Talk:The Mandalorian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Keeping Star Wars lore and fancruft out

I've had to remove references to the special TIE fighter and sword used by the Mof, and I have noticed other content being added to the plot summaries that have not been presented within the episodes themselves. That needs to be curbed, as it is Synthesis. If you happen to find sources that explicitly speak to the nature of the sword or the craft and how they are intrinsic to the understanding of the subject (in this case, the episode itself), then make a case for it. As neither of these things are a substantial part of the plot, they are unnecessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your reversion of this edit earlier, but there's a strong case for identifying The Darksaber. Its existence is canon, and it's a recognizable item in the Star Wars Universe. Just as tie fighters or storm troopers or droids or Twi'leks don't need to be verbally identified as such to merit their description in the summary articles, this particular item is identified in multiple sources. I think it merits inclusion.

Forbes article re: Darksaber in Mandalorian --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What it is adds precisely zero understanding of the episode. I am sure it might come into play next season, but it has no place here, as it is unexplained within the episode. The Mof escaped from the downed TIE fighter. Nuf said. I won't even get into the de-canoned novel of the same name, because specialized knowledge of the SW universe is unnecessary; it's a black sword crackling with energy. For all we know, it could be Stormbringer. And none of it matters any more than a can opener. It does not contribute to a better understanding of the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think there are merits for both keeping or removing this reference. By the logic in your argument, should we also remove "a member of the same unnamed species as the Jedi Master Yoda" from the description of the Child, since it relies purely on synthesis and on visual recognition of a character in a previous work?

Let's look for a majority consensus among editors. So far at least 3 registered editors have attempted make this weapon reference specific, but their input here on the Talk page would be important for the record. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Call a spade a spade. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, then you should probably call it a duck. That's not synthesis. That's common sense. If it looks like the darksaber and sounds like the darksaber, then we should call it the darksaber. Pure and simple. --Bold Clone 00:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Explain to me how it is not synthesis, please. You are taking pre-existing knowledge of a Darksaber, adding on info from another series about it being a Mandalorian artifact and then - upon seeing an unnamed item in a completely different series - you decide that the unnamed thing must be the Darksaber. That, my friend, is the definition of Synthesis. Prove to me it is not.

Furthermore, prove to me that is had any bearing in the episode more than, say, a can opener. Because that there would be OR, to impart some special meaning to the fact that someone has what could easily be the sword of Elric of Melniboné, Stormbringer. In fact, if you click on that link, you will see the cover art, which is a dead ringer for the sword we saw in the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We have both official and third party sources identifying it. Why would we keep Star Wars lore out if a Star Wars plot summary? That makes no sense. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Tell me - precisely how it affects the episode. Tell me how it is not trivial without using any Synthesis.

Additionally, to answer your question about we can't use Star Wars "lore" of a Star Wars plot summary; it is because we are an encyclopedia, and not a fansite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Again. Call a spade a spade, Jack. If the item in question looks like the darksaber and sounds like the darksaber, then we should recognize it as the darksaber. Pure and simple. That isn't original research or synthesis. It's common sense. We can get an admin involved in this, if you want. --Bold Clone 03:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, "calling a spade a spade" involves YOU making the assertion that something is a spade based upon something else that looks like a spade. We call that Synthesis. I'm pointing out that you are seeking to reason away your synthesis as okey-dokey. I'm clarifying that, according to Wikipedia, we cannot.

Additionally, nowhere in the episide is this thing named, not is it important to ANY part of understanding of the episode. Until it does, its trivial - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone needs to produce these reliable sources calling it a darksaber and incorporate them into the article.— TAnthony^Talk 04:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We would, except that plot summaries are one of the few exceptions from the sourcing rule. Episode summaries use the primary source ONLY.

Now, if someone were to write an article about the episode, it would be fine and dandy to include sourcing about where reviewers suggested it was the Darkblade. However, I would point out - yet again, that unless the episode content, the showrunners or the studio names it, its speculative. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The identification of the Darksaber ties to the plot by (1) connecting to the Mandalorian's assertion in Ep.8 that Moff Gideon was involved with previous Mandalorian conflicts, and (2) connecting to the Mandalorian history described by members of the enclave.

The inclusion of recognizable elements from the Star Wars universe is already present in the unchallenged description of the Child as "belonging to same species as Yoda", who is also not mentioned by name or direct inference in the script but is recognizable nonetheless. Listing the item by name is not excessive/fansite worthy. It has direct implications to this series which is literally named for the race whose history is explored as part of its narrative. And giving it a name reduces the word count, too.

References have been made to the item in Time, Polygon, Hollywood Reporter, as well as the Forbes article I cited earlier.

Let's determine the consensus of the editors participating in this discussion as per WP:CONS. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if sources have noted it; I believe I have stated that clearly before. They are speculating, much like you are doing here.

Now, before you think I am attacking you, let me point out why you are speculating:

• You assert that the Moff was involved in "previous Mandalorian conflicts". The episode notes only one.
• Your assertion that the Darkblade's presence in Mandalorian history comes from a (now) non-canon novel of the same name, and from an animated SW series. The Darkblade has never once been mentioned in this series.
• You are taking those two pieces of disparate information to create an amalgamation of information that has not been noted in the primary source material.

THAT IS, BY DEFINITION, SYNTHESIS. We don't do that here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am going to repeat this again, because in the heat of wanting to stuff the article with as much fancruft as possible, I think some folks are missing the point. The Darkblade was not mentioned in the episode. The Darkblade was not mentioned by the actors, the production staff, the studio or anyone else related to the writing or creation of the episode. Reviewers - as well as many editors here - are speculating. The only reason why anyone is even Sherlocking the identity of what could just as easily be Stormbringer or some fancy-ass vibroblade as Star Wars trivia is because they are using their pre-existing fancruft to fill int he blanks. That, my friends and colleagues, is what we call Original Research. That is also Synthesis, in that we are taking knowledge from one place and using to connect it to something else without a shred of legitimate proof.

I apologize if I was somehow unclear on that before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you're pretty clear on that point. I appreciate the clarification, though. Simply put, you are arguing that we cannot identify the sword because the cast and crew don't identify it. I disagree. There is only one item in all of the entirety of the Star Wars franchise which matches the sword in question. I do not need the cast and crew to identify the sword. Your argument works the same for Baby Yoda. We are using pre-existing fan knowledge to fill in the blanks as far as the Child's species. My vote is to keep the reference to the darksaber. --Bold Clone 05:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to stop you right there. You note that "here is only one item in all of the entirety of the Star Wars franchise which matches the sword in question". You are using YOUR knowledge to draw a comparison between that knowledge and what you are seeing in an episode. You are arriving at a conclusion that the thing you saw must be the thing you read about in other SW media. You have just defined synthesis. And we don't do synthesis here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian your argument has been thoroughly presented. Ultimately, we need to abide by consensus, so let's see what the other editors of this page have to add over the next several days. WP:CONS

Your enthusiasm for your point is also clear, even without all caps. You haven't addressed how this logic would apply to the Child reference mentioned earlier.GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, could you point out where consensus trumps our policies regarding NOR and SYN? I mean, I could easily garner a consensus that a certain US politician is a giant poopyhead, but that would not overcome the fact that it is a violation of one of our policies (namely WP:BIO). I eagerly await your links. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am one of the editors who made an edit restoring the Darksaber reference. It is being discussed in RS already, which is enough reason to have it. In addition I think it is relevant to the plot of the first season, as it strengthens the reference to Mof having taken part in the formative phase of the Mandalorian. Lastly, I see no problem adding details that will be elaborated upon in a following season in the plot section of this season, and even think it is the logical think to do. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that - for plot summaries - we use the primary source as the basis for the summary. If an article were to be created about the episode, then you could include every RS under the sun. However, for plot summaries, you have to have explicit info from the primary source itself. If you don't have it, you don't get to say it. Consensus does not EVER trump policy, unless the Wiki-EN has gone off the rails at some point.

"It is being discussed in RS already" When I first read that, I thought you had broached the matter at RSN; then i realized that you are talking about the accumulated speculation from review sources. In addition to the above caveat about consensus not trumping policy, you failed to point out that no onbe - that bears repeating: NO ONE associated with the cast, crew or studio have even hinted at the sword's place in the SW universe. For all we know, this could be Stormbringer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack's concerns are 100% valid. Plot summaries must not use interpretation like this; the plot should be written to the level that a non-fan viewer or the work . It would be one thing if it was an iconic object throughout the series - such as the general idea of a lightsaber for SW , in which case even if the show never calls the weapon as a lightsaber, that term can be used by the plot summary. But if we're talking a specific object or character that has a limited appearance in the franchise, it is wholly inappropriate to make that connection under SYNTH. Even if writers for RS suggest a connection but not officially confirmed by those in production, that should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, and with attribution. ("So and so from Variety suggested the lightsaber seen in this episode was the same as the Darksaber from the film") . --Masem (t) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

And again, no one is at all saying that someone industrious soul cannot create and write the article for the episode and note what the sources are calling it. I am certain that if the sword has any story to add, it will turn up again in the second season, and get talked about a lot by everyone associated with the production. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For a work of fiction that draws on a previously established group of narrative works, what is the criteria for recognition? Does every machine or character race need to be verbally identified by dialogue in a work such as this?

Blasters, tie fighters, storm troopers, scout troopers, AT-STs, Imperials, children that "look like Yoda"... things like this are and will continue to be common in Star Wars based fiction, but shouldn't be generalized to a first-time reader.

Without getting all caps about it, I think this is a topic worthy of discussion as it is likely to come up again for another moment in this series or another. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In a franchise series, imagine if you had to put down a 500 word summary of the overall setting and work. Any elements that is so essential that needs to be included in such, such as the concepts of Jedi, the Force, the Empire, the Dark Side, lightsabers, the Death Star, and stormtroopers would likely be included and as such, identifying such concepts in a Star Wars work where the element is not specifically named in-show is "fair game" to include this way. But less critical elements like the idea of tie fighters, scout troopers, AT-ST, etc. would never be in such a brief summary. --Masem (t) 06:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

GimmeChoco44: First of all, I appreciate you not "getting all caps about it."

