow crap has leaked into an article. The Wookieepedian 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like total crap. :-P --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In these cases just don't assume good faith. "held by the supreme Grand Jedi Master Claytonium". Hmm, what a nice bogus title. "Made from pure light of the force... 10 foot length...". Wielded by the "supreme jedi master" but yet a weapon made by Sith methods. Wow. _-M o P-_ 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Lightsabers

message: That section can be trimmed down and put under 'Trivia'.  Also, it should use * instead of hypens — with proper italics, interlinking, etc. —Mirlen 12:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber theories 

message: All 5 of the images in this article are prequel related. The Original Trilogy is completely neglected, even though it is almost unanimously considered to be the superior one. I suggest that at least 3 of the images be replaced for OT ones, especially the one on the top of the page.--Josh 02:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it matter where the images come from? The argument could be made that the prequel era is a better source for images, since each single prequel film has several times more lightsabers than the entire original trilogy combined (only four sabers in three movies). EVula 03:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And surely the prequels have "better looking" lightsabers. I wouldn't mind replacing one with a OT image, but replacing so many would seem a little drastic to me. Perhaps one of the famous battle scenes? Emmanovi 06:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I went a little over the top. I have a pretty strong dislike for the prequels, I guess, and was just upset to see absolutely no OT pics. I still think that the image on the top of the page should be an OT pic, though. Perhaps this one? --Josh 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should instead have a simple image of a lightsaber at the top, like :Image:Sidiouslightsaberside.jpg (I'd rather a regular Jedi hilt be shown; I'm only providing that one as a reference for what I mean). I like that image, but the quality is fairly low. If someone could get a screencap of the modern DVD of that scene, I think it would be an excellent choice for the Lightsaber colors heading. EVula 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought before that the top pic on the page should be one of Luke and Vader on Cloud City. Kafziel 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images. 

message: Both spellings are used in the article. Which should be used? Does wikipedia have an official policy about this sort of thing? I want armour because I'm English so armor looks wrong to me, but if it's decided to go for that I don't mind as long as the article is consistent. --Tim 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Star Wars are American films, and policy suggests that as such, American spellings should be used. I believe armor is preferred. I'll look up the policy in question. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we are. Manual of Style. Not a policy, but a guideline, so should still generally be followed. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armor it is then. I thought there was something along those lines, but I wasn't sure. I'll change them all to armor now. --Tim 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've no idea how that happened, but thank you very much for sorting it out! --Tim 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour vs. Armor 

message: "...The blade is completely flat with a pointed tip..." -- 2006 24.218.178.112, 07:59, August 6, 2006.
Since when is a 'saber's blade flat?  A real sword is flat; lightsabers have a rounded blade.  Unless someone can point at a resource stating that 'sabers have a flat blade, I'm reverting this edit. -- Raveled 14:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber Characteristics 

message: I'm offically protesting the second picture being used in the Double-Bladed section of the article.  It is unneccessary and not Star Wars related.  If there needs to be a second picture, which I don't think there does, it should be of something like Exar Kun with the original double-bladed saber, or Bastila Shan with hers: actualy characters in Star Wars canon. -- Raveled 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that would be pretty freaking cool, but not the sort of thing that would need to be in this article. EVula 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this article, but the WP does have a Fanzine article, perhaps if one can find a political-science-fiction fanzine that has exactly the fan-draw-picture you speak of, then yes that would be appropriate to include in that article. -- Tomlouie | talk 21:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-Bladed Picture 

message: "*In The Empire Strikes Back, Han Solo used Luke Skywalker's (formerly Anakin Skywalker's) lightsaber after he rescued Luke from a snowstorm on Hoth, making him the only untrained user of the device in any of the original three movies."
Who in the prequel trilogy uses a lightsaber untrained?  I know it happens a bit in the EU -- hell, there's at least one character built around the idea.  But I didn't think there was anyone like that in the movies (bsides Han's little scene). -- Raveled 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General Grievous in Ep3 wielded lightsabers.  According to his bio, he was trained by Count Dooku, so in a way, Han still is the only "untrained" person seen using a lightsaber in the 6 SW movies.  Or you can state that Han & Grievous are the only two non Force-capable people who have been seen to use lightsabers in the 6 movies. -- Tomlouie | talk 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wookieepedia:Lightsaber#In the hands of non-Force-sensitive users for a complete list. The Wookieepedian 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untrained Users 

message: Revan used an 'unnamed Dark Side technique'?  Since when?  I've played the game through more than once, and it seemed to me that Revan used the same fighting styles as any other Jedi (or Dark Jedi). -- Raveled 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revan's Style? 

