Talk:The Mandalorian/Archive 3

The Darksaber Confirmed
In this IGN interview, Giancarlo Esposito who plays Moff Gideon confirmed that the sword is the Darksaber. Here's the exact quote from the article: "I found out early on and got completely excited by that because, and I didn't realize until my dear manager Josh Kesselman mentioned to me that I'm the only person wielding this Darksaber in this particular episode... [and in] Season 1," Esposito said of the hardware, adding that it's an "exciting moment in time.".

This also confirms that there's only one darksaber and only one person can wield it. It also makes it pretty clear there was no question or doubt about it being the Darksaber from the crew/cast side. Now, that we have the confirmation we needed, is there any opposition to just calling it "the darksaber" in the plot as opposed to the efnote about what the media thinks? (pinging, , , , , , ). Thanks Starforce13  01:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in the past conversation, but I think this source clearly confirms it is a Darksaber, and the plot description should be edited to reflect that. — Hunter Kahn 01:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We expected that more information would be released over time, and no doubt more is on the way. However, the efn is still a good long-term compromise. Remember, part of the objections in the discussion had to do with the object's significance in comparison to the overall plot summary. It's a very, very small piece. I suspect there will still be opposition to mentioning the Darksaber directly, and honestly now that we have the efn, I don't think there's any real urgency. Maybe down the road during or after season 2 we can revisit. We should be spending our time on more important matters. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoneIn60. I am glad that better sourcing is starting to trickle in, but - as pointed out - the can opener isn't significant enough. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "a dark sword outlined in white energy" more significant in the plot than "the darksaber"? If it has enough weight to be described in 7 words, it doesn't seem like significance is the problem here. Starforce13  05:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. Imagine someone reading the plot summary that hasn't seen the episode. Would you simply say, "...cuts himself out of the downed ship with the Darksaber"? I doubt you would. You'd need to provide more context on what exactly the Darksaber is. You'd probably add "a Mandalorian artifact known as", and you might even keep "energy sword" in there somewhere. Doing any of that makes the word count swap a wash and possibly even an increase. Furthermore, you'd need to retain the efn to describe exactly where this clarification is coming from, since it didn't come directly from the source material itself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the efn should stay. Because remember, it is never called such in the episode. We've only gotten this confirmation outside the episode. So the note can definitely be updated to something like "This was confirmed by Giancarlo Esposito to be the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." But again, we can't simply put "Darksaber" in the plot summary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Emphatically yes. I held that there was no problem having this before. With this source, no doubt about it: it is relevant, it is notable, it is sourced (to a primary source, as those who misunderstand the guideline demand), ergo we must have it. Enough fucking ants here! Debresser (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * must have what? The source added to the efn, or stating "Darksaber" directly in the plot? Again, as I note above and other agree with, in episode we are not told what this is. It is told to us after the fact so the note is needed regardless. You can't put that term in the plot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the plot summary of the last episode. I am very happy that some editors agree with you. Others agree with me. "You can't" is wrong: you can. That is a fact. The question is, should we. And my answer is a resounding "Yes!", for the very simple reasons I stated above, and will repeat now for your benefit: it is relevant, it is notable, it is sourced. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But the episode itself says otherwise. Please tell me where in it, it is confirmed to be the Darksaber. This has only been done after the fact. So as editors, all we can do, it make the note label to help inform readers that, yes it is the Darksaber, but explicitly calling it such in the summary is not correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You introduce a criteria of your own making. However, there is no reason, logical or Wikipedia policy and guideline based, that external sources (as opposed to the episode itself, I mean) can't confirm plot elements. Moreover, there is likewise no reason not to use common sense as a sufficient confirmation. See The duck test. All those who argue that there must be sources, or even primary sources specifically, are ignoring the basics of good editing (in general and on Wikipedia), and are engaging in wikilawyering and antfucking. Compare also WP:PARAPHRASE for a similar idea regarding good editing without relying too much on sources. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with that there has been far too stringent a criteria developed on this talk page about this particular item (the Darksaber), for some reason. I'm rather unclear why so much has been made about the fact that the name of the item isn't specifically said in the episode (which was done purposefully, for dramatic effect) whereas we would not necessarily apply that logic as a basis for exclusion in other situations. For example, in The Phantom Menace they actually never use the word lightsaber in that film (it's only ever referred to by name by young Anakin, who mistakenly calls it a "laser sword") but I doubt anyone would object to that word being used in the plot summary, or insist upon a footnote saying "Some in the media called these weapons lightsabers." I somewhat understand the need for clarifying language in this case since the Darksaber is less known, but now that members of the cast/crew have specifically identified the weapon by name, I think the efnote and additional qualifying language are just unnecessary red tape of our own making, and that we can simply put the word "Darksaber" in the plot summary with a citation tag to the article. — Hunter Kahn 19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Totally understand where you're coming from. I was on the fence in the previous discussion and lightly-challenged those who opposed the Darksaber. Once I came across this guideline and also thought more about WP:TVPLOT, I began to better understand the opposition. Several strong arguments were made against inclusion. First, there are the guidelines which discourage the use of secondary sources in plot summaries to validate claims. Generally, plot summaries are "basic descriptions" of what the primary source material covers. Secondly, there's the lack-of-recognition angle, which even you admit the Darksaber is nowhere near the level of lightsaber and other items in Star Wars lore. Another argument, and probably the biggest one, has to do with its significance to the understanding of the plot. This is still a valid concern, considering it makes only one appearance at the very end of the season finale. Several editors suggested that the clarification could instead be expanded upon in a section outside of the plot summary.Yes, we do have a valid source now (from an actor), even if it is one or two steps removed from the work's creator. It technically qualifies as an exception that seems to satisfy a point of contention made in one of the arguments, though some opponents may still prefer to wait for a better source. This was never about doing a 180 on the first sight of confirmation. The efn still gets the job done, and so far, we have yet to hear an explanation of why the efn isn't good enough. Although I lean in favor of the opposition at this point, I'm not strongly opposed. I just think scrapping the efn so quickly is acting like we're in a rush to ditch a compromise. We shouldn't be. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was stated repeatedly in the discussion above that as soon as primary sources would become available, we would change this. So yes, I see no reason to keep a compromise, now that that compromise isn't needed any more. A note is no valid replacement for material that belongs in the article itself. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide the quotes and/or timestamps from the comments you're alluding to. As I pointed out, there were several arguments against inclusion. A primary source wasn't the only problem. Also keep in mind that the "efn proposal" subsection above only involved a subset of the editors who participated. You need to take the entire section into account. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide the quotes and/or timestamps where the word 'Darksaber' was even uttered, or how said item was intrinsic to the episode or the series to this point. Go ahead; I'll wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your tone is unhelpful and unwelcome, . Nobody has argued the word was literally said aloud in the episode, so you clearly miss the point. It doesn't NEED to be literally said in the episode to be notable enough to warrant a mention in the plot summary, especially if there are sufficient sources with people directly involved in the show identifying it, which there now are. (As I said above, nobody ever says the word "lightsaber" aloud in The Phantom Menace. Or the word "TIE fighter" in this episode, for that matter. But that doesn't mean we are banned from identifying them.) And the fact that you don't understand why the item is intrinsic to the episode/series only reveals your ignorance in the discussion with which you are trying to participate. The item is notable enough that they used it for the final scene/cliffhanger of the ENTIRE SERIES, and the history/significance of the item has been discussed in myriad sources that perhaps you've missed, but have been discussed in depth in this chat. — Hunter Kahn 15:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am terribly sorry that my annoyance at having to restatate for the nth time the main problem harshed your calm. For instance, you seem to have missed entirely the point that common objects in the SW universe (like blasters, TIE fighters and lightsabers) don't have proper names. Not all Hutts are names Jabba, and not all lightsabers are the Darksaber. So please, stop trotting out the same tired argument, as it is - at best - a fallacious argument to make. Regular items don't need proof; unique ones do.