Secondly, I think we're all aware of what a blaster is, or the other things you have named. However, none of them are presumably a fabled items. There is no famous "Dancing AT-ST of Viltvodle VI", or the "Overly Persistent Blaster of Destiny", or whatever. And it bears noting that none of these things are major plot points in the article, except maybe for the beskar steel, because part of the episode plot is built around it. You will also note that nowhere in the article is The Child called a 'Baby Yoda', though practically every source in the world is calling it that. It is identified as it has been by the people making the series, a child of the same race as Yoda. I know you meant meant that to be a semantic argument, but I thought I'd help you out and note that its an empty argument.

Lastly, I am in complete agreement with you about how this subject will probably come up again before the second season; we will deal with it the right way: until it is identified within the series, we aren't going to be naming it. Go ahead and write the article that notes how sources speculate that it is the Darksaber. It can't be in the plot summary of the series article until it is noted within the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian -- The Child's connection to Yoda is listed in the character description in the article for this series as: "The Child (performed by various puppeteers), a member of the same unnamed species as the Jedi Master Yoda who can also wield the Force." -- neither Yoda nor the Force are mentioned by name in the series, so the question I keep returning to is: how is this identification in the series article different from identifying the Darksaber? --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, I see what you mean. Well, heck, Gimme - just remove anything that says anything other than "a child of the same race as Yoda". If you want, I can reword tht for you, if you wish. But your point is clear; that Jedi Master Yoda stuff, or any mention of the Force has gots to go. Only the Madalorian Armorer knows anything about the Jedi and instead refers to them as 'sorcerers'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the same point I'm trying to make. At a certain point, some things are so obvious that we simply do not need the hand-holding of expliciting naming something. Even if they never uttered the word "Mandalorian" on the show, we would still recognize the main character as a Mandalorian. We can still recognize the Mandalorian soldiers who rescued Dyn as part of the Death Watch faction. We can still recognize the child as from the same species as Yoda, and we can still recognize the weapon in question as the Darksaber.

In other words: at a certain point, under certain circumstances, it becomes self-evident. Original research and synthesis are irrelevant here, because the weapon is self-evidently the one and only Darksaber. --Bold Clone 07:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a stumbling bock for you, Clone. Its a different sort of writing in Wikipedia than say, a fan forum. You don't get to make those intuitive connections in Wikipedia that you would elsewhere (part of that whole encyclopedic thang).

See, you are coming from a place when you probably know so much about Star Wars that you know crufty little details about the SW universe, like Alderaanian recipes and whatnot. And that you know these things is okay. However, that info is next to useless here. What seems obvious to you is less so to someone who is relying solely upon the primary source material, ie. the episode itself. Myself, not knowing what this Dorksaber was, I honestly thought it was a vibro-blade, or the fabled Black Sword, Stormbringer. What is evident to you is not evident to others.

Synthesis and Original Research - and I cannot stress this enough - is never irrelevant anywhere in Wikipedia. I know you replied so quickly that you missed my reply to GimmeChoco (or the several responses I've noted before); the child has already been identified from the showrunners as belonging to the same race as Yoda.

That's the difference, Clone. Jon Favreau specifically identified the child as being of Yoda's race, and their abilities are an intrinsic part of the plot. Some naughty man in black armor using icky black sowrds to carve up spaceships is not. Not yet, at least.

You are going to have to wait until it actually becomes part of the story, or is explicitly identified by the showrunners by name. There is no hurry. Wait for the next season to explore what is - at this point - speculative OR and Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In this case, there is a high number of credible media sources who say this item "is" the Darksaber, not "might be". In the interests of setting a standard for the multi-season future of this article, I think we should use this example as a standard bar for the number of credible citations and amount of editorial consensus needed.

Jack Sebastian's argument has merit, but the sarcasm is unwarranted. No editor in this discussion is showing off minute trivia. We are reflecting observations that are supported by knowledge of franchise history and numerous media articles by reputable authors. The Darksaber in question has made multiple appearances in 2 canonical series and functioned as a major point of previous plots directly related to the Mandalorian race. Though the arguments for inclusion or exclusion of this identifier are both valid, one side so far seems to have more support.

We're not just debating this one item, but a standard for inclusion of previously-established fiction.GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware that this is not a fan forum, Jack. However, I am equally well aware that the item in question perfectly matches the Darksaber. It is not a matter of intuition. It's logic. Occam's Razor. If it looks like a dodo bird, walks like a dodo bird, sounds like a dodo bird, and there is only one dodo bird on the planet, the most logical thing to do is consider the animal in question a dodo. The same thing applies here. I know what the Darksaber is, and I know this item matches the Darksaber's appearance and description. The irrational position to take is yours: denying the patently obvious while rules-lawyering.

I am well aware that Favreau has identified the child as from the same species as Yoda. I have been aware of that for weeks. What I am saying is that Favreau's confirmation is irrelevant. If he had never commented on the child, I would still be able to recognize the child as matching the appearance of Yoda, and make the logical conclusion that they are from the same species. However, I have to ask you this: if Favreau hadn't confirmed the child as part of Yoda's species, would you argue against including that fact? Would you be making the same sort of claim? If your answer is no, you would include the "Yoda's species" reference even without official confirmation, then all you've done is simply agree with me. If your answer is yes, you would argue against the reference to "Yoda's species," then there's your problem. You illogically deny the obvious. You say we can't know if the sword is the Darksaber unless Favreau confirms it. I say it's self-evident to anyone with the knowledge. --Bold Clone 08:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To begin with, if you felt I was being sarcastic towards you, please accept my apologies; such was not my intent. I got a bit loopy over the deja vu of saying the same thing at least a dozen times, I was jazzing it up a bit. If you took offense, I offer my apologies. Mea culpa

That said, the Darksaber is indeed minute trivia to just about everyone not immersed in the Star Wars universe. Whether it becomes an explicitly-named plot point in season 2 is anyone's guess. Until it does, the nature of plot summaries do not change. It doesn't matter what the sources speculate - unless (as I have said at least 5 times now) someone writes an article about the episode. That's the place to use all those sources (not in the plot, but instead in the Reception section).

I totally get that you are having trouble accepting this reasoning. Its policy. We don't get to connect separate pieces of information to create a connection that is not explicitly made, as that is WP:SYN. Beyond that, the sword had zero participation in the plot, and wasn't even discussed in the episode. That makes - for now - WP:TRIVIAL. Suggesting it had any deeper meaning than as a can opener in this episode is WP:OR.

At the risk of sounding rude, perhaps it is now time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that is precisely what you should do. Many editors do not agree with you that there is even the least problem with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The information is true and can be sourced (although we don't usually add sources to plot sections). Resistance is futile. :) Debresser (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There are editors calling on the "obvious" factor, but you have to remember that we are not writing plot summaries for fans of Star Wars but for people that are likely wholly unfamiliar with it, and thus who have may not seen all the major works, etc. (I will state that we know this show is in the same continuity as the movie series, there's definitely sourcing on that post Disney acquisition). We can't stop to re-introduce the SW universe in every plot summary, hence why some facets like Jedi and lightsabers should be taken as core knowledge that a premise section in a Star Wars franchise section would cover. But like this Darksaber is definitely not part of the core knowledge of Star Wars, and given its limited appeaances to date, it is definitely not appropriate for WP editor to make the connection, even if to nearly all fans, it is the same item. You need to step out of the fan mindset and look at it from the viewpoint of the casual viewer. --Masem (t) 14:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen The Mandalorian, I don't know what a Darksaber is, and I agree with this. "As Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, "... a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing is like this. It is mentioned in RS, so we should have it. See e.g. [1][2][3]. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the thing is - literally - is that outside the SW fan community, the item is largely unknown. Additionally, sources aren't used in plot summaries (they are used in episode articles - hint, hint). Also, the neither the item or its significance is identified within the primary source.

All of that adds up to no, the bit doesn't belong in a plot summary here until it comes up within the primary source material. Until then, use all the sources you keep adding to populate an episode article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If a point needs clarification in a plot summary, then a citation to that can absolutely be used. Plot summaries are not required to be devoid of sourcing, just that anything not sources is assumed to be a non-interpretive summary of the primary work. That said... (see below). --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are not awful sources, especially IW makes a big deal of it. Of course, they could be wrong, but I sense that their geek-force is strong and we can deal with that if it happens. Still, to this reader, "Gideon cuts himself out of his downed fighter with the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact" seems slightly out of WP:PROPORTION for this article, but fitting for Chapter 8: Redemption (with cite). But that is on a editorial discretion level. Of course, how people can spend time discussing minor plotpoints like this is completely beyond me ;-). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Why people like you can get so hung up on something as insignificant as this is utterly beyond me. --Bold Clone 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! It's not like you've added 5,674 bytes on the the topic to this thread. Possibly it keeps us distracted from doing really stupid things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the amount of coverage, my WP:PROPORTION objection feels less relevant: IGN, Bustle (magazine), TIME, Esquire (magazine), Vanity Fair, Forbes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Btw, per IW "darksaber" should be lower case, but not per USA Today. This requires vigorous discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe "Darksaber" should be capitalized, but of course I doubt you would accept any sort of fancruft

A point connecting two disparate works by third-party sources that are not directly involved with either work should still be seen as non-factual, and should not written into the plot summary. A section, such as in reception or analysis, can include the speculation of these sources about the connection. But as these sources do not have insight into the actual plans for either work, they cannot assume to be the expert source to make the connection factual. Again, this is coming from the standpoint of the non-fan viewer. --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we assume that these sources do not have insight into the actual plans for either work? Maybe they called Jon Favreau and asked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Unless they specifically say something like "According to Favreau...", we must assume they are making the same wild guesses fans are. --Masem (t) 18:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Again. This is not "wild guesses." This is logic. The item in question matches the appearance of the darksaber seen elsewhere in Star Wars. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and there is only one duck in existence, then the most rational action to take is to accept it as the duck. It is self-evident. I am aware that there is no official source confirming this. My argument is that we do not need an official source to confirm this. If OR nd SYN are going to interfere with logic, then OR and SYN are fundamentally illogical and should not be followed here. --Bold Clone 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

We could also assume, until other roughly equal sources differ, that IW, USA Today etc checked their fact. Or, that they are most likely correct. This isn't MEDRS or BLP-stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

...I thought you were just now citing the movie Infinity War and I was so confused. I'm assuming that the third-party sources discussing the item in question (IW and USA Today) probably did fact-check their summaries, but my impression has been that you guys (or at least Jack) didn't consider these sources reliable enough for use. Would these sites be acceptable? --Bold Clone 19:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

We do have a cited creator reference to the Child being the same race as Yoda. We do not have a cited creator reference for the Darksaber. Following this debate, I'm now in agreement that the Darksaber reference should not be included in this summary until a direct mention in the series or a creator interview names it as such. Saying the Moff escapes is concise enough for the series summary. The Darksaber references and (many) citations are better kept in the episode page until there's clear confirmation.