message: This article as it currently stands is too long and is far too fannish in tone. 
--Charlesknight 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long and too fannish 

message: someone clear this up for me - I'm not a big Star wars fan but I do own this - according to a revert, this is canon? how?
--Charlesknight 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splinter of the mind's eye 

message: I have added Boba Fett to the list of people other than Jedis who are proficient with lightsabers due to the fact that he fought a lightsaber duel with Darth Vader and held his own (albiet losing in the end) as per the Boba Fett article. Please stop reverting my edits. Jtrainor 09:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we add Boba Fett, we may as well add every character who ever used a lightsaber in any capacity.  Why not Han Solo, or that bounty hunter that runs around with a whole case of them? -- Raveled 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry lists people other than Jedi who are PROFICIENT, not every mook who's used one. Holding up to Darth Vader in a duel obviously means you're proficient. Jtrainor 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boba Fett 

message: Under the "Blade characteristics" section, it says "Also, in Episode I: Phantom Menace, when Obi-Wan Kenobi cuts Darth Maul in half, some people hold that a spray of Blood is seen. This is red smoke, caused by the ink in Darth Maul's tatoos as they vaporize along with his flesh upon coming in contact with the superheated blade. The blade does not radiate any heat and only loses energy when it cuts through something."
This makes no sense at all... So, can someone correct this? Somehow his tattoos vaporizing seems to be a rather lacking explanation... 66.222.181.28 08:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darth Maul's "Blood" 

message: What is a carbon stunt rod? Hey baby wanna see my carbon stunt rod? --Gbleem 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon stunt rod 

message: "After the extermination of the Jedi ranks, lightsabers became rare relics and knowledge of their construction was lost. Luke Skywalker, the last of the Jedi, built his own lightsaber as the culmination of his training."
How did he build one if the skill was lost? --Gbleem 13:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume Obi Wan or more likely Yoda taught him. -- Raveled 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lost 

message: Can someone please block ISP 65.169.41.4 from editing?  Whoever it is keeps asserting that the lightsaber is a real weapon. -- Raveled 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they've only done it once... EVula 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There used to be a section for all the types of lightsabers and i think this should be put back in or there should be a page just for "lisghtsaber types." --Aaronpark (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This text was deleted as unnecessary, in-universe trivia and cruft. Wookieepedia is a more appropriate repository for information of that type. --EEMIV (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well why do we have an article on lightsabers at all if that's the case? Some could go, sure, but WAY too much has gone. This article really doesn't tell much more than you could glean from the movies and a couple forums. I'd say this has gone sub-par. RCIWesner (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of lightsabers and styles 

message: Why did it have to be shortened? there is a simple english wiki, why not restore it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was about time the crap had to get cut. bibliomaniac15 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is bad now 

message: This page is crap:  bloated, repetitious, and yet strangely devoid of interesting details.  One example:  it says about eight times that red is the preferred color of Sith lightsabers, giving no real reason.  There's a good survey of canon and extended universe examples, but the attempts to justify things logically are empty handwaving (the entire section on blade color never makes clear what difference color makes, or if there's a real difference at all).  If it's not clear why something is the way it is (with reference to the movies or books), the article shouldn't mention it.
:Someone needs to print this out and take a red pen to it.  The actual content justifies something maybe half as long. 24.84.49.76 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. The article seemed full of typical überfan-nitpicking. I'd say there might be perhaps 1-2 paragraphs worth of content in all of this mess. In addition to the ridiculousness, there's an evenly long Lightsaber combat page which is completely redundant and should be merged into this article. These kind of nerdish fan articles are among the fundamental reasons why Wikipedia is having credibility problems in the "real world". I'm not a SW fan so I'm requesting for someone "more qualified" to clean this up. piksi (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: George Lucas wanted the Jedi and the Sith to have their own visual identities in the films and thus gave them their distinct red lightsabers for the Sith and green or blue for the Jedi, with the one exception of Mace Windu and his purple lightsaber at Samuel L. Jackson's insistence. This has been explained in the canon storylines outside the films. Some of the information is even in this very article I believe, though unfortunately not all of it. The crystals available to the Jedi were originally of all colors and hues, but the caves they gathered them from were destroyed in war, leaving limited supply and variation (the green and blue, again Mace Windu is special), and the red ones are synthesized. You asked, I answered. Nerds of cheese, nerds of printing presses, nerds of cathode-ray tubes -- it's nerds like these that make Wikipedia (you included), and Star Wars is just another topic. RCIWesner (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Need of Serious Cleanup 

message: This article doesn't actually have a picture of a turned-on lightsaber?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.156.23 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone noticed 

message: The physics in this wiki is so incredibly bad. It should be cleaned up or removed. I mean come on guys. Your reference to photoelectric effect is straight up wrong. The photoelectric effect is when a photon ejects an electron. Not something that emits light. Wsduvall 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics 

message: Is it possible that a real lightsaber could be made within the relatively near future? I heard that to actually make one there would be several violations of the laws of physics regarding light or energy; could a real lightsaber ever be made? The closest thing that I've ever seen to a real lightsaber is the neon light replica that reinactors often have at Walmart or some other place selling photo-ops in costume; obviously, they are nowhere near a real lightsaber that could cut anything. Any oppinions? Has a working lightsaber ever been constructed? Thanks
Answer:
NOOOOO!!! Obviously the lightsaber violates ever law of physics known to man. I real lightsaber could not be constructed because reality follows these laws we call physics. For starters, lasers extend for very long distances, until there light is absorbed. So that rules out laser for a lightsaber. I have heard people say that a cylinder is rotated at near c (thats the speed of light...) and at those speeds, virtual photons are emitted. But that violates conservation of energy. To move even electrons at those velocity requires a good deal of energy, and to rotate a sphere at that speed would require ridicules amounts of energy (more on this later). Since infinite power supplies don't exits and violate physics so many ways, this is impossible. If the lightsaber where to be converted into pure energy (using antimatter) it still wouldn't have enough energy to function for any amount of time. Also, if two objects moving at near c touched, the torques would be ridicules. Wsduvall 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can that be cited or proved? In reality, that should be physically impossible. Unless there can be some kind of restraining field preventing energy/the laser beam from diffusing further than four feet or in any direction. Not to mention I'm inclined to think that energy of this kind (not laser beam, more like plasma or something) would be incredibly radioactive. Danny Sepley 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real lightsaber??? 