 * And you may have a care to watch your own tone, Hunter; suggesting that its my "ignorance" for not feeling the same way you do about the Darksaber is pretty antagonistic and hello pot, meet kettle. I am utterly'' aware of how much 'importance' that the fanz here have imparted to the appearance of this item, and yet it had no more significant effect on the series or episode plot than, say a can-opener. However, until it actually becomes a plot point, we aren't going to make it magically important. Try again next season, as it may very well become the main maguffin of the series. Not until. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, those points outline reasons why it can be considered for inclusion. But it can be reasonably argued that the cliffhanger matters more to the second season that it does the first. It can also be argued that the average viewer has no idea what that dark energy sword was until they read about it in a secondary source. That's not the case for lightsabers and TIE fighters, hence our lack of hesitation in describing them as such. Also imagine for a moment that there was a ninth episode, in which we get the backstory of the Darksaber. Wouldn't we be more likely to describe it in basic terms in episode 8's plot summary and wait to describe it in more detail in the ninth? I think that's a reasonable assumption and why others would like to wait for that clarification to appear in next season's plot summaries. I don't see any harm in waiting to see how things play out before we reconsider, since we have an efn in place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't really agree and think everyone is making a bit of a mountain out of this particular molehill, I also don't think we're going to reach a consensus about just straight-up adding the word "darksaber" to the plot summary. But I would suggest as a compromise that, given the new source, the efn language should be changed to "Giancarlo Esposito, the actor who portrays Moff Gideon, has confirmed the weapon is a Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact", rather than staying with the current "many in the media believe" language. — Hunter Kahn 17:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm actually okay with a less-wordy version of this appearing in the efn, so long as it stays out of the plot summary. It had not impact in the plot, so it doesn't belong in the plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Right right, major season-ending cliffhanger twists/reveals have no impact on the plot. lol Anyway, in terms of less wordy, how about cutting the qualifier for Esposito and just making it "Giancarlo Esposito has confirmed the weapon is a Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact."? — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * dude, I am not going to keep repeating myself: "major season-ending cliffhanger twists/reveals" is your assessment - you know, kidn of the definition of OR. The only effect that the Darksaber had on the plot of the episode or the series is that Mff would have had to find another way out of the TIE fighter. You are welcome to point to some as yet undisclosed deleted scene or whatever that makes it all about the Darksaber. Until then, you are wasting bandwidth.
 * Anyway, replace "confirmed" with "says", and I am okay with it. The only thing Esposito is confirming is fan-based Sherlocking and, as an encyclopedia, we stay away from that sort of crufty garbage. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * lol Though your larger points are wrong, I am fine with your suggested wording change. I'll wait a bit to make the edit in case anyone else strongly disagrees and wants to weigh in, but otherwise it sounds like we're leaning toward new efn language of "Giancarlo Esposito has said the weapon is a Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact." — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 19:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You should probably work on that whole civility thing there, Hunter; it doesn't help the collaborative process - a lot harder.
 * I think the better language is "" He did not claim that the item was a Mandalorian artifact. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; as long as the wikilink is there so any reader who wants to learn more about the item can do so, I'm fine with this language. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 20:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed the language as discussed above, with the IGN article used as a source. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 04:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say both: the identification by a primary source, and that that confirmed what many thought? That Giancarlo Esposito confirmed what many in the media had said before, nl. that this is the Darksaber. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we please simplify the Ep 8 description now and remove the efn? [The Official Star Wars website has confirmed it.]
 * "In the first-season finale, Moff Gideon, former officer of the Empire, emerges from the wreckage of his fallen TIE fighter. And he wields the Darksaber…" -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think that, yes, since this is an extremely unambiguous declaration from the official Star Wars page, we can now remove the efn and simply modify the description. (The fact that they've dedicated an entire article to the subject, I believe, also speaks to the significance of its reveal and of Gideon wielding it, which has been a discussion point in the past.) I'd suggest, though, that we include that link as a citation for the darksaber phrasing in the plot summary, since this has been a bit of a hot-button issue... — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b>
 * Agreed. There's no longer a question of whether this is the darksaber. And given its WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources coverage, there's no question whether it's notable enough. Well sourced and well-established objects and characters usually get identified in the plot regardless of whether they're directly mentioned in the episode/film or not. This shouldn't be an exception. — Starforce13  18:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. A significant problem with this discussion is that there has been - essentially - two types of people involved.