We're likely to run into this type of visual reference in future episodes, so a clear guideline like this has value moving forward. However, participants in this discussion should be wary of sarcasm, all-caps shouting, and WP:OWN. That stuff just makes it harder to reach consensus. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on the discussion, GimmeChoco. I think you nailed the essence of the matter pretty well. At the end of the day, I'm simply arguing that we do not need a cited creator reference for the Darksaber. --Bold Clone 19:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, anything that is unsourced will be removed with impunity. As no source can be provided to say the weapon is what editors here are hoping it is, it should be removed. We don't make edits based on what people hope things end up being. We make edits based on what our sources say. In this case, our primary sources have been silent on this (likely to build up mystery with audiences for what will likely be shown more in the next season). It's enough for us to say that he used a weapon to cut his way out, it doesn't need to go into crufty detail. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of sources have been provided to verify the identity of the item in question. It is not a matter of what we hope it is, but what we know it is. "We make edits based on what our sources say." Yes. And our sources have reported the item in question to be the Darksaber. If the primary sources have not done so, that's fine. We do not necessarily need the primary sources here. --Bold Clone 05:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of sources have been provided to verify the identity of the item in question. Perfect, why didn't someone say so sooner? Can you please link one of those sources that definitively identifies it as a "dark saber" and isn't doing it as some sort of speculation or assumption based on synthesis? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit. Reliable third party sources identify it. That's all we need. Goalpost moving shit like this, and obnoxious l, insulting edit summaries don't prove you anymore right when you've been wrong all along. oknazevad (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you can knock off the cussing; nothing heats up a discussion like someone starting to use aggressive texts, so stop that.

Secondly, the goalposts have absolutely not been moved; they have always been in the exact same place here as they have been for other articles throughout Wikipedia. You don't use sources in plot summaries, and especially speculative ones as have been presented thus far. Find a quote from the production staff, cast or crew, and you're fine. Write an episode article, and you can note it in an analysis or production section. It doesn't belong here, and that view has never changed.

Lastly, you disagree with the folk noting policy and guidelines. That's fine, and it is a part of collaborative editing. But I can assure you that being a dick is going to put you on the fast train to Blocks-ville. So be civil; you can be polite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities, but I'm far more offended by your continuous claims that only you are adhering to policy when IAR is a core policy itself, and by edits such as this when you're clearly aware from this discussion that not only is it more than just the source used there that identify it as the Darksaber, but every reliable secondary source identifies it as such. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith on the part of your edits when you do stuff like that. oknazevad (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, but would prefer you keep your cool. We disagree, yet at no point has anyone been overly uncivil, and that saving grace allows us to work towards a solution. Being rude doesn't solve anything; it doesn't help collaboration or resolution and it almost certainly entrenches people in their opinion - a key ingredient in article instability. Perhaps your rudeness is rooted in the idea that you don't think we hear your view.

I hear you, Oknazevad. I just don't agree with you. You are going to have to learn to deal with disagreement within Wikipedia, or you are going to have to find somewhere else to spend your time. Most of us come here to improve articles, not for a bar fight. I don't want to address this issue with you again, so please don't make me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, i was so busy dealing with your lack of civility that I didn't address the point you were trying to make. Sorry for that.

The information you seek to add is speculative. The sources you point to as proof of something are also speculating. Those sources are useless for the purpose of this article, but they might have value in an article about the episode, though not in the plot summary.

This is the Way: we do not add speculation to Wikipedia articles. WE seek out the best sources and, upon failing to find them, we do not use speculation. As per NOHURRY, we can absolutely wait to see if at some point the series mentions the item by name (or launches off into a wild crossover with Elric and Stormbringer). You need to step back and see this press for inclusion for what it is: speculation based on Synthesis.

Someone has already used the contested information in another article, and yet another user has sought to use that altered wiki article to try and strengthen the weak argument for retention of this information. Any attempt to remove or copyedit the info in that other article has been reverted repeatedly. This is a manipulation similar to what political candidates do to disrupt campaigns, along the lines of 'i'm not going to say that candidate A beats his wife, but I have no proof that he doesn't.' - Jack Sebastian (talk)

And I'll reiterate the point Gonein60 made that calling the sources all speculation is an assumption with no basis other than your own pre-existing biases in this case. We're not adding speculation to the article, we're including material already covered by over a dozen reliable sources, meaning we're not just accurately reporting the info as a tertiary source, but also giving due editorial weight as it reflects the coverage in reliable secondary sources. And I'll also say again that I believe that edits here and at the lightsaber article have crossed the line into disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, with the mischaracterization of material as speculation of one writer when it was already known that there are a multiplicity of sources reporting the same thing, or the outright removal of sourced information. That I cannot abide, as that is far more uncivil that the use of a curse word, as it's outright disruptive and uncollaborative. It has a "take my ball and go home" sense about it that frankly is unneeded in a collaborative project. oknazevad (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, whether the sources are speculating or not is really only relevant to the way the sword is described. You would use a description like "appears to be", for example, as I demonstrated in that other post. There isn't a policy or guideline against sourced speculation, or more accurately, sourced interpretation. In fact, the cited guideline below allows its inclusion in a plot summary, granted that it is backed by local consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note that new information about the guideline is in the section below. It appears that the work's creator would need to confirm the interpretation for it to appear in a plot summary. That should pretty much bring this discussion to a close, but if there are any additional comments, they should continue in the section below and not here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

GoneIn60: So let me get this straight. We can't say, "it's the Darksaber," because we need creator confirmation. But we can say "it seems to be the Darksaber," because we have several sources for it. ...Hm. I can work with that kind of wording. Thanks again for weighing in, man. --Bold Clone 22:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Okay, the issues on each side of the argument appear to be as follows:

For inclusion

• sources note the name of the item.
• editors with a substantial knowledge of the SW universe think its obvious

Against inclusion

• WP:SYN, in that editors are using their outside personal knowledge and/or experience to name and add weight to a thing
• WP:OR, in that the same editors are implying that a trivial event is of momentous importance
• the episode didn't mention the Darksaber
• the cast or crew have not mentioned the Darksaber
• the studio has not mentioned the Darksaber
• the mere mentioning of the item is trivial, as it had zero impact on the episode or the series
• the aforementioned sources do not get used in plot summaries, as per policy
• the aforementioned sources are speculative (ie, they are guessing)
• consensus does not override policy.

If I have missed anything, please feel free to point out what I missed. Please avoid any argument about your you personally feel the bit should be in because its obvious to you - you are not a usable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's mostly on-point. My argument is that it is irrelevant whether the episode didn't mention the Darksaber. It is irrelevant whether the cast or crew have not mentioned the Darksaber. It is irrelevant whether the studio has not mentioned the Darksaber. Neither you nor I need official sources to logically recognize what has already been established within the context of the franchise. For that reason, it is not SYN to use Star Wars sources to clarify an scene in Star Wars. If viewers want to know what the item in question is, then it is your responsibility as an encyclopedia to clarify just what it is. We don't need a paragraph, any more than we need a paragraph to clarify what a Twi'lek is (assuming of course that policy allows us to even identify a Twi'lek). All we need is to provide a name for the item, and leave it at that. If policy forbids this sort of addition, then the policy itself ought to be re-evaluated and potentially modified. --Bold Clone 20:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As I have noted previously, you are misapprehending Synthesis, Clone; your use of Twi'lek as an example indicates as much. I think it is your best interest to re-read that policy, so as to better understand what is/isn't Synthesis.

You cannot use a source (even a SW-specific source, like a blog, fansite or even other tv show) to make a connection between that source and this source. The reason you cannot is that you are the one melding the two ideas into something not intended by the primary source. If the showrunners had wanted us to call the can opener a darksaber (or The Darksaber), they would have had soooo many opportunities to do so. But yet, naught but the chirping of crickets.

Btw, giving it the importance of even a mention is Undue Weight; it had no importance in the plot of the episode or the series to date. Maybe it will be more important in the second season, I don't know and neither do you. You are speculating as to its importance in the series, and we cannot cite you.

Lastly, if you think a policy is out of whack, the Village Pump is over there, yonder. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just a little non-neutral of a summary there Jack. Here the point you're missing: WP:IAR. If a rule makes an article worse, ignore it. Leaving out a franchise-significant plot point because it's not specifically verbally referenced on screen is being pedantic to the rules for the sake of rules instead of for the sake a having a more complete article. It's a totally misplaced priority and frankly is pointless. Poise, regarding your edits, as an involved editor in this discussion where there is no clear consensus you should not be making the edits without finding an admin or other third opinion to chime is is inappropriate. Oh, and as pointed out above, your seventh point is plain incorrect, strike it out please. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad, IAR isn't a suicide pact. The only indication that the item was the Darksaber was fan knowledge. That is it. Plot summaries don't use anything but the primary source. The fan cruft isn't even mentioned or alluded to in the primary source (ie, the episode or the entire series), which is where the Undue Weight point comes in. The point you take exception to, about consensus overriding pre-existing policy, is absolutely correct, with a mountain of precedent.

