Talk:Lightsaber/Archive 1

Lightsaber Colors

Do lightsaber colors really include pink? And, as seen in the original trilogy's Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, does not turquoise exist as a lightsaber color? This is when Luke travels out looking for R2-D2, Ben Kenobi finds Luke, and gives him the lightsaber; it looks distinctly turquoise on my video-cassette non-special edition release. --qrc 01:04, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The OT lightsaber colours are Blue, Green and Red. The blue is a very light colour, almost white, but the terms used by Lucas discribing the orginal movies is "The good guys get blue and green and the bad guys get red." The Expanded Universe has all the shades of the rainbow and pink. --Drhaggis 01:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was actually a "black" lightsaber called the "Darksaber" in a book, I think it was a book anyway (Not the Darksaber book, that weapon was different). The weapon I have heard of was like a lightsaber but had a black beam instead of a white one and a dark purple aura around the blade. It was meant to be immensely powerful. I do not know who wielded it though.

Never heard of it. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say there is a mistake on the DVD that gives Luke a green lightsaber? He built a green one after he loses his father's. --XAlpha 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this was before he constructed his green one and still had Anakin's blue one. Deskana (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Do the lightsaber colors have different meanings? because in star wars knights of the old republic one you are first asked what colour lightsaber you want and then you are asked all these questions about how you would use it in diferent situations and that determins which color lightsaber you should have. A blue one is for a Jedi Guardian

How do you create the dark light for the Dark Sabre? Dudtz 7/28/06 5:58 PM EST

Blade length

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)

Hilt Looks

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)

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)

Theories on orgins of the lightsaber

Here are a few of the best theories for the origin of the lightsaber:

-Kaldar, Planet of Antares by Edmond Hamilton, 1933 (Weird Tales magazine, reprinted in paperback 1965): Allen Varney suggests that Lucas may have been inspired by this passage: "The sword seemed at first glance a simple long rapier of metal. But he 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..." It seems likely that Lucas was at least familiar with Hamilton's work, since Lucas hired Hamilton's wife Leigh Brackett to write the first draft of The Empire Strikes Back.

-Nightwings by Robert Silverberg, 1968: includes a sword (or knife?) with a blade of light that snaps on and off: "'Give me your blade!' I handed it to him, and he seized the handle and pressed the stud that brought forth the cool, keen beam of light." This Hugo-award-winning book also contains the line "He looked more machine than man..."

-Gather, Darkness! by Fritz Leiber, 1943: this story concerns two warring groups of priests, who wear hooded brown and black robes. Each carry "Rods of Wrath," short metal hilts from which spring a blade-like terminated beam of violet light, which can cut through just about anything. There are no "sword duels," however. Another weapon casts a "writhing, electric beam of blue light." The casting down of the statue of the Emperor at the end of the special edition of Jedi might be an echo of the casting down of the statue of the evil pope at the end of Leiber's book.

-Far Out Space Nuts, childrens saturday morning 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. Lightsabers were called "laser swords" in the first draft of Lucas' script and several concept paintings.

-Lightsabers were probably also influenced by the magic swords from The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien which were inspired by Surtur, the king of the fire giants from Norse mythology. Surtur set Ragnarok (the twilight of the gods) in motion by lighting the world on fire with his flaming sword. The idea of a flaming sword is at least as old as the Book of Genesis: after Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, a magic flaming sword guarded the entrance to prevent them from returning.