message: This article needs some pics from the OT. Superior1 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Trilogy 

message: Any place to mention the joke that the violet lightsaber is "the one that says 'bad motherfucker'" because of Samuel L. Jackson's line in Pulp Ficton? Damien Shiest 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violet lightsaber 

message: I added an OR tag to the possible theories on the lightsabre's origin section.  So far, George Lucas's statement about Robin Hood is the only part with actual relevence.  Are the other theories proposed by outside sources or just ideas cooked up by other wikipedians? 199.126.137.209 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They took down the origin section!!! VANDALISM!!! Put it back up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.218.109 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible theories 

message: What would be the most advance lightsaber used today in the comic books????
: Is what you mean "what is the latest interpretation of the lightsaber in modern comic books"? or "whats the coolest lightsaber around"? neither of which are very...sensible questions.JonathanLee98 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps "Which lightsaber in recent comic books is the most technologically advanced?" Applejuicefool (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Remember that the fall of the Jedi order at the rise of the Empire set everything back to square one in terms of development. As for Corran Horn's Dual Phase lightsaber I don't think his is the first one, rather he was the first to experiment with lightsaber construction whithin the New Jedi Order. I think Corran might have got the idea from Halcyon Horn (his grandfather)210.215.75.4 (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi-tech lightsaber 

message: As with any article where too many people know about the subject, this one is full of repetition. Just in the introduction, we hear three times that the sabre can deflect blaster fire. Would you people please READ the article before thinking you have anything to add. Quase 12:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: This section seems to assume that lightsaber blades are supposed to be lasers, which I don't find recorded anywhere canonical, or indeed anywhere earlier in the article. Have I missed it, or is this whole section just destroying a strawman? Skittle 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  George doesn't know what a lightsaber is.  It's been used before in Scifi. Check nonfiction category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.231.36 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just because Lucas said it once doesn't make it canon. Obviously modern technology can't produce a lightsaber using a laser or anything else - otherwise, somebody would build one. It's pretty obvious to me that the above comment by George Lucas (if he wrote it) was intended to describe what a lightsaber looks like and basically give some clue about how it functions, not to definitively explain its technical workings. Applejuicefool (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'In Reality' Section 

message: That table has to go - we do not need to list everyone who's touched or ever seen a lightsaber - that level of detail does not belong here. --Larry laptop 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: There's been some vandalism on this article. Thought I'd bring this to people's attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.96.210.48 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you didn't know, you don't have to go through the article finding every instance of the word "penis pump" and typing "lightsaber" if someone's done it in a few edits. You can go to the 'history' tab, look for an earlier version before the person's vandalised the article, and edit that version. Just save with a note in the edit summary box. This is how we can keep on top of vandalism; it takes a fraction of the time to revert that it takes to vandalise. Skittle 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This is the only place I could think of to ask this question. There was an tv ad on a while ago that was selling duelable lightsabers.Does anybody remember the website or the name of the company? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gundam94 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk page that discusses improvement of the article, not a discussion page to ask questions. Simply Google search for lightsabers; I know for one that many sources will sell plasma-like blades or lit tubes along with the lightsaber handle. Danny Sepley 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectors Item 

message: why does this site say crystals can be synthisised? in the book "starwars: the visual dictionary" it sais they cant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.125.146 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they can.  Luke did so in Shadows of the Empire.  I'm not sure why The Visual Dictionary would claim otherwise. Prometheus-X303- 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: should this be deleted? why or why not? I dont see the point of this since there is article that outlines this already. List of energy blades XAV 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lightsabers in other media 

message: This article is in need of a major rewrite, as pointed out several times on this talk page, and I am quite prepared to do this myself.  But not if people are going to get upset over it.  So would anyone object if I were to rewrite the entire article?  --Stenun 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, It's too large.  Include information about how Lucas came up with the design along with the movie prop designer information.  http://moongadget.com/origins/lightsabers.html --69.149.218.109 (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Rewrite, sure, but aim the rewrite for greater clarity, organization, and depth, and absolutely not solely for length. SOO much has been ripped out of the article, and I for one don't like that it doesn't say a third the stuff it used to. RCIWesner (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite needed 