 * On the one hand, there are those who are SW fans (an apple that has lost its particular sort of blush in the wake of toxic behavior by other fans) who believe that its stupidly obvious that the blade is the Darksaber. They do not care that the item had no impact on either the episode or the series to date. They don't care that it was unnamed. They don't care that the studio didn't mention it. Its obvious to them, and there is this made, fantastic rush to get it into the article immediately.
 * Then there are the others, who are not necessarily fans but are more familiar with how Wikipedia articles work. They are the ones who think that adding oddly specific details about something that has no plot or series value is TRIVIA. They think that using personal knowledge is both SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. They insist on articles from the source (ie, the studio) to confirm facts. And, even with those facts, these same people think that the item still had zero impact on the episode or series as anything more than an improvised can opener.
 * A compromise was found through a note that indicates one of the cast members called it the Darksaber.
 * Nothing has changed, Unless the time-space continuum has altered dramatically since the season ended, the item still has no impact on the episode or the series. Might it? Time will tell, and none of us are reading a CRYSTAL ball to prognosticate. The item's identification has no value at this time, and no weight in the article. Identifying it (or, absurdly, naming it as a Mandalorian artifact) in the episode summary is giving it UNDUE weight.
 * Let it go. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended,, but I believe it's possible you're sticking to your opinion simply because you've exerted a great deal of energy voicing it in the past. This is no longer fans theorizing (if it ever was) that this is the Darksaber: the official Star Wars website itself has confirmed it, in a story that specifically highlights the item's importance. We can now include it in the plot summary as a verifiable fact cited by a reliable source as a portion of a single sentence in the plot summary, which is far from WP:UNDUE. I suggest changing the existing "but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with a dark sword outlined in white energy" wording to "but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the ship with the Darksaber, an ancient Mandalorian black-bladed lightsaber", using the official Star Wars website link as a citation. (The two descriptions are roughly the same number of words, which further alleviates WP:UNDUE concerns.) I'll wait a bit longer for any further discussion, however, before making the change. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * *No disrespect taken,, but the reason I stick to that view (not opinion) is that it happens to be accurate; it was worth the expenditure of energy to ensure it was heard and understood.
 * I will ask you to explain - using the series and episode as guide - how the Darksaber had any effect on the plot of either. Additionally, I will also ask you to explain where in the series or the episode the Darksaber was identified as an "ancient Mandalorian artifact." When you cannot note either (the latter due to SYN), you will understand how I consider the matter contested, and therefore it would be pretty bad form to revert it in when we have a functioning solution already in place.
 * Furthermore, I will gently suggest that you might want to re-read UNDUE, as I believe you have completely misapprehended its meaning (hint: it has jack to do with word count). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, Jack, I'm beginning to find your tendentiousness on this matter rather intellectually dishonest. Firstly, none of the sources that were previously identified can be genuinely called speculation, despite your insistence. They were straightforward reporting of facts, not phrased as speculation at all, and you were engaging in making an unfounded claim that it was while asking everyone else to prove the negative, the inverse of the proper mode of argument. You have to prove it's speculation. Even when multiple sources were added to here and the lightsaber article you pedantically mischaracterized the sources, including the number despite knowing full well that there were over a dozen such sources identified. You also claimed that we cannot use other sources besides the episode in the plot summary, despite being told you were wrong by multiple editors. You also claimed some sort of slippery slope argument, a logically fallacious position. Why do you insist on editing back in a wordy mischaracterization and spurious tags? Frankly, your entire behavior has been wrongheaded in this matter, and there's clearly consensus against your incorrect claims. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Debresser (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars article clearly states the item is "extraordinary" and "legendary", assigning the same weight as virtually every other editor in this Talk page, so labeling its identification as UNDUE is unfounded. With such a clear citation now in place, there's no reason not to modify the current description of the weapon with the (a) clearer and (b) more concise description now afforded to us: it's the Darksaber.
 * One editor's objections, however well-intentioned, should not stop the article from being updated with the most current information. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, no one has provided an answer to my stated questions. UNDUE is absolutely on point, ; the appearance of the item had no bearing on the article or the first season. At all.