-The major inspiration for the lightsaber might have been Foundation by Isaac Asimov. Lucas has acknowledged that Foundation's city-planet Trantor was the inspiration for his own city-planet, Coruscant, and Lucas has a consistent pattern of drawing repeatedly from the same sources. Lucas might have caught the first spark which bloomed into the lightsaber from Asimov's offhand mention of "a penknife with a force-field blade" (that snapped on and off). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to then imagine a sword with a force-field blade.

```` I think the SpaceNuts show was probably important and should be included! Lucas isn't going to admit publicly on his inspiration for the light SWORD like him borrowing it from a childrens show.

Date of Lightsaber Invention

I don't believe the article has a section that actually explains when the lightsaber was invented. Disko 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why Sith Swords are no longer used

If Sith Swords snuff out lightsabers, why aren't they still used? Disko 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lightsaber copyright?

If anyone uses a sword made out of light or energy from another tv show or movie can they be sued by Lucas? Or is it just the name Lightsaber that's copyright? I mean wasn't there lightsabers before Star Wars came out? It would be messed up if you had to ask for permission to use something that's close to a lightsaber. --Anon.

No. They would have to borrow a large number of other elements before Lucas could sue under copyright. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the Origins section here. We seem to have a HighSchool kid who runs this page. Shame. I mentioned that Lucas doesn't want people to know that he lifted the idea from other works. The light sword is a common tool in scifi. Lucas wants the dollars for his work but no one has challenged him in court. The light sword in fiction and other SciFi is prior art.

There are two issues here. Copyright and trademark. Infringement has different rules for each. --Gbleem 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Movies VS Expanded Universe

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)

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)

Weren't there some yellow Lightsabers in the battle of Geonosis?

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)

Mace Windu and the Battle of Naboo

The article currently contains the following text:

"A Jedi would modify the lightsaber or construct a new one to suit the demands of the situation at hand, such as with Mace Windu and his lightsaber after the Battle of Naboo. It is, however, an unrevealed occurrence that made him build a new lightsaber in the ten year period between The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones."

Did Mace Windu have any part in the Battle of Naboo (which I understand to have taken place during The Phantom Menace; correct me if there was a separate battle during the Clone Wars)? Shouldn't the above statement refer to Obi-Wan Kenobi, who lost his lightsaber during the events of The Phantom Menace? --Dsibilly 05:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence does not state that Mace Windu fought in the Battle of Naboo; it is simply a reference to a time period. The source for this information is the Ask the Jedi Council segment that existed on www.starwars.com, which also revealed details about the Concordance of Fealty. --24.253.120.206 21:03, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is maroon, not pink, the maroon lightsaber is used by healers. but does Plo Koon ave a yellow or blue lightsaber ?

He has a blue one in Clones and a yellow one in revenge. --70.105.106.147 22:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I heard Samuel L. Jackson say in an interview that he asked George Lucas for a purple lightsabre, so he would stand out in the mass scenes. This can be read in the interesting notes on Mace Windu, but would be valuable information on this page as well.

That's right. Samuel L Jackson wanted to stand out in the scene for the Battle of Geonosis, and the purple lightsaber immidiately shows you where he is. That's all there is to it. I saw it on the special features disc for Episode III, I believe. Deskana (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No Mass?

Several discussions exist on this topic.

The sabers cast shadows, e.g. they should have a solid energy blade, which does not allow lieght to pass through while still glowing itself (like a light tube does).

Often a gyroscopic effect is mentioned, which would rely to the style the weapon is mastered.

The sabers cast shadows because the models used when filming are carbon rods and the animation is then added. This causes the saber to cast a shadow that is not removed in editing. The only weight in a lightsaber is the handle which is one of the reasons why it is so hard to use.

Furthermore:

"A lightsaber can cut through anything (blast doors and enemies alike) except another lightsaber blade (why this is is conspicuously unexplained)."

This is explained above, intending ls use a forcefield to contain plasma and that they ls can´t cut thru (certain) forcefield.

BUT:

This does interfere with the whole anti-proton explanation, where forcefields aren´t narrowly mentioned.

suggestions for this page

-the last paragraph could do with more illustration. who used the great lightsaber? And Dual phase? Was it Luke in the later (earlier) movies? you know what I mean. Darth's lightsaber should be shown... in fact, what about a daughter article illustrating a lightsaber of every Jedi/Sith who ever owned one? would be cool to do. -also requires an interior illustration like the one that came in time, anyone has that?

In the concordance of felty para, something about the real mix-up with the two different versions showing up in the two official releases of mace's pic should be shown, citing the reason for the whole concordance of fealty being drawn up. anyone has those pics?

only suggestion guys. At least go ahead with the lightsaber of every guy who woned it thing...

Can something be added about using a light sabre for blocking force lightning. Does it take any particular skill or could anyone do this? Also something about using them for deflecting blaster fire.

Lightsabers reality x fiction

Hi Avsa,

While I understand why you moved the "Lightsabers in reality" to the top of the page I would disagree with the reasoning simply because I would believe that someone looking up Lightsabers on Wikipedia is more interested in the story behind them rather than their appearance on screen. Of course that is debate-able however if you look at all the other articles on the various aspects of Star Wars (Category:Star_Wars) you'll see that they all place the subject in the Star Wars context before talking about their place in reality. Would you object if I moved the reality section back to the end of the article? --Lochaber 10:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid of turning this into a walled garden for Star Wars fan. That's the kind of thing that makes outsiders shout that Wikipedia is not serious, and that content should go to a wikifanclub. The most important is to leave the hierarchy: lightsabers in reality/ lightsabers in fiction. As it was before, this article treated lightsabers as a real weapon, and then in the end gave a footnote on what they really are. We have to weight them up: as there is so much more content on the fiction, let's at least give reality more weight by putting it first. But then that's just my opinion. --Alexandre Van de Sande 19:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I still disagree, the lead paragraph of the article states that:

"The lightsaber is the traditional elegant weapon of the Jedi Knights in the Star Wars fictional universe."

It is clear from the outset that this article is about fictional object. As long as the intro is clear that it is fiction then that's enough. By moving the "In reality" section to the top of the article it makes it more about film props and special effects than Lightsabers. If you look at the many articles on fictional characters / objects (for example Mace Windu / Palantír or even to look wider Loki) they all deal first with the mythology, if you will, rather than how that mythology was created.