Just how many rules are you suggesting we ignore to include something that may not even be what speculation and fancruft suggests it is, Oknazevad? Do we toss policy out the window because of fan deduction? That negates us as a concise encyclopedia. No, we wait for explicit sourcing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No, my point is your claim that plot summaries can never include other sources is plain and simply not a correct interpreatation of policy. There is plenty of precedence of such references being used, Masem correctly cites that above, and oh, yeah, Wikipedia operates on consensus, not precedent, because it's not a legal system. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion should also take into account 1. the now added internal link to the our Darksaber article, and most of all 2. the sources I and others have mentioned above: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. In short, I think we should have this and see no problem with having this. There is no OR or SYNTH involved in quoting reliable sources, and all the other arguments are BS. And I like the IAR argument too, as I am not fond of editors who (think they) stick to the rules to the detriment of this project. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that any expanded universe stuff pre-2014 is considered non-canon as stated by Disney directly Star Wars expanded to other media, it is 100% inappropriate to make the connection to a 1990's novel here. We are not a fan guide. Trying to connect the weapon in this episode to the weapon in the movie without it being exactly named in the works themselves, or out-of-universe by the creatos themselves, remains invalid synthesis at this point. Again, in an analysis section, you can use the third-parties that claim it is the same, but that's not the same as the word from the official sources. This all ties back to remember that you are writing for the reader who has zere clue abut Star Wars or the works previously. If you want to write at the level of the fan, that's what Fandom is for. --Masem (t) 03:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Point of whatever. The link wasn't to the 1990's novel per se, it was to this section [11] I inserted in that article because it seemed a reasonable idea at the time. That info has now moved to Lightsaber#Colors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, let me pose a question. If the Darksaber played a significant part in season 2, but is never identified as one neither on screen or by the creators, would you still be adamant that we don't know for certain that it is the Darksaber. Multiple people have recognised the blade as the Darksaber, the lightsaber of the first Mandalorian Jedi. It is obvious that people recognise it, and just because you don't think it is the Darksaber doesn't mean that other people know it is the Darksaber. In Star Wars Canon, there is only one such item, and I'm willing to bet that the Star Wars creators would not bring something from a whole different franchise, such as the Stormbringer, into the Star Wars franchise. -- LoneWolf5498 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

LoneWolf5498, I'll address your point in a moment, but I thought it prudent to address a claim that was made by Debresser, namely that the mention of the Darksaber in another article lends weight to the argument that it should be used here. It bears mentioning that the editor who added that content had never previously edited that article in the 14 years it has been around, and only did so after discussion was ongoing. it is a classic example of article-seeding other articles; its a practice taken from politics, and not an altogether honest practice. So I utterly reject the manipulation of any other article to use to garner favor here. It's bad form, and I was compelled to point out what appears to be an underhanded tactic.

To answer your question, LoneWolf5498, the question's supposition seems unlikely. If it is indeed the major Mandalorian relic that Star Wars fans editing the article seem to think it is, it will almost certainly be discussed in the second season, likely by Din himself. After all, he made a point of discussing how Mof Gideon must have been on Mandalore. The writing staff have been exceptionally smart thus far (imo) in filling in backstory gaps where needed.

I had used the Stormbringer analogy to illustrate that we have no more actual sourcing for the Darksaber than we do for Stormbringe, there's been no identification presented in either the primary source material (the episode itself) or from the show-runners.

The only support for such identification comes from either editor who are so entrenched in SW lore that this is all terribly obvious to them, or sources circle-jerking in the absence of the same information we need. The only difference is that those sources do not face the same editing restrictions that we do: we cannot source ourselves, and as an encyclopedia, we do not create articles based upon speculation.

I will again point out that Masem's suggestion, above, is best implemented by writing an actual episode article, where folk can point out all those sources in an analysis section. Creating an analysis section for this single, unmentioned item seems to lend undue weight to the items's importance.

So, if the item were to appear in season two, it would undoubtedly be discussed by the characters, and therefore become a primary source for the information. What editors recognize as being "obvious" is inconsequential, and I take exception to the ill-considered belief that if enough SW fans shout long enough, they will get what they want. We are not a fan forum. We can wait until the Darksaber is given more than speculative weight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jack on one thing, namely that we can't really use other Wikipedia pages to argue for the inclusion of the Darksaber. It's circular reasoning. It's crazy thinking to say, "One Wikipedia article includes this info, so this other Wikipedia article can include it as well." We are disputing whether the info should be on Wikipedia in the first place, and are consulting both Wiki policy and third-party sources. If the info has been added, then it can stay. For now. We are in NOHURRY to add or remove the info. When we reach a consensus or bring in an Admin for arbitration, then we can adjust the wording. As for the identification of the Darksaber, to quote a comment above: "Leaving out a franchise-significant plot point because it's not specifically verbally referenced on screen is being pedantic to the rules for the sake of rules instead of for the sake a having a more complete article. It's a totally misplaced priority and frankly is pointless." Concisely put, Gideon cut himself out of the TIE fighter with something. What was that something? According to you, we can actually know what it is. Epistemologically, it's a mystery. We don't know what it is and indeed can't know what it is unless an official source does sufficient hand-holding to connect the dots for us. On the other hand, I can come in and say, "It's the Darksaber." What is that? Well, let me link you to another page which can cover that in more appropriate detail. The appropriate level of detail here is just to reveal the name of the object. Another quote from above: "There is no OR or SYNTH involved in quoting reliable sources." If you do not think they are reliable sources, that's fine. But that shifts the focus of the discussion. What is reliable? --Bold Clone 05:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Not playing the semantics game. The matter is quite clear here. If it were indeed a "franchise-specific plot point", why has no one from the people who created it not mentioned it? Why isn't it talked about in the very episode it appears in? It is, by definition, no more a plot point than a can-opener would be. The arguments that we can use sources in the plot summary are true, but only rarely and the sources have to be of a certain origin. For example, we can source the Child's being of Yoda's race because the source is from the best possible source possible: the creator of the material. Anything less is to be avoided. I find disappointing in the extreme the idea that people would actively want to create a consensus to circumvent not one, not two but at least three or four of our policies to add a single piece of what is inescapably a piece of speculation.

I have said it at least a half-dozen times before. Write the episode article and note that different reviewers speculate that the item is in fact the Darksaber. That speculation doesn't belong in the plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Both sides have strong arguments here. And until there is clear consensus for its inclusion, it should probably be left as a basic description (e.g. sword, energy sword, etc.). With that said, we do have a relevant guideline we can look at. Per WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation (with my emphasis):

In many contemporary works, it may be possible to easily identify real-world locations, stores, brands, vendors, and models of tangible elements within a visual work, such as where the work was filmed based on landmarks, or the make and model of a car or a gun by observation of unique features. Incorporating this into plot summaries may also be considered interpretation and an element of original research. It should be omitted, as typically the work of fiction does not rely on these specifics: the story may take place in an unnamed city, or the hero drives away in a fast car. However, when those elements are essential facets of the narrative plot or sourced analysis of the work itself, then they should be included; this usually means that the work of fiction has specifically identified these, or that secondary sources have made reference to these in relationship to the plot or work itself. For example, Back to the Future specifically alludes to the time machine being built from a DMC DeLorean, and the car has become iconic with the series so its inclusion is appropriate. In many James Bond films, the car Bond drives and other gadgets based on real-world products are part of the film's marketing, and can be identified that way within the plot. On the other hand, while the setting of Seven can be identified as Los Angeles from various landmarks, the film never calls out the name of the city, nor is the city's specific elements essential to the narrative, and thus should be omitted.

Because we have widespread coverage in secondary sources that have analyzed this particular element of the plot, there is justification per this guideline to include additional details even when they are not adequately described by the primary source. This does not necessarily mean we have to include it, but simply that we can. Good points have been made arguing that the sword is not necessarily essential to the understanding of the first season, but by the same token, it's reveal is the basis for the season-ending cliffhanger and, at the very least, is an important aspect of the 8th episode. Furthermore, it's apparent that the sword plays a major role in the backstory of an essential character.

I'm on the fence at the moment. I don't think it's detrimental to the plot summary to keep the sword's description basic. However, we shouldn't be excluding simply because we're worried about the accuracy of secondary source analysis. Inclusion or exclusion should be based on verifiability not truth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Point very well taken, GoneIn60, but when all of the sources are speculative, it does water down their import. A source from, say, the production company or the director (or anyone major within the series, really) would be the sort of source that would resolve this entirely. Absent that, we are fortune-telling, as to both the intended object's identity as well as its deeper meaning and impact going forward. It shoukd be excluded - for now - because there is absolutely NOHURRY to identify it now. We need to take the encyclopedic view that the facts will eventually present themselves and not try to Sherlock it out before then. Wikipedia is not a detective agency. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think your viewpoint has been expressed well, several times. I would just caution that the Sherlock detective nature you're warning against goes both ways. Ignoring overwhelming, widespread coverage can be seen as editorial bias and a form of playing detective as well. I'm not saying that's happening, but the point you're making could boomerang. The basis for excluding at this time, as you say, is to wait to hear from a source closely affiliated with the work's creation. That's a reasonable position, but it is not one that Wikipedia policies and guidelines specifically require. Reliably-sourced information, even if on the speculative side, is permitted in many circumstances. Again, I'm not taking sides at this time, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making it seem. It's also worth noting that including the contested "darksaber" now doesn't mean it's being written in stone. If new information surfaces later that makes it incorrect, the term can simply be changed or omitted. Wikipedia would rather be wrong and later corrected than to fall victim to bias. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

One other point I forgot to mention. The way the darksaber is described can make all the difference. Currently, the text says "...with the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact". I'm not sure I would support that kind of absolute certainty. A more acceptable form would be "with what appears to be a Mandalorian artifact known as the Darksaber", or something that is more in accordance with how sources are presenting the analysis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Masem had suggested something similar, using an Analysis section to discuss how various reviewers had speculated that the item was in fact the Darksaber. The elegance of that solution provided the folk wanting inclusion to have it noted on the page, but have it kept out of the plot summary. I am of the mind that it is not a plot point, and considering such as Undue Weight and Synthesis. I know where the line of Synthesis lies, and including the speculation that it is "Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact" is a 50-yard dash over that line. No consensus can erase that line. Until we know for sure what it is, it doesn't really belong here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The biggest point of contention in my mind is whether or not the description of the item is essential to the plot. That is certainly up for debate, and like I said earlier, there are good points on both sides. As far as synthesis goes, I'm not sure it really applies here. We are not combining different sources or different parts of a single source to reach a unique conclusion. Each individual source reaches the same conclusion. The exception is the primary source, but as noted in the guideline above, secondary source analysis can be included in a plot summary even when the primary source doesn't make the distinction. That's pretty clear as day. The part about it being essential, not so much. It should be omitted until consensus concludes otherwise (which likely means an RfC at this point, but the onus to begin one is on those who are strongly seeking inclusion). --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that in the preceding paragraph of that guideline, it states this:

Independent secondary sources that make analysis or interpretation of a work but without any correlation with the creator should be discussed in a separate section outside of the plot summary and not confused with the presented plot summary.