message: Lightsabre is spelt Lightsabre not Lightsaber.
:first, please sign your comments. you can easily do so by typing a series of four tildes (~). second, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Whateley23 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm English. The word "sabre" is the correct spelling. However, this article is about a primarily American film, therefore the correct spelling is clearly Lightsaber. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Deskana. Check the subtitles in the films; it's obviously Lightsabers, not Lightsabres. Yes, "sabre" is more correct than "saber"; that's just how it's pronounced, not "sae-breh" (eh, I'm not sure if it's like that; but I know a lot of people would probably say "sae-breh"). Also, the general consensus as to how it's spelled; Ryan Wieber of Ryan Vs. Dorkman spells it like that, "The Art of the Lightsaber", and so on, so forth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny sepley (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sabre and saber are acceptable spellings. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsabre 

message: we should remove mention of fan film —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.153.104 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linksaber 

message: in star wars clone wars, the banking clan sends a bounty hunter named durge to fight the clones and obi wan ends up fighting him. he stabs him in the heart but nothing happens he just laughs and starts punching obi wan. and then obi wan slashes him in 2 but he reforms himslef. how is that possible?71.2.38.191 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Durge has no vital organs and regenerates whatever damage he takes.  See his entry: Durge#Durge. Anyway, that's not really a question about lightsabers, now is it? Luis Dantas 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durge The bounty hunter: anti lightsaber material? 

message: Stephen Colbert mentioned on his show last night that light sabers have a longer article than the printing press (FIVE TIMES longer, in fact). It is ridiculous that we have an 10,000+ word article on a fictional item. How can anyone defend statements like "'Historically, these complex blades were constructed mostly by ancient Jedi and Sith'," and even having a "History" section for a fictional item is ludicrous. This article has got to be trimmed a lot, the question is how much. Aplomado talk 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trim? Why? What's wrong with having plenty of information available. It's possible that this article should be split, but just because another, "more important," article is much shorter doesn't mean we should remove information from here. It means we should make the other article longer, in a good way. Yes, the stuff people are more interested in get longer articles. But trimming articles and removing content is hardly the solution. (P.S. with the publicity, the printing press article will grow) Gscshoyru 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the printing press has gotten as much press as it's going to get after a few centuries. Honestly, I understand and respect your argument, but I feel that taking 10,000+ words to discuss a fictional item is a bit excessive. Where do you think the line ought to be drawn? Aplomado talk 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean we should remove them. We're trying to build a compendium of knowledge here. Since when does removing content increase our knowledge of other articles, or further out purpose? It doesn't. And you know what? It'd be great if all the articles were this length, full of useful content. But they aren't. So increase their length -- don't decrease the length of this one. Gscshoyru 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No Wikipedia's content are not guided by Steven Colbert. Wikipedia's content and policies are determined by Jimbo Wales, King Nerd and creator of Aspergers syndrome.MiltonP Ottawa (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert is right 

message: is it wrong to give in- depth detail about something that 9 million people worldwide want details about? Not really. weird fans like those 2 linksaber hating nerds up there and sane fans like me want details. there's nothing wrong with that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.226.35 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... is there a reason why you're including me? Perhaps you should read what I said, above. Gscshoyru 14:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stephen colbert is wrong 

message: I won't change anything, but I don't think the Z-Saber is quite the same as a lightsaber, at least until Megaman X6, it seems to be more "fluid", almost like a wave or a whip.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargomon251 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Z-Saber 

message: Was force sensitive, and should not be listed as a non-force sensitive user. Wookiepedia has more complete info.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.142.234 (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aurra Sing 

message: Does the Beam Katana/Hacksaw used in No More heroes by Travis Touchdown count as a Lightsaber?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No More Heroes 

message: Under the "Lightsaber Types" section, there should be a part devoted to the "Force Saber" mentioned in The Crystal Star. These sabers were created without an activation button so that only Force-sensitive users could activate them.
68.4.231.10 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *And are you saying that doesn't qualify as a different type of lightsaber? A saber without the button sounds different to me. Applejuicefool (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmentioned Type of Saber 

message: It is possible, in the Star Wars Universe at least, that the blade of a lightsaber is determined not just by a single beam, but by a combination of the "beam" energy conjoined with a radial energy.  Suppose the radiation that forms the visible blade is originally inert, and would behave no differently than a beam of ordinary-but focused-light.  The radial energy could also be "harmless", with the exception of maybe emitting a few rads.  Since both would be generated out of the same crystal, only the beam from that particular crystal would react with the radial aura. In real physics, light travels fastest through a vacuum, and more slowly through things like glass and water.  This radial aura/radiation would react with the beam so that it would slow it down so much the light beam would travel at a mere 2 meters per second, as we see to be the approximate speed a lightsaber blade ignites.  As the beam escapes the aura, it becomes inert and presumably invisible light/electromagnetic radiation.  A beam of slowed light could presumably cut through about anything, and contain enough mass to deflect matter.  12.146.22.19 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  complimentary radiation theory 

message: This was in the caption for the picture of Lightsabers on the top of the page, it's wrong, Luke only had this type of Lightsaber in Episode VI Return of the Jedi so I changed it.  The Lightsaber he has in Episodes IV and V is Anikin Skywalker's old lightsaber, the same one that Obi-Wan picked up at the end of the Mustafar duel in Episode III.  12/29/2007 Zeelog1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.23.154 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke Skywalker (Episodes IV and V) 

message: Hi, i have post 2 times the info about a sword similar to a lightsaber that appears in a videogame called deus ex. It has been deleted 2 times, and I dont see any mention here. Any guess?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.70 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videogame Deus Ex 