All that said, I do think that the lead paragraph of this article needs to be expanded to include a bit more about its place in reality, something along the lines of...

"The lightsaber is the traditional elegant weapon of the Jedi Knights in Star Wars. They play a vital role in Star Wars fictional universe and feature in the movies, games and novels."

The reason that it doesn't at the moment is that it was only de-merged from Weapons of Star Wars in March and a lead paragraph wasn't necessary there. Would it be acceptable if I expanded the lead paragraph as above (and potentially add a bit more from the in reality section) and then moved the main "In reality" section to the end? --Lochaber 09:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

you're right. It needs a lead, that would do it. --Alexandre Van de Sande 23:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I remember hearing, however, that it would be possible to create an electromagnetic field capable of holding in energy. Shouldn't we look this up so that we may add "however, such fictional devices ARE possible"... --Anonymous User

Double-bladed lightsabers

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

The Double-Bladed lightsaber is a Sith weapon , used by Darth Maul in Episode 1. The double-bladed lightsaber are practically two lightsabers sticked one by another. If you watched carefully at Maul's saber you probably noticed that in the middle of the saber are two buttons. That prooves that are two sabers that act independently in the wielder's hand. But in the games you don't see the lightsaber's buttons. V.Ciprian

Anakin's Saber

Isn't it true that in Episode 2, Anakin's lightsaber gets smashed in the assembly line and he comes back to fight Dooku with a new green one? I added "green" to his list of colors, but apparently someone took it off. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. --4.42.112.247 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The green one technically wasn't Anakin's. It was a random lightsaber that Mace Windu brought along and tossed to him in the Arena. It is unknown as to where it comes from. He did use the green one,but it technically wasn't his. --Firestorm 19:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be listed under Italics, then because he used it and it therefore was his temporarily just like if you borrowed a pen from someone: It was yours until you gave it back as long as they let you borrow it

That's debateable. I wouldn't count a pen as mine if I had it just borrowed. It'd still be someone elses, I was just using it. Deskana (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And if that's true you should list Obi-Wan Kenobi as having a green lightsaber in The Phantom Menace. He force pulled it off the floor and used it to slice Darth Maul in half. But he had it and used it? Personally I don't think it should be added, nor Anakin's. Deskana (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Two Jedi (random, perhaps nameless) toss sabers to Obi-Wan and Anakin. Mace never gives Anakin a green lightsaber.

Lightsaber Construction

The article on lightsaber construction seems unprofessional and basically crappy. Also none of it makes sense. On a related note, why do dueling Jedi not simply run their blades down each other, amputating the others hands? Do the lightsabers get 'stuck'? And why? --Danielfong 03:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Because that wouldn't be cool and they wouldn't take any skill at all, and it is dishonest and the Jedi wouldn't do anything dishonest, it is like shooting them in the back. Furthermore, they would have a handguard made out of cortosis ore or something. Also, they would move their hand out of the way so it doesn't get cut off

Obi wan did this while fighting Grievous. (just to add my 2 cents) 70.105.106.147 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Try it with a real sword (or stick) a quick parry will protect you hands from being cut.

I always figured it was because if you slide the blade down, your own blocking of the other blade grew increasingly less effective, so your head or arm could be chopped off before you ever reached their hand. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, sometimes if you watch, the hold the blades against each other at such an angle that it would not be possible to slide the sabre down without leaving yourself open. You'd need to lunge forward and it'd leave them to punch you in the face or something. (Qui-Gon did punch Darth Maul in the face :-p) -- Deskana (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's dishonourable as mentioned above. Watching the fight between Darth Maul, and Obi Wan and Qui Gon, you can see honour. Darth Maul got his lightsaber out first, but didn't just charge at the Jedi and try and kill them, he waited for them to get their sabers out, despite the fact he wanted to kill them. Even the Sith have honour. Deskana (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily about honour, more about tactics; when Anakin runs at Count Dooku in Episode II, he gets easily defeated, so perhaps Darth Maul didn't attack immediately for the same reason. -new to this, edit it if you want.

Lightsaber Mass

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)

Origin of the Lightsaber

Back when Lucasarts first realized they could get even richer by churning out crappy SW computer products by the barrel-full, I remember owning a CD entitled "Star Wars: Behind the Magic". I think I remember something there about Lucas originally wanting the lightsaber to be a standard stormtrooper weapon, but changing his mind when he realized it would have more of a mythic cachet if only a select few wielded them. I'm reluctant to edit this in without asking if anyone else remembers it or could provide a reference.

I do remember reading in a Star Wars behind-the-scenes type book (can't remember which book though) that lightsabers were indeed intended to be a standard stormtrooper weapon (the book also had a concept art picture of a trooper running through a hall wielding a lightsaber-like weapon). Before this is edited in, though, I think that it should be confirmed what book (or other source) this information was displayed in. --InvaderJim42 08:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this as well, I have Behind the Magic myself, though not installed at the moment. Might have to fire it up and see. -Graptor

Fired it up, confirmed. Taken from 'behind the scenes' on the Lightsaber entry:

"While writing the early drafts of Star Wars, George Lucas envisioned Lightsabers (also known as 'laser swords') as a fairly common weapon used by stormtroopers, Rebel soldiers, and others. He soon realized, however, that the weapon would seem much more powerful and mysterious if it was reserved for use by Jedi alone."

The 'Behind the Scenes Images' also feature a very early storyboard showing two soldiers in body armor, one of which vaguely resembles a stormtrooper, fighting with Lightsabers...as well as a concept art image that shows what is undoubtably a very early stormtrooper(with more 'stormtroopers' racing up behind him with what appear to be some variant of a(physical) shield), holding a lightsaber, confronting a group of three people, one of whom also has a lightsaber(and one of whom looks vaguely like a wookiee...) -Graptor

Plo Koon's Lightsaber

Does anyone know why Plo Koon changes his saber from yellow to blue, and why was a figure of Plo Koon released with a green saber? I know there is a blue sabered figure too, but this is a different figure, not a miscolor.

To answer, Plo Koon had a Yellow/Orange Lightsaber That he made When He was a padawan. However about five years or so after Episode I His First lightsaber was destroyed. He then Made a second lightsaber with a more traditional design and a blue blade. He has this in in the arena battle in AOTC and in ROTS. When Plo Koon dies his Lightsaber is thought to be destroyed with him.

Lightsaber users