So there we have it. Even if the interpretation is widely accepted in multiple sources, it should not be included in the plot summary without the creator's blessing. It should be in a separate section. I was mistaken, but I think I'll raise this issue at the guideline's talk page. The previous passage I quoted seems overly detailed and lacking clarification. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, GoneIn60, let's address that point.

"Is the description of the item is essential to the plot?"

I would argue no. The item at no point figured into any part of the plot of either the episode or the first season as it unfolded, and only appears at the very end of the last episode, serving as an alternative door-making tool to allow the bad guy to exit his crashed ship.

You will not find a single person here who will honestly suggest that the sword had any impact on the entire plot of the episode. Every argument that would be made hinges upon the impact the item might make in the second season of the series. It is non-essential to an understanding of either the episode or the first season, and that is a fact. And, due to CRYSTAL, we cannot speculate as to how this information is going to effect the second season.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL primarily opposes unverifiable speculation (in the sense that it violates WP:V). That doesn't apply here, since this is sourced interpretation. It's all a moot point, however, and not worth debating any further. I overlooked the other part of the guideline (see above) that relies on the work's creator for inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstod what I was saying. By mentioning what someone thinks the item is, it is lending it more weight than was imparted by the episode or series itself. Add to that the fact there hasn't been anything mentioned about it by the creators. Presuming it needs to be mentioned because it is "important" in the future would be a CRYSTAL situation. Looking at the series without the synthesis of using other series means that fans are presuming the the Darksaber has meaning where it has not been given any. And that presumption and assumption add up to UNDUE weight being given to what only serves in the episode as a fancy-pants can-opener. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That is more clear now, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we all need to calm down. I agree with people recognising that the object in question is the Darksaber and that Jack Sebastian is trying to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. I suggest a compromise. Once the protection has been lifted, someone makes an edit saying that Moff Gideon survives the crash and cuts himself out with an object looking like the Darksaber, a Mandalorian relic. I am open to more ideas that include a compromise between both parties LoneWolf5498 (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can live with that. Debresser (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't; there is naught in the episode noting it is the Darksaber and even less identifying it as a relic. I am, however, open to noting in an Analysis section discussing how reviewers were speculating that the item was the Darksaber, but I oppose any mention of the it in the plot summary. We have nothing within the primary source or from the showrunners that reveal anything about the nature of the can-opener. If, in season 2, something more arises, we can adjust accordingly. In the absence of confirmation, I think we should all be loathe to include anything until we have confirmation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• LoneWolf5498: Appreciate your attempts, as I took a similar route in the discussion. However, it turns out that there is a requirement that the work's creator acknowledge the item's identity before we can, at least in a plot summary (see the most recent discussion directly above this one). It would take overwhelming support in an RfC to override this one, and it wouldn't be time well spent IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not at all what that guideline says. It says that analysis and interpretation should be discussed in a separate section, not the plot section. Nobody is proposing to discuss anything here. Nor do these articles themselves engage in analysis or interpretation. They only recount the facts. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet, the facts do not call it a Darksaber. They do not call it a Mandalorian artifact. In fact, the primary source says not a dang thing about the can-opener. Only the fancruft does. We are not a fan forum.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

But they do. I provided some 7 sources above. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read the posts you are being given that explain the fault in your reasoning. None of those sources are from the creators of the material. They are speculating. Just as you are. They are surmising that the item is the Darksaber, but the primary source - which is what we use for plot summaries, neither names it nor renders it important in any part of the seasonal or episodic content. Focus on that. All your sources might as well be Star Wars Kid; they don't know what it is, but are taking guesses.

Let me put it in a different way, so you can answer yes or no:

• Do any of the sources cite the cast, drew or studio when identifying the item as the Darksaber?
• Does the item make any difference in the plot for the season or the episode?

Since we both know the answer to those questions is 'no', you also conveniently use that answer as to whether or not we can add the content to the plot summaries, as they are without plot impact or official recognition. Consider the offer of putting it into an Analysis section a gift; I am truly on the fence about even having that, as doing so throws UNDUE under the bus.

You should feel entirely free to initiate arbitration on this issue, as it has far-reaching consequences for the wiki-en. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, we don't need primary sources, as I have already show that you misinterpret the guideline. Secondly, "far-reaching consequences for the wiki-en"? I really think you are getting a tad too involved here. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's a Darksaber - call it what it is. When other existing items, lores, characters, species etc appear in the show or in the movies, we don't need an explicit confirmation from the writer/director to call them what they are. We don't call stormtroopers "people dressed like stormtroopers." If a Star Wars movie doesn't mention the word "lightsaber," are you suggesting we shouldn't call it a lightsaber? What makes the Darksaber different? Otherwise by your logic, no existing established character or object ever would be identified correctly in any show or movie article unless it's spoon fed to you. Starforce¹³ 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been addressed at least twice above, Starforce. Common SW things, like stormtroopers, TIE fighters, blasters and lightsabers don't need to be sourced, unless they are unusual or unique. The Darksaber, which came from a (now) non-canon, 25 year old book and a couple of animated series, is not at all common. Therefore, not only do we have to establish that it served as any sort of plot point within the episode or series to date (which it has not), but we have to be able to prove (as an encyclopedia) that it is what a fan says it is. Simply claiming, 'duh, its the Darksaber' isn't enough, because we can't cite you. Anywhere. The source that would resolve this would be from the production staff. No one has presented a source from the production staff as of yet. You can call it a Darksaber. Fans can call it a Darksaber. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot call it a Darksaber. We can create a section that notes that several speculative sources seem to think its the Darksaber, but we cannot go further than that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Clone Wars is canon. So, why do you get to decide what canon is acceptable and what's not? So, for now, we should follow the canon-established lords and relics until otherwise confirmed. Otherwise, anyone can randomly choose what to accept and/or reject. Starforce¹³ 17:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that Clone Wars is not canon. Additionally, I am stating that the Darksaber novel is no longer canon post-TFA. In either case, you are missing the point. Canon has nothing to do with it, and shouldn't. The item is not common, and see the rest of my comment above. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction for Jack Sebastian re: "The Darksaber, which came from a (now) non-canon, 25 year old book and a couple of animated series, is not at all common." The current wiki-link to the Darksaber novel is an error, and has been cited in this discussion a few times as needing correction once this article is unfrozen. The Darksaber in question (referenced by all the cited media references) is the unique Mandalorian lightsaber which appears multiple times in two canon series Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels.

Even though I agree that the Darksaber mention is best left out of this article's episode summary (but should be referenced in the dedicated episode 8 page), the argument based on "non-canon source" is going in the wrong direction. - GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that discussing canonicity is essentially mental masturbation, and not at all useful in Wikipedia. I noted the non-canonicity of the novel, because someone shoehorned in the bit about the can-opener showing up in Mandalorian, which caused another editor here to seek out inclusion in that article based on that article (aka WP:FAIT). Canonicity in this matter has nothing to do with the discussion. I think that mentioning it anywhere outside a critical response section for the episode or an analysis section in this article should not happen, based on the primary source and failure of the item to have impacted the series or the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary. The item is a lightsaber, one of the most commonly recognized elements in Star Wars. Its appearance is justification enough to at least identify it. As far as identifying it goes, this isn't a matter of one fan (myself) saying, "I think it looks like the Darksaber." This is a matter of wide-spread consensus amongst people watching reviewing the episodes, fans or not. It's not a lone voice wishing for it to be something. It's an overwhelming recognition from secondary sources. --Bold Clone 07:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's an overwhelming fan recognition (I mean, let's be serious here - you have to be something of an uber-fan to even recognize a thing across several different series), but still, not a whisper from the sources that count - the primary source, or the production company. So it absolutely is fans pushing for inclusion. It appears nowhere else in the series or the episode. No mention of it is made. Nowhere is it identified. If it were as important as you seem to think it is, then the cast, crew and production company would be shouting it from the rooftops. It would be a major plot point of the series. Or the episode.

...and yet, nothing. For me, that doesn't fit the criteria we use for practically every other plot summary throughout the Wiki-en. And consensus - no matter how much canvassing is done to bloat the numbers, does not overcome policy. I think you are better off aiming to have an analysis section in the article, wherein you can talk about the beskar metal, or the Mandalorian culture as exhibited in the series, or an unidentified can-opener that may very well have implications for the as-yet unproduced, unscripted and unfilmed second season. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's fan recognition, I will admit to that. But it's also non-fan recognition. There are reviewers and commenters who don't know what the Darksaber is. Even the most casual fans can discover what the Darksaber is and its relation to The Mandalorian in about 10 seconds of research thanks to Google. Upon doing their research they recognize the item in question as the Darksaber. I will also admit to the fact that nowhere do we have a primary source confirming what the item is. I've never disputed that, and I want to make that much clear. My contention is still the same, though: we do not need a primary source when we have a widespread consensus amongst various independent secondary sources from both fans and non-fans alike. You cannot reasonably dismiss a widespread reviewer consensus on the object's identification merely because Lucasfilm has remained silent. The reviewer consensus carries weight and deserves merit, even without a primary source. Is it a major plot point? No, I don't think so. Is a minor plot point? Yes, and notable enough to include, in my judgment. The Darksaber carries about as much importance as the Beskar steel: it's a significant Mandalorian artifact, not a can-opener. And I can say that it's far more important than a can-opener on the basis of the consensus from the secondary sources. --Bold Clone 20:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should cut this BS short. It is a Darksaber, sources call it so. Contrary to what some editors said above, the guideline does not forbid to represent sourced facts, just their analysis or interpretation. It's a dead horse, and frankly, I am fed up with one editor opposing a clear-cut good edit. Per WP:DEADHORSE and pertaining guidelines (you may include WP:IAR although I think we don't even need that one), this should be in the article, and enough of it. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe Jack's issue is simply that the sources simply are not good enough, in his opinion. This is because they are secondary sources making this claim without the support or confirmation of a primary source. I'm arguing that in the absence of a primary source, a multitude of secondary sources is adequate for us to make this identification. --Bold Clone 20:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree!