message: why when i click on the beam katana link on the [[No more heroes (video game)] page it goes to a page on lightsabers? they're completely different. Techo (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Looking at the picture on the No more heroes article, it looks like that weapon involves a physical structure along the blade, possibly to contain (by reflection or absorption) the laser blade. IMO this is different enough that it is not an "obvious nod to the [Star Wars] series." Applejuicefool (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No More Heroes 

message: Is there any info of where george lucas came up with the light saber, and perhaps myths that involve a
light or energy blade. to discuss where he could have gathered ideas for the light saber.72.94.107.221 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression has always been that it's just a 'futuristic'/Sci-Fi look grafted onto various martial art-weapons. Be interesting to know, though. I saw Samuel L. Jackson interviewed once, and he said that there were 8 or so stances, modelled on some form of martial art/weapons training, so whichever school that was, must have had a substantial impact... ntnon (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a whole damn section on this and they DELETED it. 
http://moongadget.com/origins/lightsabers.html--69.149.218.109 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  development and such 

message: In the section titled Non-Force users (number 5) it says that leia used a lightsaber, before she had any lightsaber or force training, it then says that "Some may say that Leia does possess the force, however." I think that there can be no debate about whether or not leia has the force - she obviously does. Unless somebody disagrees on this page with in 7 days I'm going to take out Leias name out of the list of non-force users who have used a lightsaber. Regards - Derob ecnirp (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've deleted it here it is if anybody thinks we should add it again: In Splinter of the Mind's Eye, Leia Organa used Luke Skywalker's lightsaber in a nearly fatal attempt to hold off Darth Vader. This was before she had any training in use of the Force or lightsabers, and it showed. Only the sacrifice of the Yuzzim Hin and Vader's own overconfidence prevented her untimely demise. Some may say that Leia does possess the force, however. - Kingpin (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leia is a non-force user???? 

message: Under the colors section of this article there is the phrase "Star Wars is for nerds" repeated many times, i tried to delete the offending section, but it does not appear in the editing box. Can someone tell me why this is so?
Nosmo Kex (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Vandalism 

message: In the "Colors" section it claims "In the original film trilogy, lightsaber blades could be blue, green, purple, or red." It may be I'm wrong but I don't remember ever hearing about or seeing anything resembling a purple lightsaber while watching the original movies, this is unsourced information and might be original research. Can I remove this claim until someone can cite a refrence? 68.219.26.177 (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber Colors 

message: This article is a mess, full of statements that are entirely unsourced and only of interested to die-hard fans. we are NOT a star wars wiki, we are a general readers encyclopedia. the force is not strong in this one. Needs serious hack and slashing. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Iit should be noted that this user is the same person as Allemantando, below, and Frederick Day, who has been blocked indefinitely for harassment. I don't even want to imagine what he had to say to get that. While this does not automatically invalidate his opinions, the insulting and condescenting messages above are unacceptable and he is completely wrong in describing Wikipedia as a "general readers" encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Five pillars says otherwise, and more importantly, if we were a general encyclopedia we'd have to start with a slash-and-burn of tens to hundreds of thousands of astronomical, geographical and other scientific articles. --Kizor 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is he? I thought that the point was that articles had to be understandable by anyone? Not just (in this case) Star Wars spotters who know Luke Skywalker's inside leg measurement. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 inches. Duh. --EEMIV (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Understandable to anyone already with a general grasp on the subject. Like I can expect you to know what "calculator" means when I speak of calculus, I don't have to dumb it down just to be able to say that everyone can understand it (not that a calculator is a very advanced topic, please just bear with). Honestly, I don't know what all of the items on the planet and astronomical articles are (and I'm in astronomy NAS132 now), but I still get not only the general idea but an in-depth and worthwhile reading on the material. Some things aren't necessarily appropriate for the section they're in or for the article at all, but we can definitely do with keeping detail and working things in how they fit. RCIWesner (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  where to start with this incoherent in-universe bloated article 

message: Proposed merging content from Lightsaber combat. It seems like the one subject is completely contained within the other, and the two articles could be more streamlined (and even informative) as one. I'm guessing it was only split off from this article in the first place because it's source section was getting so long, but that article has since been greatly trimmed, and there would be no such problem anymore. This merge was a near consensus in the recent AfD for lightsaber combat. I'd just go ahead and do it myself, but I see there's been contention about these articles before and I'd like to get unambiguous consesnsus. It might also be good if somebody who actually knows more about the topic could perform the merge. Mycroft7 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of those supporting the merge in the AfD.  Seems like it would fit right in the "in the films" section. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just merge it, and then you can start trimming it Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  ok we did it. Now.. let's head for FA status. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Any important content that we need will be added, and if we have an overwhelming amount of information on lightsaber combat, of course there can be another article on it. But for now, all lightsaber stuff should be right here, as we need to know if there is enough stuff to make an FA on all aspects of Lightsabers. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal with lightsaber combat 

message: Anyone know where this information comes from? --Allemandtando (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it from an electric fence? I remember that from a documentary about it, but I can't provide an actual source. Sorry. 125.238.134.173 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Foley recordings for the lightsaber included a guy wire being struck with a lead pipe as well.24.84.15.146 (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the sound section 