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)

Why can't General Grievous use the force though?

General Grievous is not force sensitive, there is a small list of uses without a link to the force they are usually naturally gifted and highly trained, (Grievous' implants help).Bobo Fett has been recorded uses a Saber and one Jedi with no force connection.

Mace Windu's lightsaber?

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)

Vandalism

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)

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)

More vandalism, this time by Tobyw87. -- Raveled 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki

The article on lightsabers featured in the original Wikipedia is much better than the one found on the Star Wars Wiki. I suggest a moderator or someone who knows how copy this article to replace the article found in the Star Wars Wikipedia. Thank you!

Regarding the Galaxies entry

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)

Kyle Katarn's Lightsabers

I noticed in Kyle Katarn's lightsaber list, he had an orange lightsaber. I erased it, but I'd like to know if he did actually have one. 'Cause all I know is that he started out with a green one in Dark Forces II, it was destroyed and used Yun's yellow lightsaber, and then he eventually built his own blue one. -Jedi Striker

He did have an orange, in the books on tape series, he finds an orange one -Jedi dude-

In the Mysteries of the Sith expansion pack for DF2, Kyle wielded an orange lightsaber.

Lightsaber or Lightsabre

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)

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)

All my video games and books spell it "Lightsaber."Cameron Nedland 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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 <sup>(AKA Deskana)</sup> (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Saber is the canonical spelling. _-M <sup>o</sup> P-_ 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber Forms

I'm starting a section on Lightsaber Forms Help would be appreciated :D --Scorpiusdiamond 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not just link to the article on the matter? Luis Dantas 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Regeneration

"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)

Deep evil 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC): Well, if you want to discuss the impossibility of lightsabers being completely regenerative, why not talk about the impossibility of sound in space? lightsabers themselves? the Force?

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)

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)

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 <sup>o</sup> P-_ 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilt ergonomics

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)

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)

Saber Colors in OT, PT, and EU

As has been mentioned countless times, lightsaber blade colors are determined by the focusing crystal. In the times of the PT lightsabers were generally made from crystals harvested in the caves of Illum. These crystals only create blue and green blades. The red blades of Sith lightsabers are attributed to synthetic crystals created specifically for this purpose, although that hasn't been verified as far as G-cannon is concerned. As far as EU, lightsaber colors vary because they are no longer created using the Illum crystals. Many different crystals are used and thus many different colors occur.

What was wrong with what I added?

Well? --Pece Kocovski 04:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Your comment is too vague to investigate. Deskana (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

i wrote some jedi in the list from kotor 1 --Pece Kocovski 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lightsaber Shadows

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([1]) 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)

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)

Even transparent glasses and lightbulbs cast shadows. It would take an invisible object to cast no shadow. A lit lightsaber _may_ conceivably emit enough light to mask its own shadow, but it depends a lot on distance, angle and point of view - essentially, it is something of a puppet shadow trick. If lightsabers were meant to casually cast no shadow, that would have to be considered a separate (and mysterious) power from them. Luis Dantas 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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 <sup>o</sup> P-_ 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Electrum Saber

My friend was mugging around on internet and found "somewhere" that the electrum lightsaber usues no crystals at all. While I don't know about that, he did make a good point about function. In EP II, Kenobi's lightsaber absorbs the force lightning Count Dooku shoots at him. In EP III, Mace Windu's Lightsaber reflects Darth Sidious' lightning rather than absorbing it. 68.126.90.131 07:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Luke N.

StarWars.com describes Mace Windu's saber as having "unique crystals" ([2]). Luis Dantas 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently he braved some mountain to get special purple crystals for his lightsaber. In other words, the actor playing him (Samuel L Jackson) asked to have a different colour lightsaber to stand out in the Battle of Geonosis and other battles! Deskana (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's just because Windu is right next to Palpatine though. With Obi-Wan the lightning couldn't arc far enough to hit something, but Windu is right next to Palpatine, so perhaps the lightning was still strong enough to arc to him?

Actually, that used to be Ki-Adi-Mundi's lightsaber, but they traded between Episode 1 and 2 out of friendship. Or at least that was the story made up before the release of EPII.

Feature Article

If we could get three to five references and some inline citations, this would make one hell of a Featured Article. Any fans want to find some? Captain Jackson 23:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs far more than that, but I'd love to see it get there too. What it needs is for all information to be sourced, so that we know exactly what movie or book portrays what, and the article should give this in the order of publication. Right now much of the article is written as if lightsabers were real, rather than a subject of fiction used over time in different works of fiction. See Captain Marvel for a recent FA on a fictional subject, and compare the treatment and voice of the article.

Here's an example from this article to illustrate what I mean: "Mace Windu braved the rock-encrusted natives of Haruun Kal to obtain the rare purple crystal." No, Mace Windu never braved anything because he's a fictional character. Instead, "In the 2000 novel, Star Wars: Mace's Long Journey, Mace Windu braves the rock-encrusted natives of Haruun Kal and obtains the rare purple crystal." I made the book up of course because I have no clue where that story actually happens...but not only should the work of fiction be cited to, but the fiction itself should be summarized in the present tense. This is because every time you pick up that book, the event is still there—fictional chronology is just that. If this article can focus on real world context and chronology, then it may achieve FA status. Postdlf 23:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

EV suits

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)

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)

Lightrapier and Lightclub

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)

Too many images!

Too many images! I think this article has a bit of image overload. Deskana (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

The images are fine now, but they need to be spread out more, we have 3 right on top of one another, then 1 per section for 3 sections, then only 1 more in the last section. We need to spread them out more.

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)