 * Will it have an impact in season two? Maybe, I don't know. What I do is that it has no place in the edit summary of this article. I have long suggested an Analysis section, wherein easter eggs and fan-giggly bits are included (with refs of course). There is precedent for this; Doctor Who episode articles do this, and I am sure there are several others. Even better, stop complaining here and start writing episode articles; by the time someone gets "Redemption (The Mandalorian)" up to GA status, the second season will likely be broadcasting, and there will be ample quotes from the required sources - remember, t has also been clearly stated from the beginning of this entire discussion that we need a source from cast, crew or studio to even mention the Darksaber, which we have via template. To date, all we have is an actor's noting of using it. The template encompasses that information without overpowering the edit summary. Nothing has changed.
 * Stop being in a hurry. The second season will likely wrap up all of this. Until then, let's allow cooler heads to prevail and stay civil. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "To date, all we have is an actor's noting of using it." Jack, the entire reason this conversation has resumed and the consensus is shifting here is because this is NOT the only use of it. As was stated above, the official Star Wars website has now confirmed it. (The site is operated by Lucasfilm, the production company that makes The Mandalorian.) As for the rest of your statements, you are essentially repeating your previous arguments. You are certainly entitled to those opinions, but they are obviously not shared by everyone. So far five editors have agreed that confirmation from the official source is sufficient for inclusion in the plot summary, and only you arguing against it. If that WP:CONSENSUS continues to hold up, I'm going to implement the change. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine using the Star Wars.com source to call it the Darksaber, but I'm a bit of the mind of Jack, that on the main article here, it has no bearing on the plot. The summary could and should be reduced to simply 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. That's perfectly fine, because he doesn't survive of the Darksaber. He's alive in that TIE and might just be trapped a bit longer if he didn't have the Darksaber. It should definitely be used on the episode page, but not with an ancient Mandalorian artifact; again, simply saying "Darksaber" and the source would be fine. Once again, it would be beneficial to this article if there was a production/lore/tie-in (what name you) section to cover all of these things. That would move the heavy lifting that's trying to happen in the plot to that section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As has been said before, while consensus can change, consensus does not override policy. And while I realize that my opinions may not be popular with you, others felt it was reasonable enough to come up with an alternative. My stance on this issue has not changed, and is not likely to.
 * And it did not escape my attention that no one has answered my question as well:
 *  what impact did the appearance of the Darksaber have in the episode, the season or the series this far? 
 * This is the source of the UNDUE argument. Any argument advocating the "Mandalorian artifact" language is SYNTHESIS, plain and simple. These are not opinions. These are solid fact. If you want to go on and on about the Darksaber, you have a clear avenue to do so - through an analysis section in the article or writing the episode article. Prove to all of us that you guys just aren't argue to argue; start those sections or pages. It doesn't belong in an edit summary. You should feel entirely free to initiate an RfC on the matter; maybe that would streamline the process and bring a lot of eyes to the article that haven't been here before. I think you are going to have to do that, actually. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack, you continue to voice the same positions, and I'm not going to re-litigate this with you; I've actually answered your "what impact did the Darksaber have" question multiple times before, but that ultimately has no bearing anyway on the new question at hand (the use of the official Star Wars source). You've made your position very clear, and so far a majority of editors do not agree with your interpretation of policy with regard to the use of the official Star Wars/Lucasfilm source. As for your statement "My stance on this issue has not changed, and is not likely to", I fully believe this is true; no matter how much proof to the contrary, you seem disinclined to change your stance. You once argued against including this because said nobody involved with the show had referred to it as a Darksaber. When someone did (Esposito), you continued to maintain that the studio didn't identify it. Now the studio has identified it, and you still haven't even acknowledged that fact. I don't mean any personal offense, but it seems you're going to continue to move the goal posts here and will never be persuaded otherwise. Since there are currently more editors in favor of using the source in this fashion, I've edited the article with the suggested wording I provided above. If you really feel the need to take this to RfC to try to have this reverted, be my guest, but I'd ask you not to revert it yourself until then. The consensus has clearly shifted in this direction due to the new official source, so the onus should be on you to prove it should be changed, not the other way around. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Hunter, you have not answered my question once. And if you truly believe that you have a solid consensus for inclusion (which you did not have last time), you should cement that belief with an RfC; its how things are done here. The last time I checked, policy has not changed, the solution in place is the right one, and adding onformation back into the article that you know is challenged is the very definition of tendentious editing.