It isn't the Dorksaber until it is explicitly named by either the primary source or a secondary source from the creators/producers/staff/cast of the episode or series (literally, thousands of people).

Primary sources do not call it a darksaber. Plot summaries do not include secondary sources, except those from the the creators themselves (thus the racial connection of The Child to Yoda's species). What is being presented here is rampant speculation being driven by the fan worship - and lets be utterly candid here: the only way that someone would even draw the comparison is if they were super-well-versed in Star Wars trivia.

The policies have been explained in detail to you repeatedly, and yet the sole cogent argument being presented is, 'who cares about the multiple policies we'd be violating or the potential ripple damage this will do the encyclopedia, let's do it anyway'.

Per WP:DEADHORSE, you have been advised by no less than five editors with an accumulated wiki-editing experience of over 40 years that you can't do it. Two alternatives has been presented to you: you may create an Analysis section, so as to cover some of the newer aspects of the SW universe presented within the series or you can write an article where you can note the Darksaber stuff in the Critical response section. If you feel there should be a third option, please feel free to initiate arbitration regarding this matter. Those of us who think that policy and guidelines are more important than fancruft aren't changing our minds. Either initiate the arbitration or call it a day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, Clone, don't try to rephrase my position on the matter, or interrupt my reply to another user. There are several reasons why we should not use this information. Its practically an alphabet soup of policy reasons to avoid using it. That the secondary sources are speculating is only a part of it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Again. I don't consider it speculation if there is widespread consensus among independent secondary sources from both fan and non-fan reviewers. Even if I concede the point, there is still nothing wrong with including sourced speculation within the plot summary, at least according to GoneIn60. --Bold Clone 23:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you misinterpret the guideline. As I explained above, "That is not at all what that guideline says. It says that analysis and interpretation should be discussed in a separate section, not the plot section. Nobody is proposing to discuss anything here. Nor do these articles themselves engage in analysis or interpretation. They only recount the facts." No primary sources are needed.

Also, please, do not make it look as though I have no arguments. The fact that you disagree with my arguments, does not mean I have none.

You count five editors against. I don't see five. I see in favor at least four, three of which are over decade on Wikipedia (11, 12, and 14 years), me included. I really couldn't care less for your mathematics. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's unpack that, Debresser.

Problem A: I am not misinterpreting the guidelines. I am just not providing you the wiggle room you want to sneak the info in. No one has ever said that you cannot have an Analysis section (or a separate article for the episode) where the secondary sources offering their conspiracy theories, speculation and guesstimates can be included. I am saying - clearly - that several policies prevent the addition of sources to plot summaries, esp. those that have no plot weight in either the episode or season.

Problem B: I have never said that you have no arguments. I have only said that they are bad arguments.

Problem C: Locke Cole (15 years) Masem (14 years), GoneIn60 (10 years), myself (10 years). Add to that the heavily-experienced editors at the linked AN discussion about Consensus trumping policy, and that actual number gets so much higher than 40 years. I only noted that because you seem to have pinned all the resistance to adding fancruft in defiance of several policies and guidelines to me; you deserved to know that I was not alone in thinking it was a bad idea. I am not interested in embarrassing you at all, but you don't get to bad mouth me amidst your arguments. Focus on the edits, not the editor. Let's not have this discussion again, okay? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the guideline. You have not even tried to show me wrong ever since I explained how you misinterpret it.

It is your phrase "I am just not providing you the wiggle room you want to sneak the info in." that is playing it on the editor instead of the arguments. So it is rich of you to accuse me of the same.

In that connection, please notice that you were the first to make a count of editors or of their experience. So again, please don't blame me for that. In any case, all three of the other editors seem to have had problems with the lack of sources. Now that these have been provided, I find that you are the only one who is still actively opposing this.

No policies or guidelines are being ignored or even bent. And yes, you are the only editor who is on a crusade here against this edit. Did you see how involved you are in this? You literally made tens of edits here. You are misinterpreting guidelines, taking things personally. Definitely time for you to take a step back. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, do yourself a favor and re-read that post to yourself,as if I were saying it to you, because I'm kinda tempted to. I would advise you that you are the one misinterpreting policy (not guideline). As well, I'll point out that I only numerated the editors who didn't want it in the article after you suggested I was the only one who wanted the plot summary clear of speculation (out and our policies preserved). Thirdly, you might need to take that step back and have a nice cup of tea. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If editors think that enough has been said in this thread we could let it die down for say a week and then ask for a closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why on earth would we look for this to be closed when there is no resolution in place. I suspect that - because allowing this speculation to make it into a plot summary will damage so many other articles in a ripple effect - this will probably end up at noticeboard or arbitration. Its that damaging of an allowance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Here's an idea that was floated earlier, but may have been lost in the crush of posts:

Lets create an Analysis section for the article, which addresses the use (and significance) of beskar metal, the connection between the Child and Yoda and the possibility that the item was in fact the Darksaber. In such a section, sources can be added in support of that hypothesis as well as wikilinkage that further discuss/explore the new items and ideas that are presented in the series. This keeps sources out of the plot summaries, and keeps out naming an item which - as of yet - has no official name. The alteration to the plot summary would change from:

"Gideon attacks in a TIE fighter and the Mandalorian uses the jetpack to bring the craft down, but the Moff survives. The Mandalorian leaves with the Child, while Karga and Dune stay behind. Gideon cuts himself out of his downed fighter with the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact."

to

"Gideon attacks in a TIE fighter and the Mandalorian uses the jetpack to bring the craft down, but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with a dark sword outlined in white energy. The Mandalorian leaves with the Child, while Karga and Dune stay behind."

This seems to be an acceptable solution, with neither side getting precisely what they want, but both getting something. And - far more importantly - both the article and the reader are served. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose analysis section. The Darksaber is relevant, even important, in the plot section. No problem with having it there, as it is well-sourced. Guideline-based opposition is based on a misinterpretation of that guideline, as I have shown above. In addition, since no analysis is involved in calling the Darksaber by its name, so having it in an analysis section would be incorrect. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral on change to plot section. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Modify with "appears to be" on change to plot section. I would adjust it to:

"Gideon attacks in a TIE fighter. The Mandalorian uses his jetpack to bring the craft down, but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with what appears to be the Darksaber. The Mandalorian leaves with the Child, while Karga and Dune stay behind."

As GoneIn60 posted above: Just to clarify, whether the sources are speculating or not is really only relevant to the way the sword is described. You would use a description like "appears to be", for example, as I demonstrated in that other post. There isn't a policy or guideline against sourced speculation, or more accurately, sourced interpretation. In fact, the cited guideline below allows its inclusion in a plot summary, granted that it is backed by local consensus. --Bold Clone 00:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I will await other opinions before weighing in on your comments. Understand that I am bending as far as I plan to - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I figured as much, given your previous comments. I'm also going to wait for some other people to weigh in as well before continuing. --Bold Clone 05:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Use "appears to be" - this way, we leave the open interpretation without completely leaving out an important detail. There's no need to add an entire "analysis" section just to avoid calling a spade a spade. I'm also for the opinion that if this sub-section doesn't reach consensus, this whole discussion should just be closed because it's going nowhere. There's no use keeping a discussion alive if it's just one user who has made up their mind to reject all the other editors suggestions. We can debate for years, and millions of comments without a resolution if just one person are determined to not reach a compromise. It's a waste of everyone's time and it becomes disruptive.Starforce¹³ 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Modify with "appears to be", as suggested above. Wow I cannot believe this discussion is still going strong. I was one of the first people to remove reference to the Darksaber; we've had this issue in other articles, as in Titans, where Conner Kent and Krypto were clearly shown in an episode but not identified. In that case, we kept generic descriptions instead of identifying them, even though many reliable sources asserted who the characters were. While I'm not quite 100% on board with referencing the Darksaber in this instance, it is clear that a compromise is needed, and I like this one. I don't see a real danger about a "ripple effect" as has been suggested. Also, though I know that references are not required for plot summary, there is no guideline suggesting we can't use them. What's the big deal about citing just the reference to the Darksaber, as it is controversial. We do this all the time in the lead of articles for potentially controversial claims even though citations are not required there (per WP:LEADCITE). In any case, this conflict needs to end.— TAnthony^Talk 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Modify with "appears to be", Bold Clone's suggestion is good enough, mostly per TAnthony. At some point the coveted primary source will turn up and we can modify then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Modify with "Gideon cuts himself out of his downed fighter" - remove the Darksaber reference from the series summary (this page); keep it in the analysis section of the episode 8 page (Chapter_8:_Redemption). While it's important to note Gideon escapes, the method of his escape is not essential to the plot of this episode. In the likely event that the artifact is named in the future via series content or creator reference, we can reinstate it. Let's use this as a base point for the future Clone Wars/Rebels content that is likely to surface in future episodes. - GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support and use "appears to be" in the episode article itself. These summaries are just that, a summary, there's no need for that level of detail. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose (Bold Clone), Weak Support (Jack Sebastian) – The second quote I provided from the guideline is pretty clear that "correlation with the creator" is needed for inclusion in a plot summary. I overlooked that originally. Although I have to question how strong the consensus is at that guideline page beyond a handful of editors, I'll side with it for now. A generic description of the energy sword isn't a terrible thing, considering we're more than likely to learn more about it in the second season. It will get the coverage it needs there. The show doesn't expect you to know what it is at this time, only that it's appearance is significant. I would treat an analysis/critical response section differently. Darksaber would be fair game there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I am unsure why there is such a strong opposition to an Analysis section, tbh. A lot of new things were introduced in Mandalorian; beskar steel, the Mandalorian mindset, etc. all of which would benefit from a section discussing them. I cannot in good conscience support the inclusion of the Darksaber to the plot summary; 'appears to be' is just another way of saying 'we here editors think this' - clearly, not acceptable. And we can't use the sources, because they are also scratching their heads in speculation, as well. We work on sources of substance; guesstimating is not what we are supposed to be doing here, and certainly not in plot summaries. Of course, folk have argued that they do, as per IAR; those same folk are unable to point to those FA articles that employ this tactic. And we should be writing this article (any article, really) with the aim of crafting it to FA status.