The images have been trimmed out; it now effectively shows examples of lightsabers dueling, a double-bladed lightsaber, and lightsaber colors. _-M <sup>o</sup> P-_ 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Excessive Lightdaggerage

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)

I merged the two sections. Deskana (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Tyciol 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fact Check on real-world military developement of lightsabres

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)

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)

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)

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)

ForceFX Lightsabre toy mention deletion

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)

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)

Completely overdone

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)

New Plasma Technique

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) Sorry if I posted wrong; its my first shot at this.

Cutting size - objection?

I removed this from the main article (as problems should be mentioned on the Talk Page, or edited out completely, not commented on in the article itself. What does anyone else have to say to this? I don't know who originally posted it. -JC 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment: "The cutting area of a lightsaber is supposedly only a few micrometres wide, with all of the rest supposedly being coronal discharge, as is illustrated in "Dark Force Rising", when Grand Admiral Thrawn tells his crew to examine some of their casualties for microscopic cuts." This is incorrect, the energy traveling to the end of the sword removes all in its path , in a radius as thick as the blade.

The whole "diameter of the particle stream" is never explicitly stated in the series or in any of the novelizations that I have read. However, based upon the physics described in the canon novelizations, that diameter would have to be infinitessimile to be supported by a power supply and focusing mechanism in a hand-held device. Timothy Zahn simply took this to the next logical step by saying explicitly that the width of the actual lightsaber blade is very small. The wide "blade" that we see is just an ejection of energized particles similar to how light is emitted when the electrons of excited atoms fall from a higher energy level to a lower one. The size of this ejection is attributed to the confinement physics that are also mentioned as being how the length of the lightsaber is limited.

You combine this with the fact that - in swordplay - the quickest debilitating wounds are small ones made with the edge of a blade. This accounted for most of Luke's body count in ROTJ; he had to face several enemies at once, and didn't want to waste precious microseconds by sawing through his enemies with his saber. In short, unless the Jedi slices through the target like a piece of meat, the killing blow will just be a small cut across the body that is instantly cauterized by the heat of the blade (which is not to say the blade is hot, just that it excites atoms - heating them up - as it passes). The cauterized wounds would be small and show no signs of blood, thus Admiral Thrawn uses his Holmes-esque deductive reasoning to tell his men to look for such wounds on bodies that showed no other signs of trauma.

... Wow, now MY head hurts. Anyway, all of this aside, this statement was in direct opposition to the one before it that is stated as being fact. In true wiki form, the proper procedure would be to remove/edit the previous entry and state the reasons for doing so in the summary, not simply add another statement saying that what was previously stated is wrong. So, my vote is leave off the comment. They belong in the talk page. =) --Keno 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Lightsaber?

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)

Sounds like more of that SuperShadow crap has leaked into an article. The Wookieepedian 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like total crap. :-P --Darth Revert <sup>(AKA Deskana)</sup> (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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 <sup>o</sup> P-_ 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sith also use lightsabers

In the begining it says that Jedi are the primary users of lightsabers.Cameron Nedland 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Old Sith Empire, the Sith didn't use lightsabers. They used alchemically treated swords. It wasn't until the first Sith came from the ranks of the Jedi that they used lightsabers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.234.180.65 (talk • contribs) .

Lightsaber theories

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)

• I don't really even think it should be in the article. Seems waffly and speculative. --Darth Revert <sup>(AKA Deskana)</sup> (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Concordance of fealty

As far as I'm aware, Qui-Gon Jinn isn't actually dead when Obi-wan force-grabs his sabre away - since obi-wan talks to him after the battle ends. He doesn't voluntarily (as far as we're told) hand the lightsabre over, but it's not a question of whether the concordance of fealty counts if the sabre is taken from a dead Jedi. Anakin also does similarly with Obi-Wan's lightsabre at the end of epsiodeII and Dooko's sabre early in EpisodeIII.

Ah, good point. I hadn't seen the movie in a while, so I only remembered the part about death... and lightsabers. Shall we change the reference to if it is taken from a Jedi unable to use it?

Images.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Armour vs. Armor

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)

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 <sup>Dark Lord of the Sith</sup> 21:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we are. Manual of Style. Not a policy, but a guideline, so should still generally be followed. --Lord Deskana <sup>Dark Lord of the Sith</sup> 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Marvelous, thank you! By the way, you messed up the InterWiki links a bit. Not quite sure why that happened. I've fixed it now. --Lord Deskana <sup>Dark Lord of the Sith</sup> 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Pearls.

I added a small addendum to the bottom of the article about Lightsaber Construction to include Krayt Dragon Pearls since they can indeed be used in lightsaber construction in the place of a crystal. During the game of Knight of the Old Republic, one was indeed able to fight a acquire/purchase a krayt dragon pearl (or two) and insert them into your lightsaber.

Replicas

I think that there should be a section in the article for replicas (Force FX, Plasma, Electroluminescent, Hilt-only, etc.).

Lightsaber Characteristics

"...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)

Double-Bladed Picture

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)

Star Wars "canon" is a pay-your-way sort of ordeal. Are you suggesting that this picture needs its own book and Lucas' approval to back it up? I don't think the "In Reality" section of the article was approved by him. It's a double-bladed lightsaber, get over it. -- Stotan 5:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're talking about Image:JediThing.jpg? The fact that it has nothing to do with Star Wars is pretty important; the article is talking about items in the Star Wars universe, not their appearances in pop-culture. I'm removing it until someone can come up with a decent argument for its presence (sorry Stotan, but your argument is fairly nebulous). EVula 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The picture is stupid. If a lightsaber picture doesn't have to have anything to do with Star Wars then we could theoretically have a picture of George Bush stabbing / being stabbed by Stephen Harper with a lightsaber and that's ridiculous. Mithridates 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Untrained Users

"*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)