message: "Colored", under Production--Visual Effect, first paragraph, links inappropriately to the derogatory term regarding African Americans in the United States, rather than to a page regarding neon or another form of colored light.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.159.209 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: Who ever deleted the article into just a few paragraphs is being unhelpful. --Ericg33 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, it appears that the person behind this has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and persistent failure to play nice with others. There goes the benefit of the doubt for his actions here. --Kizor 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Seriously. I checked up on this article after a few months and was taken aback by the lack of pictures -- what I was actually going to the page for, to compare to the upcoming game's (SWTOR) lightsabers. They're all gone, along with the bulk of the article. This is very useful information, and quite relevant; this is not "cleanup" at ALL, only butchery of meaningful writing. I move to restore what was chucked out. RCIWesner (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much. At the same time, the previous version looks like it might've had trouble with original research and verifiability. Please wait a bit so that I can go through both when I have the time, on Friday the 27th (UTC), and I'll see if I can get some good to come of this. Afterwards, or if I suffer an attack of incompetence and don't get it done, feel free to have at it. --Kizor 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was stunned too. The previous version was marvelous. This looks like it was gleaned from the footnotes of a speech at a con. I thought it was pretty well sourced. Good luck Kizor. MARussellPESE (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the previous version was uncited, in-universe plot summary and trivia. This article can use expansion, but "restoration" of deleted cruft is a step in the wrong direction. --EEMIV (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, isn't the deletion of what people want to know also a step in the wrong direction? I mean, let's face it, us geeks and nerds who want the deleted cruft, as you put it, are not looking for the real life stuff. Basically, my point is, the complete deletion that occurred is not the answer either. What should have happened was to call out for people to find citations. Most of the information that was here could have been found and cited easily enough. 71.214.87.214 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wookopodia exists for the sort of material you are looking for. Cultural impact of star wars - that's us, How many buttons did Han Solo's slacks have on them? that's them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cultural impact, sure, but I think we should have a paragraph about what a lightsaber actually means in the context of the story, and I don't think we've quite done that yet beyond saying "it's a flashy weapon, here are some pictures we're not showing you" (arguably, there may not be too much else, but something more would be nice). I also suggest putting in a classic movie shot of one of the characters holding a lightsaber at the ready rather than the picture of "real-life Form VII Vaapad". Or maybe keep the Vaapad shot and just add the movie shot. I mean personally, I'm not too impressed by the Vaapad picture. Also, what happened to the rest of the discussion? RCIWesner (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the article is now deleted. 

message: This article doesn't show what a lightsaber looks like when turned on. The fair use rationale for this image says "the screenshot details notable roles of the actors depicted within the Jedi article and the Qui-Gon Jinn article, displayed within these articles in the use of critical commentary." Does this allow for the use of the image on this article? Jak86 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of an activated lightsaber 

message: Where did the content that dealt with the Lightsaber in the Star Wars universe go? What I see is a set of details about the prop, not the tool. Where is all the in-universe canon information? Anybody who is geeky enough knows that there are seven lightsaber forms, four lightsaber varieties, dozens of color possibilities, and many techniques. I came looking for the names of the forms and Anakin's hand-removal technique, but instead get technical aspects of the props.Ryoga-2003 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Jedi mind trick* This is not the wiki you're looking for. *points to Wookieepedia* Wookieepedia is the repository for such in-universe details. There are some conversation threads above that go into further detail on this. --EEMIV (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mind tricks only work on the weak minded. And while I am aware of wookiepedia. The logic falls apart when you look at other sci-fi pages, such as those for Star Trek and Stargate. There is plenty of in-universe stuff as well as real world aspects. See USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) or Goa'uld. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: That actually means there's cleanning up to do in those pages as well...--142.177.23.126 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I see the fanatical wikipedians have won again, as usual. Too bad, it used to be great around here. This is the main reason I didn't donate...Oblivionboy (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the in-universe content? 

message: Wasn't it more of an aqua/aquamarine originally, rather than a standard blue, until it mysteriously changed colour in The Empire Strikes Back? If so, couldn't that count as an extra colour? 64.180.93.200 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke's Lightsaber In Episode IV 

message: There is no confirmed sources that say that these will be used in Star Wars: The Old Republic. The link is just to a an official forum discussing the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.94.102 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed the actual uncited content. --EEMIV (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber Boomerang 

message: There has to be SOMETHING out there that people have written, trying to justify the theoretical validity of a lightsaber. I think this would be a useful addition to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.8.66 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction Theories? 