The large-type elephant in the room here is just how important this item ISN'T at this time. This is another reason why I do not support inclusion of any mention of the Darksaber in the plot summary at this time. If it were truly important, the creators would have shouted it from the rooftops. This is no more identifiable than the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction; in fact, I would argue that - due to the later commentary by Tarentino, it is more identifiable. I get that SW fans are gushing over yet another bit of crossover from another SW media franchise; I dig them too. But it's appearance has had zero impact on the episode or the season - and that is a cold, hard fact. It might be important later, in season 2, but that is in the future. Adding it now represents a CRYSTAL, UNDUE and TRIVIA problem. Overlooking those just to include an unnamed, unidentified item is a bull and a china shop, and it will spread to other articles, who will point to this action as a blueprint for changing other articles to include speculation, watering down what we are. Heck, someone added the Darksaber stuff to another article and an editor in this conversation wasted little time with that WP:FAIT attempt. It isn;t a matter of 'if' it would happen; it is a only a matter of when. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not opposed to including an Analysis section; I just want to focus on one element at a time. For now, it's the question of the Darksaber. Later I can worry about developing an Analysis. Regarding the wording "appears to be": it is not just another way of saying "we here editors think this". It is a matter of us editors saying "we acknowledge a widespread consensus of independent secondary sources collectively identifying the object as the Darksaber." Considering how much focus this item has received, it would be irresponsible for us to dismiss it. The due weight would be to acknowledge the consensus among reviewers, even if the reviewers do not have creator confirmation. --Bold Clone 05:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Clone, I am saying that we use the Analysis section instead of trying to add it to the summary. And I believe I have stated - without equivocation - that speculative sources are garbage. The only way we could source the Darksaber into the plot summary is if - and only if - the creators themselves note it. Such was the case for the inclusion of the Child being of Yoda's race. There is no such mention of the Darksaber from anywhere that counts, or can be used.

Additionally, you might be misapprehending what undue weight actually means here in Wikipedia. We do not feed the pigeons here; we do not give credence to fanwishes - and let us be clear: it is essentially fans who want this info, culled as it is from several different SW franchises. It is the very definition of Synthesis to even consider adding this. It boggles my mind that experienced editors cannot see this.

An analysis section allows for the addition of sources (speculative as they are) to be added to the article and discuss the possibility that it is the Darksaber. It isn't two, consecutive things. It is 'use one because its the best solution' because the other won't work. I apologize deeply if - in all of this conversation and discussion any of what I (and others) have said has eluded understanding. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Deseret News could be of use for an analysis section. "The Darksaber merges the old with the new. It brings everyone who watched “The Clone Wars” together with those who are watching this live-action series. And this is a good thing. More shows like “The Mandalorian” with more references to past shows and animated show moments will only unite the “Star Wars” family." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And Vanity Fair. "When it first appeared in The Clone Wars show, the Darksaber was held by a descendant of that first Jedi—Pre Vizsla, a Mandalorian terrorist (he‘d call himself a freedom fighter) voiced by The Mandalorian creator Jon Favreau. That should explain why it's turning up again." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

See, an analysis covers all the bases so we don't have to muck up the plot summary section. And the analysis section would be awfully useful when (or if) someoen ever writes episode articles. Like I said, win-win. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

*Support the change: The argument of no reliable sources is now invalid, now that we have confirmation from actors and Lucasfilm its self LoneWolf5498 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Efn proposal

I'm not reading through this whole discussion, because my word, but you should use an {{efn}} here. Since Darksaber is never indicated at all in the episode, we can't use that name in the summary (that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). So this is what the relevant changes should be:

"Gideon attacks in a TIE fighter and the Mandalorian uses the jetpack to bring the craft down, but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with a dark sword outlined in white energy. The Mandalorian leaves with the Child, while Karga and Dune stay behind."

You can make the note say whatever wording about the Darksaber you want, but this way, we include it in the summary for everyone who wants that, but don't explicitly say it in the plot to comply with us not violating OR and SYNTH. I also agree with adding some sort of section in production to discuss all of these lore things because that's the most appropriate spot for them, not the plot sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The {{efn}} option is a good alternative as well (or even in addition to one of the other proposals), but let's make something very clear in all these discussion threads. It is NOT considered OR or SYNTH if you immediately include an inline citation to a secondary source that supports the claim. That is what editors originally had in mind before this guideline came into play. WP:CRYSTAL and UNDUE could apply depending on the perspective, but not OR or SYNTH when there are cited sources that draw the same conclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Right. My point was, without sourcing it's OR and SYNTH. And personally, I like what I proposed over stating Darksaber in the plot followed by a source because it is never called such in the episode. And the note shouldn't be exceptionally long either to help with UNDUE; that's where the proposed Analysis section would be beneficial so the topic could be discussed more in depth. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And yes, before that guideline came into play, there was a decent argument that including Darksaber with sources was appropriate. That's no longer the case after a closer reading of the guideline which states, "...[interpretation] without any correlation with the creator should be discussed in a separate section outside of the plot summary". Unless a strong local consensus overrides that guideline, it shouldn't be permitted. Now in an efn? Possibly. Not a bad idea... --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Simple question: does the word 'Darksaber' appear in the plot summary with the efn template? Because if it it does, then its not useful. Perhaps reading the info that Has Gone Before would assist in understanding the crux of the problem:

• we don't use sources within the plot summary area.
• the primary source doesn't identify the item, nor does anyone related to the creation of the primary source. All we have are sources speculating in the void.
• Noting the existence of something in another source, and noting the similarity to an item here is excellent for a detective novel, but here in Wikipedia, it is Synthesis. A lot of editors have trouble understanding that assumptions and deductions don't belong in an encylopedia.

Further considerations of TRIVIA, UNDUE and CRYSTAL render any sourcing of the item moot. As discussions in AN have pointed out with no ambiguity, consensus does not override existing policy and guidelines. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: No, the word 'Darksaber' would NOT appear in the plot summary. That is not in my proposed wording above. Only in the efn template to give further info to readers what this dark glowing object has been identified as by the media/reliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, can you show an example of what the finished change would look like? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Essentially the following:

Gideon attacks in a TIE fighter and the Mandalorian uses the jetpack to bring the craft down, but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with a dark sword outlined in white energy.

That's the wording you proposed above, and I've added in the efn note. You can alter that as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it all comes down to one basic question: should we recognize Clone Wars and Rebels as canon/valid? We don't seem to have the same issue when identifying things from the live-action movies like the TIE fighter etc which are not necessarily mentioned in the show. I'm sure a lot more other things like this will keep showing up and we will keep having these unnecessarily long debates despite Clone Wars being canon. Are we saying that only things that appeared in the live-action films will be accepted while everything else results in month-long debates and/or efnotes? Starforce¹³ 19:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, canonicity is utterly unimportant here, Starforce. I do believe I've spent a considerable amount of time pointing out the difference between common and unique items in the SW universe. Additionally, we are an encylopedia, not a fan forum. Please stay on target. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Common" is subjective unless you have a quantifiable distinction, which you haven't made besides saying what's common and what's not common. If by unique vs common distinction you're saying something like Loki's scepter or the tesseract or Thor's hammer shouldn't been identified as such because it's only one item in the universe, then I have to disagree. Starforce¹³ 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, How about something like this? There's more refs, but these are pretty good RS-wise.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm fine with this.— TAnthony^Talk 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Not bad. I would probably just make this slight change: "According to reviewers, the sword was identified as the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever works, but cited reviews state without finesse that the sword is the Darksaber, they seem sure of themselves. As have been mentioned, no one on-screen has said the word Darksaber. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Anything with "according to reviewer" or "according to (anything)" belongs in analysis, not plot summary.

Analysis of a single moment in a single episode belongs in the dedicated episode page, not the series page.

What's essential to the plot summary is that the antagonist escaped, not how he escaped.

Appeal to editors: this debate over the inclusion of visually identified item has a massive wordcount already. One or two months from now, when Favreau says, "yeah you'll see the Darksaber again in Season 2", the value of this debate will be setting the statute for visually identifiable items that show up in the future of this series. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

GimmeChoco44, that has been almost the entirety of my point since the beginnning of this conversation. Those wanting to chuck the rules are, imo, are sithy fans. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The explanatory footnote (efn) is a good compromise. The plot summary is still a basic plot summary, for all intents and purposes. A footnote that provides more information when hovered doesn't diminish that. In fact, it's presence might cut down on the number of drive-by edits that keep trying to reinstate Darksaber. Even after Darksaber is confirmed in the second season (assuming that happens), we can leave this plot summary the way it is with just a footnote about the item's identity. We can still have analysis in another section, but whether we do or not doesn't have to impact the footnote. For anyone still doubting this idea, think about how much time we've wasted debating this that could have been spent more productively elsewhere. If it gets us to move on, I'm all for it.