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)

See Wookieepedia:Lightsaber#In the hands of non-Force-sensitive users for a complete list. The Wookieepedian 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Revan's Style?

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)

Too long and too fannish

This article as it currently stands is too long and is far too fannish in tone.

--Charlesknight 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Splinter of the mind's eye

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)

• See [3]. The Wookieepedian 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Boba Fett

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)

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)

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)

Darth Maul's "Blood"

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)

Carbon stunt rod

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

lost

"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)

I assume Obi Wan or more likely Yoda taught him. -- Raveled 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

i deleted the vandalism to this page about "the small wang" and "luke wanted to do his sister" i am new to wikipedia and am not that competent at editing so if there are any problems i am sorry

Vandalism

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)

Well, they've only done it once... EVula 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Types of lightsabers and styles

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)

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)

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)

This article is bad now

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)

It was about time the crap had to get cut. bibliomaniac15 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lets fix it then. What are the problems right now? list whatever you think is wrong

In Need of Serious Cleanup

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)

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)

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)

Has anyone noticed

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)

Physics

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)

Alright I was re-reading the detailed under the section: Construction details. I'm a sophomore physics undergrad and I know that what is here is flat wrong. If nobody has any objections, I'm going to remove the incorrect parts (aka most of it). Wsduvall 04:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Real lightsaber???

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)

Actually yes, some say that lightsabers (or lightsaber-like weapons) can be made in the future, just not now. I saw a program on the History Channel about Star Wars Tech, and it said that it's possible, but it cannot use light. Since light beams go on infinetly until it is blocked (or something like that), it couldn't just stop after like 4 feet. BUT, plasma (such as neon)can be held in a tube and put at an extremely hot temperature and have the same effect as a lightsaber. It just coudn't shoot out when you press a button. Abcw12 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Abcw12, thats a plasma saber, not a lightsaber. Wsduvall 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

well if you made a high focused laser emited from a handel and is then recieved from a "laser reciever" if you will. you could possibly cut items. i got the i dea from the videogame NO MOre Heros.

Engineering A Real Lightsaber / Lightsaber Theory

I think engineering a real lightsaber would be possible using nanotechnology (nanogenerators) as a power source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extrasolar01 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The light saber runs of a diatium power cell this is not a infinite power supply just several megawatt-hours of stored energy. This power supply is focused through a crystal that sends the energy out in a thight ark that only has light as a bi product of the blade not the blade itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by hope that gives some more info on it 66.51.146.69 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny sepley (talk • contribs)

If you really need to know it was in one of the pre 3,000 BBY year comics (think the freedon nadd uprising) when thy where telling that girl Jedi whose really good at battle meditation how to make a light saber but I really don’t want to look through my comics just to sight something sorry but hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.89.181 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

but how often said a physician: this is impossible and then they found out? i think there will be so many surprises in the technic of the future, so: never say no!:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlorianStahl (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gto2000wes (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) yes a light sabre is possabe you people just arnt thanking outside the box wich is the greatist Engineering law, it not just possable but i am in the prosses of making one right now, know if you want a citation for that there is no documents as of yet but you could go to waverly new york, go to the sr. high school and you will find a senior student working on making a light sabre (that studnt is me), now for anyone who wants to know how i am doing it, take a refressior course on optics

A little fuzzy on the details but it has something to do with the fact that a Jedi has to use the force to create his own lightsaber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.146.69 (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Trilogy

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

Got that right. Unfortunately, all I have is a pic of "Draco Malfoy, Jedi Master". Don't think it would help, would it? :] 74.60.25.192 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Leia 22, 8 December 2006

Violet lightsaber

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)

Unless it really does say that, or there's a section talking about what actors called their lightsabers (Or something like that), then no. Sorry. JBK405 04:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's light saber has the letters "B.M.F" on it, an allusion to Pulp Fiction. I learned this from an article in Enterntainment Weekly (I don't have it on me right now so I can't site it.) Apparently the purple lightsaber was Samuel's idea, as he wanted to stand out more from the other Jedi. User:Hibbidyhai

Cleanup

I deleted a small part of the cortosis section referring to the shadowtroopers as it looked more like speculation and has no place in an article. --Scott w 11:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. :-) --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

cheers. if anyone wants to help me, we can get the rubbish filtered out of this article. the topic is too good to get a bad article. if i can get a couple of my star wars books out, i'll get some citeable sources (only about the original trilogy though ;))

Under Lightsaber effects in the films, I added A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Sound titles. - Dethom (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible theories

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)

I heard somewhere (though it might have been on The Simpsons) that George Lucas got ideas for his lightsaber battles from old Samurai movies. Does any confirmation on this exist? It's always a possiblility--some of the Jedi ideas seem to be carried in the Samurai values, from my perspective at least. 74.60.25.192 05:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Leia 22, 8 December 200674.60.25.192 05:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rent - Hidden Fortress by Kurosawa Lucas was inspired by that movie. It's practically the same movie.

You probably did see it in The Simpsons episode Days of Wine and Do'hses. But there is quite a bit of similarity between the the relationship of a Samurai and his kanata and a Jedi and his lightsaber. Supernerd 10 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hi-tech lightsaber