 * I would strongly advise you to use the talk page environment to build a consensus within policy that favors your personal opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jack Sebastian that a RfC is the best way to go, and rushing through with an edit is too soon considering the amount of discourse and number of active editors involved in the discussion.
 * Identifying the Darksaber by name is the best move. It would present the proper name of the item without excessive discourse, and add information that a casual reader will find worthwhile. The case for inclusion is stronger than the case for exclusion.
 * I also think it's important to consider this as a test of UNDUE when it comes to serialized fiction. If Moff Gideon pulled a photo of Princess Leia from his jacket right before the end of the episode, it would defy the understanding of a continued narrative to say that, since it had no bearing on the episode content before that point, the commonly-accepted identification should be excluded.
 * There's a high probability that we'll get more visual clues in Season 2 relating to the larger universe, so this discussion will be part of setting a precedent about proper identification. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is very much;; what I have been saying all along, . It has no impact on anything within the first season, but it would be stupid to introduce an unnamed item and not make it one of the key components of the second season story arc. There is no hurry, as the story will take care of itself. Until it does, assigning it any value within the episode where had not plot impact is futile. Not only do we not use cites in plot summaries, but we cannot jump the gun to predict that something might'' become important enough to note. The bit noting the Darksaber is "a Mandalorian artifact" is straight up Synthesis.
 * The fact that Esposito noted that he was using the Darksaberis what allowed us to use the efn template in the first place. It is an arguably elegant solution; it is the middel ground between those who adhere to the rules and those who want to ignore all the rules. And guidelines. And most other articles within Wikipedia. I find it frankly distracting that - when given the idea of writing episode articles or an analysis section where they actually note (within policy and guidelines) the Darksaber - they choose to flog a dead horse over an edit summary.
 * Let's do the RfC; let the consensus emerge from that, and get insight from others not sweltering around arguing here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that has (quite predictably) reverted the edit in spite of the new WP:CONSENSUS toward including this language. Right now we have five editors (myself,, , , ) who have voiced support for using this new official Star Wars source as a citation for a mention of the Darksaber in the plot summary. Jack favors keeping the previous (now current) wording intact, and  favors removing any mention altogether. But I have no wish to get into an edit war here, so I'll go ahead and go the RfC route. It seems silly to go through all this trouble for what amounts to half of one sentence in a plot summary, but... here we are. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 06:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you not edit-warring, Hunter...but if you predicted that I was going to revert it, why do it at all? It took weeks to establish the consensus we had for...what, two weeks or so? Why on earth did you think a consensus was going to magically do away with discussion. I am not sure you thought that through, tbh. Anyhoo, it appears you've started the RfC; now, we can get eyes on the matter that better represent the body Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We had no consensus. We had a poor compromise. Which we had only because of your unreasonable opposition to a perfectly good edit. Time to do the right thing on this article. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to rain on your parade, but consensus is in fact compromise. Anyone who tells you different fails to understand either term. And, as you were a part of that discussion, you are well aware that I was not the only person who insisted on following our own rules and guidelines. Focus on the edits, and not the eidtor, and you will remain on far more stable footing, bud. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding Darksaber mention in The Mandalorian plot summary
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the portion of the plot summary of Episode 8 of the article about The Mandalorian that currently reads "the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with a dark sword outlined in white energy" be changed to "but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the ship with the Darksaber, an ancient Mandalorian black-bladed lightsaber", along with citations from this source from Lucasfilm's official Star Wars website, and this source in which the actor who portrays the character states the item is a Darksaber? (UPDATE: Please Talk:The Mandalorian.) — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 06:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Leave As Is - the Darksaber has no impact in the episode, the season or the series; it deserves no naming within the plot summary of the Episodes section, as that would be providing the item undue weight. It absolutely does not warrant mentioning it as an "ancient Mandalorian artifact." That's straight-up Synthesis. It might be part of the second season, but we're an encyclopedia, not a fan forum; there is no reason to try and read the tea leaves here; we have commentary from one actor and that is why we all agreed to settle for using an 'efn' template. It was an elegant way to keep the plot