By the way, you can see examples of an efn in action in the first line of the infobox at The Matrix (franchise) and in the plot summary's opening sentence at Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. It's a common mechanism used to resolve contentious debates like this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In my response to Jack above, I've used the wording "This has been identified as the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." That's a little better in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

While I am utterly loathe to include any sort of sourcing within plot summaries, I could live with the efn, so long as the footnote doesn't take an absolute stance on this. Ie., "reviewers suggest that this is the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." Thehy are indeed speculating, and until we get conformation from the creators, we cannot state with absolute certainty that it is either. Not in the plot summary, and not in the efn footnote. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That's totally fine. We can adjust however it would be best. It could even be something like "This has been identified as potentially being the Darksaber", or "Identified offscreen as potentially being the Darksaber." if you want to take the definitiveness out of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no need to note "potentially being" the Darksaber. These sources do not allow for any confusion here. They unconditionally and unambiguously identify the item in question definitely being the same Darksaber as seen elsewhere in continuity. I would recommend keeping Favre1fan93's wording, "According to reviewers, the sword was identified as the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." --Bold Clone 19:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Jack's point is that though we do not dispute that these reliable sources have deemed it the Darksaber, they are not the creators and have not claimed inside knowledge, so there is a chance they are wrong. And even though we know it is probably the Darksaber, Jack is correct that our guidelines preclude us from making assumptions even if the sources do.— TAnthony^Talk 19:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

So, "According to reviewers" or "Reviewers state" would reflect the refs unconfusedness and not promise too much. Favre1fan93, I read your "This has been identified" as more off-center on the WP:SAID spectrum. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks for posting the efn proposal, it looks like we may get some resolution here.— TAnthony^Talk 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Since no one is interested in an Analysis section (kind of a missed opportunity, imo) or writing the episode article, and due to the efn template being the least of evils, lets; go with:

"Gideon attacks in a TIE fighter and the Mandalorian uses the jetpack to bring the craft down, but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with a dark sword outlined in white energy. The Mandalorian leaves with the Child, while Karga and Dune stay behind."

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm cool with this.— TAnthony^Talk 03:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As am I. One small thing reading it now (nothing I'll die fighting for), would "Many in the media" be better than "reviewers"? @Jack Sebastian:, for the record, I'm very much in support of having an analysis section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I considered 'many in the media,' but that isn't as accurate, since all of the links would be from reviewers. If you think its somehow awkward, let's find an alternative. Lastly, I didn't know if Darksaber was italicized, as it is a unique, named item, like Stormbringer or Mjolnir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Episode recap is not the same as "review." Reviews refer specifically to critical review for feedback, rating etc. So, even if the article is written by someone who reviews TV and film from time to time, they're not acting in their role as a "reviewer" when discussing the Darksaber. Starforce¹³ 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are we good to implement this? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Patrick Stewart voice) Make it so.— TAnthony^Talk 17:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Riker straddles a chair) Okay, what sources do we add? Pick one or two of the better ones, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: and all: Here are sources - THR, Newsweek, and Time and Vanity Fair (which Gråbergs Gråa Sång previously used above). I think all of these work, and if they are, Jack I think since these aren't episode reviews, "many in the media" might end up working. Also, I don't believe Darksaber is italicized. These media sources don't do it, as just something to look at and consider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

From the list, I would probably go with THR and TIME because they have the highest credibility and journalism standards when it comes to Hollywood and Entertainment news coverage. Starforce¹³ 19:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Favrefan93, I am unfamilar with using the efn template; do I add the bare references to the template?

Starforce, I concur with your choices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack: Yes, you can add the references within the efn template as you would anywhere else in the article. See its implementation here.

Nice work! Glad to see everyone coming together in a positive way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add this in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Favre1fan93 for implementing the final choice. And thanks to everyone who worked hard to keep a cool head during the lengthy discussion (those who had more trouble with staying civil with have other chances in the future). I think we're done here. Shall we close the discussion/RfC and collapse the discussion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion should not be collapsed. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, don't collapse it, no need. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this wasn't a formal RfC and just a glorified local discussion, I don't think it necessarily needs a formal closure. However, feel free to use closure tags after a week or two of no further comments if you prefer. Wouldn't be a bad idea. Collapsing isn't necessary though. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Even adding closure tags is not necessary, nor does it serve any purpose. Without saying it doesn't happen or that it is against any guideline, it is customary to leave discussion like this one as is. This as opposed to discussion at official venues like WP:CFD or WP:RFC. In any case, let's not touch this discussion any more, and let's go on with more important issue that less remind us of dead horses. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I put same at Chapter 8: Redemption. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Believe

Belated I noticed that the efn says "Many in the media believe this item is the Darksaber" I think it would be more correct to say "Many in the media identify this item as the Darksaber" as this is not a matter of "belief", nor it is represented in sources as a "belief" rather as a factual identification. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If I understand the above thread correctly, the argument is that if the sources do not state plainly that they got it directly from Jon Favreau, WP can not consider their statements that this is the Darksaber factual identification. I'm ok with "believe" in this context, I think that "state that" would be a minor improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I can 'state' that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is real. Does that lend credence as to their existence? If I say I 'believe' that either is real, it is correctly noted that such are my beliefs and not statements of fact. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You can state that, but you are not considered a generally reliable source for WP purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You were dodging the point with the skills of a Romulan. My point is apt. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That has to be better than with the skill of a stormtrooper, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

When reliable sources state something as a matter of fact, it is incorrect for us to call this a "belief". As opposed to Jack Sebastian (not a RS) or the Easter Bunny (not presented in reliable sources as a fact). Debresser (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with "believe" for now. Either form is really acceptable, but sticking with "believe" places the statement into a more neutral perspective one-step removed from the sources' perspective. Should also keep in mind that the explanatory footnote (efn) will likely change over time, especially as additional information about the sword is released/confirmed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both your arguments. I am especially hopeful regarding the latter, as IMHO this compromise was not necessary and should not have been made. The in-world argument is negated IMHO by the redirect to Darksaber (fictional weapon) (stress added), and I think that the argument from my last comment above regarding the misleading connotation of the word "belief" when sources present this as a matter of fact, is sufficient reason to change the text as I suggested above. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We could go around and around this, Debresser (and have), but one of the basic truths is that we are building an online encyclopedia; because of such, we try to build articles with the strongest materials we can, so they stand the test of both time and scrutiny. Therefore, we try to use sources that are as close to accuracy as possible. While my Dad once said that, in Wikipedia, "the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth", I disagree with his assessment. We have to aim for both verifiability and truth, because objective truth - while hard to find - is far more durable a building material for articles. What we were offered by the numerous sources was subjective truth. Objective truth would have been commentary from Favreau and Co. regarding the nature of the sword. It would have been the truth of a thing and not just the perception of the truth of a thing. You (and others) might think I am splitting hairs over SYN, UNDUE, etc. but my view is the long one. My aim is for every article I participate in to have the necessary building materials to be FA-quality articles. Adding guesstimates by sources, even boldly presented, does not serve that goal.

And to my reckoning, it is the only goal we should be having. It is the only goal worth having here. To build quality articles that help the reader learn something new and substantiated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And just to add, this is especially important when we suspect current knowledge to either change or be confirmed in the near future. Wikipedia isn't in a hurry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Jack Sebastian, regarding truth over verifiability. That on a sidenote. I don't know, GoneIn60, about not being in a hurry. I don't like to leave things that can be improved at the moment to a later time. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If we were to collectively condense what this entire conversation was about and the resolution we arrived at, how would my fellow editors do so in a sentence or two? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Something like "The result of this discussion is to mention the Darksaber in an explanatory footnote as opposed to a direct mention in the plot summary. Although many reliable sources say that the weapon is the Darksaber (based on other shows), it would be misleading to identify that as a fact since it is a rare item that's neither confirmed by the show itself nor its producers. However, due to the wide media coverage, it is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Therefore, an efn was agreed as the best compromise until there's a solid confirmation.".. add or take a few words. Starforce¹³ 19:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean the whole section, or only this subsection? Debresser (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I had been thinking the whole section, but your sentence is good. Anyone else want to weigh in? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't my sentence.

What would you need this for? Debresser (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you mean close this like an RfC with the purple sentence as the outcome, then yes I think it should include the entire "Keeping Star Wars lore and fancruft out" section.— TAnthony^Talk 18:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just that several editors have stated their opposition to formally closing this discussion or collapsing it. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

At this time, I am just trying to gauge the consensus view, framed as it is by our policies. As this is the final version (for now), we have a slight responsibility to not make others having the same question not have to scale the significant wall of text that accompanied this discussion. Stay on target. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I repeat my opposition to this suggestion. There is a compromise. Which means that nobody really convinced anybody. And usually means nobody thinks an ideal solution was reached. So there is really nothing to transmit to other editors. Not to mention that it is not customary to summarize discussions, as interested editors are always able to go through the discussion and reach the relevant conclusion themselves in a more meaningful way than reading a summary. I'd also like to remind you that at the end of the section above this idea was rejected by no less than three editors, and I for one do not appreciate you trying to get your way in spite of that fact. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Closing discussions can be beneficial (see WP:TPG#Closing discussions and WP:CLOSE). Among the available options, the following were suggested:

1. Simply close the discussion with the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags. No summary.
2. Same as option #1, but with a summary.
3. Close by collapsing the discussion.

I don't think anyone really wants #3. For #2 to work, some variant of Starforce's suggestion might be fine, but here's another proposal:

"Editors discussed the option of identifying an object in episode 8's plot summary as the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact that exists in other Star Wars media. Secondary sources interpreted it this way, but a MOS guideline discourages inclusion in the plot summary without confirmation from the work's creator. The result of the discussion was a compromise to use an explanatory footnote {{efn}}, that when hovered would reveal more information. It is hidden and yet detailed enough to satisfy both parties for now.

Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated above I feel that closing this discussion formally is not needed nor productive. I especially disagree with saying that "MOS guideline discourages inclusion in the plot summary without confirmation from the work's creator.", since I have shown above that that is not true, but a misinterpretation of that guideline. The rest of the proposed text is fine with me, should there be a consensus to formally close this discussion (which so far there isn't). Debresser (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Are we seriously fighting about closing even after a consensus was reached? The discussion is already too long making the talk page unnecessarily large. So, if a consensus has been reached, there's no need to keep this going. We should close it... and if some new information surfaces, someone could always start a new discussion to challenge the current consensus. Starforce¹³ 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Believe me, I wasn't aiming to argue further about it. I just had sought a summary of the decision we made so that, when/if new info came to light, a summary of what came before would be available to new editors. Sorry for any confusion. I'll drop it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, I agree with you that we need to close this, and with a summary for other editors to see the consensus. I was asking the question to those against closing the discussion. Because I honestly don't see the need to keep it going if we've already agreed on a solution. Starforce¹³ 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Starforce13 I am absolutely not trying to co tinue the discussion. My aim is what I stated, not rubbing salt into the wounds of those who disagreed with the resulting decision. It isn't a BATTLEGROUND. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: When it's obvious a consensus was reached, most editors don't ask. They just close it, especially when it's on a talk page with a lot of traffic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)