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)

Perhaps "Which lightsaber in recent comic books is the most technologically advanced?" Applejuicefool (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think i know what you mean, theres a typ of saber that Corran Horn uses. Unlike the standered LS, his blade can change lenght. Other LS can do that too but it can only become smaller or the same size when Corrans can go a few inchs longer then the standered blade... and i think i saw something about a "Trick" LS and when you swing it, it extends. not quite sure if it's real. Then there are LSes that can hold power crystals (RP games) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcwaver1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Repetition

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)

The 'In Reality' Section

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)

If this helps, in George Lucas's original spript for the movies, it says that lightsabers are "Weapons that have a laser beam that extends about 4 feet". So yes, in Star Wars context, a lightsaber is a laser beam. (Even though that's theoretically impossible).Abcw12 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Table

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)

Vandalism

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).

Yes, I was in the process of reverting every instance of "penis pump" to lightsaber when someone else did it and I did not save. Amazing how fast things get fixed here!12.10.223.247 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Collectors Item

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).

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)

question

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).

Because they can. Luke did so in Shadows of the Empire. I'm not sure why The Visual Dictionary would claim otherwise. Prometheus<sup>-X303-</sup> 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

lightsabers in other media

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)

Should the various fan films using the lightsaber effect be mentioned here? --Wilson 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. It's always interesting to see what pop-culture influences something has had. User:Hibbidyhai

Major rewrite needed

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) NO.i agree,this article suks Gto2000wes (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)no go ahead, just leave in my comment about how i am making an actual lightsabre

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)

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)

Lightsabre

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)

It absolutely is NOT spelled Lightsabre. Not in the Star Wars Universe. User:Hibbidyhai

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)

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)

Both sabre and saber are acceptable spellings. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

linksaber

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).

Lightsaber in other media

Now that the seperate page had been deleted I feel that this subject on this page requires some thought. To avoid too much information on this page and avoiding using too many references I was thinking of including only the more noteable references of Lightsaber style weapons on Movies, Games, and Anime/Manga. -Adv193 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With the seperate page deleted, it seems that some of the best-known instances of lightsabres in other media are relatively, well, MISSING.

Can anyone say Jay and Silent Bob?208.54.15.187 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

in Hot Shots Part Deux Saddam Hussein had a violet light sabre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.70.43 (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Durge The bounty hunter: anti lightsaber material?

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)

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)

Stephen Colbert is right

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 <sup>talk</sup> 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 <sup>talk</sup> 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I must concur. It may well be sad that the printing press article is comparatively small, but that is a direct result of a lack of interest in improving it. Crippling this or any other "less than serious" article on purpose does not really make the situation any better. Make the serious articles better instead of trying to sabotage the superfluous ones. Luis Dantas 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content and policies are not guided by what Steve Colbert wants. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is just too much about worthless information.--69.149.218.109 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

stephen colbert is wrong

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)

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)

Z-Saber

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)

Aurra Sing

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)

No More Heroes

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)

no it doesn't Techo (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unmentioned Type of Saber

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)DarthGarth

• All that means is they were lightsabers without an external switch. They were simply turned on by Force-users by means of telekinesis activating the internal switch, it's just a different casing of a lightsaber is all it is really.

• 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)

complimentary radiation theory

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)

Luke Skywalker (Episodes IV and V)

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)

Hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.81.74 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Videogame Deus Ex

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)

your mentions were probably deleted because deus ex has nothing to do with star wars. Vu1kan (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It was posted under the "other devices similars to a lightsaber" or something like that. Now it doesnt matter, cause it seems that it was subsumed in the smaller section "lightsaber in other media"--Irbian (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No More Heroes

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)

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)

development and such

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)Dan

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)

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)

Leia is a non-force user????

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)

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)

In the future books, I mean after film, she learns to how to use force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.179.67 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing Vandalism

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)

Lightsaber Colors

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)

The color was introduced in this edit, which was wrong from the start. I've removed it. --Krótki (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely in episode II during the battle scene, you can see orange/yellow. -Emory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.37.176 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

where to start with this incoherent in-universe bloated article

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)

I killed cruft. --Killerofcruft (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

30 inches. Duh. --EEMIV (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Merger proposal with lightsaber combat

Resolved

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)

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)