message: i think luke trains with a white lightsaber is the 4th(orginal) movie right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.147.93 (talk • contribs) 
:All the lightsabers have something of a white-ish "core"; the deeper color comes from the glow at the edges. --EEMIV (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the pure-white blade in ANH you speak of was a gaff on the part of the effects wizards. They were supposed to colour it in, but fail to do so. Anyway, I think that little oversight was rectified in Lucas's latest edition of the film, but I'm not sure since I haven't watched that version in years. 64.180.93.200 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  white lightsaber 

message: Way back before you were born, Larry Niven invented the "stasis field", "Sinclair" wire, and then put the two together into a Kzinti "Variable Sword". Lucas is the ultimate rip off artist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Energy Blade should actually have its own article. There are enough variants in popular sci-fi to do this.  GeiwTeol 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Sabre is Ripoff of variable sword of Larry Niven 

message: The article currently says: "Lightsaber (or Lightsabre in British English)". Although I would probably spell it as 'Lightsabre' (as a Brit), is this actually correct? I would have assumed that the word 'Lightsaber' was more of a trademark/brand name or similar. For instance, 'Game Boy Color' is still called 'Game Boy Color' over here (in the UK), despite our spelling of the word 'colour'. Zestos (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsabre in British-English 

message: The section needs to be cleaned up a lot 80.180.15.163 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: The Star Wars Guide to Weapons and technology has an interesting description of how a lightsaber works.
The Star Wars universe is a "laser sword"?  Sorry, but that's the way the first sentence reads.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.212.97 (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: The Double Sided Star Wars Lightsaber first appeared in Dark Horse's 'Knights of the Old Republic' series used by Exar Kun.  Just saying it is chronologically inaccurate to give credit to Darth Maul when it appeared three or four years before the Phantom Menace.72.37.249.60 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Sided Lightsaber Introduction 

message: I think Star Wars Galaxies had different colors such as gray? But, not sure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyphillius (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: There use to be an incredible wikipedia article on light saber combat but now it's gone. Why? You deletionists are ruining wikipedia!  Go start your own wikipedia with nothing on it please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.233.98 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber combat article 

message: Surely "about 4 feet long" is more sensible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.19.201 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's an American film, I would say that their system of measurement should be used. I would have it as "about four feet (1.33 metres) long". Then everyone knows what it means. As a Brit, I'm perfectly comfortable with both systems (as we're too stubborn to drop our old imperial system), but I think that seems like a fair compromise. The spelling of metres/meters should also be consistent with the system of spelling used by the article. Zestos (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "about 1.33 metres long" = 

message: It is utterly absurd that any Wikipedia search term that does not actually textually appear in a given article should redirect to that article.  'Vaapad' should be mentioned in this article or its redirection to this page should be stopped.  -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaapad 

message: This article seems to have way too many unneeded wikilinks. I am rectifying that. Ducknish (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: I don't see why the "plasma" sword theory is given preference over all the others because Star Wars made theirs the most popular, when there are many other literary presidents that are base on other technologies. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma Swords 

message: The Choreography section talks only about the Jedi - what about the Sith? Fig (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choreography 

message: Kaldar, Planet of Antares by Edmond Hamilton circa 1933 was republished in the mid 1960s.  
"The sword seemed at first glance a simple long rapier of metal. But [the hero, Stuart Merrick] found that when his grip tightened on the hilt it pressed a catch which released a terrific force stored in the hilt into the blade, making it shine with light. When anything was touched by this shining blade, he found, the force of the blade annihilated it instantly. He learned that the weapon was called a lightsword."
Citation: http://www.salon.com/2002/04/18/lucas_6/
Far Out Space Nuts, television series 1975-1976: Chuck McCann, who played Barney, said that Lucas was working on the same film lot in the early '70s, and wandered into the studio cafeteria one day to see the Space Nuts cast sitting around having lunch wearing various alien costumes - he believes that was the influence for the Cantina scene.1 McCann further suggests that the lightsaber was inspired by the "laser sword" from the Space Nuts episode Tower of Tagot, pictured above left. (Okay, I added the glow effect; in the original it looks like a glass stick on the end of a flashlight) Lightsabers were called "laser swords" in the first draft of Lucas' script and several concept paintings. Bob Denver's orange jumpsuit even looks like Luke's X-Wing pilot outfit!! (They were both probably influenced by Airforce flight suits.) 
Citation: http://moongadget.com/origins/lightsabers.html
I'm only quoting two main citations for these things.  I have checked with other sources and these quotes do check out.  I don't think there's a major issue with the sources, as they do seem to be legit.
There is one issue I cannot verify so I can't post outside of this note - the phrase light or laser sabre was used prior to star wars but I cannot find the source anymore and am unsure as to which one of the two it was.  If someone can verify / find that source, it'd be great.  I think that needs to be mentioned as soon as it's verified.  I do know that it was because of a similar or identical phrase that Lucas has had difficulty maintaining a tight IP control over lightsaber abroad.  I just can't find the source I used to have on the topic.  All I keep pulling up is some asinine lawsuit that Lucas tried to file then dropped a while ago with a manufacturer in Hong Kong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.50.83 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources for lightsabers should be mentioned 

message: I think the wookipedia article on light sabers should serve as a good model on how to improve this article. It gives good technical details as well as images of this devices contents. I'm not advocating replicating the article, but it seems to be very detailed and using it as a good model to work on isn't a bad idea. Taeyebaar (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of technical details and images  

message: I only added the detail that it burns/melts through because it's laser HEAT is what gives it the ability to penetrate as seen in the films; especially the phantom menace. Telling people simply that "it cuts" without adding the detail of burning/melting gives the impression of a metallic blade sword, which the lightsaber is not  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  light saber does not act like a metal blade 

message: I just watched SW-IV again and noticed in the credits that original spelling of the device is "Sabre". The credits include the line:
    Sabre Artists
    RITA ZIMMERMAN, CHAD TAYLOR, GRANT GUENIN
You can't get much more official than that. I'm surprised this page doesn't mention it.
: You've misread and misunderstood everything. It doesn't say "light sabre artists". A sabre is a real sword, spelled in an antiquated way because that's when the objects and their arts are from .... in reality, on Earth. Sabre artists are real, and lightsabers (as literally every source in the world calls them) are not. — Smuckola(talk) 04:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Spelling is "Sabre" 

message: This article sure seems to suffer from a lot of vandalism recently.
Didn't there use to be a "sighted version" thing to protect such pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.74.37 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The intro describes a lightsaber in metric (maybe it should be a lightsabre then?), 1 meter, then goes to describe the rest of it primarily in imperial primarily with metric secondary. Pick one primary and one secondary, but dont do both in the intro.  What I am referring to (bolded parts): "A typical lightsaber is over a meter in length total, usually consisting of a metal hilt (usually around 11 inches (28 cm) in length[1]) that projects a brightly-lit energy blade (usually around 3 feet (91 cm) in length".  Pick a unit of measurement as primary for the article and stick with it.  64.209.30.50 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the meter mention, as it was redundant to the more specific measurements anyway. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pick a unit of measurement 

message: Should the lightsaber shown in the infobox not be assigned to a character? The design is based on the one used by Luke in Return of the Jedi (as the file page says), but the blade is blue instead of green. I think something like "A typical lightsaber design." might be more appropriate.--Quarax (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurately labeled as Obi-Wan's. Luke's green saber was patterned after Obi-Wan's one in A New Hope, so their hilts look similar, but that is definitely Obi-Wan's saber from ANH (and Revenge of the Sith). oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox and Luke V2 lightsabers lack some of the details seen on Obi-Wan's hilt. Here's an image comparing Luke's V1 and Obi-Wan's hilts (the only notable difference between the V1 and V2 is the colors).--Quarax (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Luke's first saber looked completely different. oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: V1 doesn't refer to the lightsaber he gets from Obi-Wan. In Return of the Jedi, there were two different versions of Luke's lightsaber, but the only big difference between them was the colors.--Quarax (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightsaber in Infobox

message: We have a free use lightsaber image to give an image of a cross sided lightsaber. Why can we not use it?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I dispute the very premise. We don't have a depiction of a double bladed lightsaber, and that's probably more iconic. Plus it is a really bad image. It looks like an icon. It is not a good depiction of the actual prop at all, so labeling it as Kylo Ren'e is erroneous and misleading. And the blades look completely wrong, not a thing like any depiction of a lightsaber in any Star Wars media. It's just not needed there are many different variants; we don't need images for all of them let alone a terrible one. oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally agreed. The image that keeps getting dropped in is poor fan art and not an accurate reflection of the film prop or the process that went into designing it. For whomever's rushing to add it in (or keeping adding it), please remember WP:DEADLINE and take time to find a worthwhile image whose integration into the article can help bolster readers' understanding of the subject. --EEMIV (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Good point re. the lead image; it could stand to be taken out. Re. the copyright concern: that's what WP:NFCC is for. If the image substantially aids in understanding the subject in a way not otherwise done clearly with text (I'm simplifying here), then it probably needs NFCC criteria and is acceptable for use. --EEMIV (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could remove any specific reference to whose lightsaber it is, but it is a pretty accurate drawing of Obi-Wan's, unlike the completely incorrect one under discussion here. (And no, the poster in the prior section was completely wrong about which lightsaber is which.) oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

text: If you want my opinion, it is fine to keep a cartoonized image, I was just trying to make a point. I think the kylo ren lightsaber is equally acceptable. Perhaps we could re-size it as I was about to do?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a visual description of the three bladed lightsaber. What is the exact issue? 

message: I'm distracted by another article, so for anyone who wants to jump on this: there's a nice line in here aptly comparing the lightsaber (and Luke getting his first one in particular) to the The Sword in the Stone. Pg. 57, which is available in preview. --EEMIV (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sword in the Stone 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lightsaber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170210153228/http://technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1917 to http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1917
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724101949/http://www.theforce.net/videogames/story/creating_the_lightsaber_battles_in_rots_game_91961.asp to http://www.theforce.net/videogames/story/creating_the_lightsaber_battles_in_rots_game_91961.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207005209/http://www.theforce.net/videogames/story/Nick_Gillard_Talks_ROTS_Game_92147.asp to http://www.theforce.net/videogames/story/Nick_Gillard_Talks_ROTS_Game_92147.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701224021/http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/bts/me1/6.html to http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/bts/me1/6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For the interested, here is some more darksaber coverage: IGN, Bustle (magazine), TIME, Esquire (magazine), Vanity Fair, Forbes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's immaterial for the purposes of this discussion, as the link is a speculation. Unless you have a source from the production company noting the existence of the Darksaber within the Mandalorian, any source is fancrush grasping. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted in new thread since it's not part of the above discussion, but possibly useful for improving the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More darksaber