Just merge it, and then you can start trimming it Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't know, it seems now that there's very little from the previously mentioned Lightsaber combat article, which in my opinion was better maintained, better written and had more information. Is there a way to revert the merge, or at least retain the information that was lost. I realize that this is a superfluous topic and doesn't actually "matter" in any way, it'd just be nice to have something as complete as the (now ex-) article. 63.198.54.10 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sources for the sound section

Anyone know where this information comes from? --Allemandtando (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wrong link

"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)

Photo needed

Of internal structure of lightsaber. Anyone know of a uncopyrighted source or can make an image with photoshop to upload?

Most of the article is now deleted.

Who ever deleted the article into just a few paragraphs is being unhelpful. --Ericg33 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called a cleanup99.246.183.10 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it cleanup. Here is the change anyway, for those who want to look. --Kizor 19:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image of an activated lightsaber

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)

What happened to the in-universe content?

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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

Luke's Lightsaber In Episode IV

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)

Not really. That was most likely due to the special effects department not being consistent between the films. If you compare Luke's lightsaber to the one Anakin uses in Ep.III, you'll probably notice that it is a different, darker blue still. As far as continuity is concerned, it's all the same lightsaber. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lightsaber Boomerang

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)

I've also removed the actual uncited content. --EEMIV (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

the "boomerange" lightsaber is really just a lightsaber being thrown. the bommerange look to it is from it spinning. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Science Fiction Theories?

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)

white lightsaber

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)

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)

It really is a light blue and always was light blue. Often it appears mostly white, as though it were a light source over-exposing the film. Gingermint (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Light Sabre is Ripoff of variable sword of Larry Niven

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)

Given that the SW lightsaber isn't the only (or even the first) fictional weapon of its type, this article really needs a paragraph generally defining 'energy blade' weapons. This is essential as 'energy blade' currently redirects to this page, yet this page mentions only lightsabers. Before Larry Niven, Isaac Asimov (and very likely others) used the concept of this type of weapon, Asimov as far back as the 1950s in the Lucky Starr novels. Either 'energy blade' needs its own page, or the general definition must be added to this article.

I intend something like: The lightsabre is a popular version of the fictional hand-held energy blade type of science-fiction weapon... The energy blade is generally depicted and described as a handheld sword-type weapon, with some sort of visible energy form serving as the cutting blade. The typical energy blade is supposed to have the ability to cut easily through most solid materials, the blade being a visually impressive short beam about the length of a typical sword. Centrepull (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Lightsabre in British-English

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)

i think it would still be saber, not sabre. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On both sides of the pond I've seen it spelled Lightsaber. Gingermint (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

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

Details

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)

Double Sided Lightsaber Introduction

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)

Colors

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)

Lightsaber combat article

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)

I too am interested in this. Certain redirects no longer make sense. If anyone has any info please let me know.Circuitboardsushi (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just see the External links section for at least two Star Wars wiki things, one of which has a ludicrously extensive article on lightsaber combat. Idontcareanymore (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"about 1.33 metres long" =

Surely "about 4 feet long" is more sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.19.201 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

disagree. the metric system using metres is more globally used and as such is easier to identify. as far as my knowledge goes i also believe america is slowly converting from the old imperial system to a metric numbering system so it is likely feet/yards will be a thing of the past in coming years.152.91.9.153 (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Vaapad

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)

Wikilinks

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

Plasma Swords

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)

Choreography

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

Other sources for lightsabers should be mentioned

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)

lack of technical details and images

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)

I think that the article does a good job of explaining the lightsaber as seen in the movie, and information regarding technical details should largely be regarded as trivia as well as in-universe material and should be kept in the fan sites. --Konveyor Belt (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

light saber does not act like a metal blade

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)

Correct Spelling is "Sabre"

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)

Vandalism

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)

Pick a unit of measurement

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)

Removed the meter mention, as it was redundant to the more specific measurements anyway. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Lightsaber in Infobox

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)

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)

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)

No, Luke's first saber looked completely different. oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

We need a visual description of the three bladed lightsaber. What is the exact issue?

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)

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)

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)

@EEMIV:@Oknazaved: Where can we find a better image? This is just a cartooned version of the film's but reduced. Any image that matches the real thing will be a copyright infringement and what's the Obi-Wan's lightsaber? It's a cartooned version as well --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Not sure if it helps, but I uploaded a few images of the lightsaber props at Star Wars Launch Bay a while ago ([4], [5], [6]). I could also upload a picture of The Black Series Kylo Ren lightsaber they had on display.--Quarax (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sword in the Stone

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

More darksaber

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)

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)

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)