summary free from Undue weight issues and references. There is no reason for this to change, and I would note that those opting to name it as "the Darkblade, an ancient Mandalorian artifact" are the very same ones who have been fighting for its inclusion since the day after the episode aired. Its a fan view, not an encyclopedic one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS is when editors make connections or conclusions that haven't been made by the sources. Thats not the case here. WP:CRYSTAL is for people making unverifiable speculations and predictions. That's not the case here because no one is predicting anything nor making up anything that's not fully supported by reliable secondary sources as well as the primary source. So, please stop misrepresenting policies. Otherwise, that counts as WP:GAMING and WP:STONEWALLING. — Starforce13  14:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't personally disagree with you, I think we should all attempt to refrain from responding to individual statements within this RfC wherever possible. Many of us have voiced our arguments myriad times in the other talk page discussions above, and I'd rather this one not get too bogged down in point-by-point responses like those discussions did. This RfC is an attempt to clarify what the WP:CONSENSUS is and invite other voices to weigh in. I think we can all make our claims and let them speak for themselves, and others can decide if they agree or disagree. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 14:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the change - I have already voiced disagreement on this talk page with many of Jack's arguments, so I won't repeat myself. Suffice it to say, I believe the amount of coverage the Darksaber's presence received in reliable sources (                  , ,  to name just a few) indicate it is a significant enough element of the episode to warrant this one brief half-sentence description. The problem before, in my view, was the Darksaber was not specifically identified by name in the episode itself (it's featured in the very last scene of the season finale), and the cast/crew/studio of the series had not yet explicitly identified it as a Darksaber, so the argument against its inclusion was that citing any of those sources would amount to speculation. That's why we reached a compromise to instead add an efn saying "Many in the media believe this item is the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact". When a member of the cast DID identify it as the Darksaber, objectors countered that the studio (Lucasfilm) still had not officially identified it as such, so we reached a new compromise to change the efn to "Esposito has said the weapon is the Darksaber, a Mandalorian artifact". But now that Lucasfilm itself has confirmed this on the official Star Wars website, there is no need for the efn at all. The sentence in the plot summary as it stands now is unnecessarily wordy, vague, and potentially confusing to the reader, (it's the equivalence of describing Planet of the Apes as ending with Heston coming across the remains of some statue, with an efn saying that sources say it's the Statue of Liberty) and now that we have an official confirmation from Lucasfilm, the sentence should be changed accordingly, with those two sources included as citations. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 07:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - so you are stating that if StarWars.com issues a statement, it is the same as if Lucasfilm said it? Why didn't Lucasfilm say something themselves? Why didn't Disney? Why didn't the studio issue a statement? I think you are drawing a conclusion based on an implication. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the website that explicitly confirms Gideon's use of the darksaber is the official Star Wars site, operated by Lucasfilm, which is the studio that makes The Mandalorian. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 02:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, well in that case, you are proceeding under a false assumption, and missed the point of my question. If Disney or Lucasfilm wanted to say something about the Darksaber, then they would have said it. They would not have worked through a proxy and a freelance contributor to do so, Furthermore, the reason why Esposito's comment made it into the efn was that it was Esposito who said it, not because it was on SW.com. And it has not escaped notice that neither Disney, Lucasfilm or the showrunners have made even a Twitter statement about the Darksaber. It might seem like a slight distinction to you, but its a fairly large gap in reality. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the change - As stated earlier, the absence of clear citations is no longer an obstacle. Clear identification of the weapon is in the best interests of the reader, which is the ultimate goal. Multiple official and credible sources exist for identifying the weapon as the Darksaber. There are multiple Star Wars visual references built up from over 40 years of serialized fiction and we have to use our collective knowledge to promote understanding of this universe to any reader who seeks to learn more. As volunteer editors of this and related pages, recognition of Star Wars-related characters, vehicles, weapons, or other associated items is not trivial -- it's essential. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the change The original opposition was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant guideline, as I explained above, but I was unsuccessful in convincing my colleagues of this. The subject is extremely well sourced, including from the owner of the franchise. It is not a central plot element, but it is a cliffhanger, which is almost per definition something that should be mentioned in a plot section. The high number of sources and the media buzz are additional proof that this should be in the plot section. Jack Sebastian is opposing a clear consensus, and I think it is about time to throw this WP:OWN problematic editor from this article with a formal ban from this page for six months. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the change per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the change - 1) The Darksaber is supported by primary sources, hundreds of reliable secondary sources as well as existing Star Wars material. So, that eliminates questions about whether it's the darksaber or whether it's notable. 2) Known objects and characters are usually identified for what they are in plots regardless of whether their name was mentioned directly in a particular episode. That doesn't make it a fan point of view. Otherwise, things like TIE fighter, lightsabers, stormtroopers would never be identified directly unless they're mentioned in every movie/episode. 3) Arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned because it didn't play a major role in the plot doesn't make sense considering the item is already mentioned indirectly with a long description, which means it was clearly relevant to the plot. So, calling it by its name instead of describing it suddenly mean we're making it more important than it was in the plot. There's no need to keep coming up with ways just to avoid calling something what it is especially when there's undeniable evidence from reliable sources. — Starforce13  14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose – Despite the fact that there are now two sources closely-affiliated with the work's creation (an actor and a freelance writer's article published by the studio's website), both are a notch or two below Favreau and studio executives. The concern here is that they may not be enough to fully satisfy WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Also, we are still at an early stage of the object's prominence within the work itself. Describing it in general terms with an efn that explains the Darksaber in more detail remains effective. It's hard for either party to argue that their side isn't being represented. I'll stick by my previous comment:
 * "We expected that more information would be released over time, and no doubt more is on the way. However, the efn is still a good long-term compromise. Remember, part of the objections in the discussion had to do with the object's significance in comparison to the overall plot summary. It's a very, very small piece. I suspect there will still be opposition to mentioning the Darksaber directly, and honestly now that we have the efn, I don't think there's any real urgency. Maybe down the road (during or after season 2) we can revisit. We should be spending our time on more important matters."
 * Calling it the Darksaber isn't the end of the world, but neither is leaving the efn compromise in place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC) --updated by GoneIn60 (talk) on 16:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't really have a horse in this race, and I don't think the integrity of Wikipedia will be ruined by the inclusion of the Darksaber here. However, based on WikiProject Television precedent and, well, logic, I don't think it belongs. Masem has spelled it out pretty well in the previous discussion. To me, in the context of this episode, the Darksaber is an easter egg, and our seemingly desperate need to nerdsplain it is cringeworthy. Kind of like the way we seem to have to mention the previous owners of a particular lightsaber when we mention it in an article. The pro-inclusion reasoning I'm seeing would make it OK to change the plot summary of Star Wars (1977) to "Obi-Wan sacrifices himself in a lightsaber duel with Darth Vader, Luke and Leia's father." I mean, I can find hundreds of external sources to back it up.— TAnthonyTalk 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that The Mandalorian episode intends for the use of the Darksaber to be a big reveal and a cliffhanger for the second season (as indicated by the subsequent statement by Esposito and article published by Lucasfilm, as well as the other third party sources), which is clearly not the case in the Obi-Wan/Vader example you cite. This is why I think it's a plot point (one worthy of at least half a sentence, anyway) rather than just a bit of trivia. To me it's like writing about Citizen Kane without mentioning the reveal of the sled at the end. The plot summary is incomplete without it. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 15:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You make an interesting point, Hunter Kahn, I'm just not sure that in the context of this specific episode summary, the reveal of the Darksaber is some earth-shattering event that colors the episode or the story arc. Even if it is, it's out of the intended scope of a 200-word episode summary. If reviewers say it's important, it should be discussed in detail in a separate episode article. I think Favre1fan93's suggestion below is a nice compromise though; anyone caring to know more about the Darksaber (like that it's a Mandalorian artifact) can follow the link. Like I said above, the urgency to wedge this info into the summary comes off as fanboy nerdsplaining.— TAnthonyTalk 19:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I'd be okay if the text is changed to Darksaber and we add the Star Wars.com source. I'm not okay with having "an ancient Mandalorian artifact" in the plot summary, and like, I don't think the efn should be outright removed. In addition, as I mentioned above, at least on this article, does the Darksaber even need to be mentioned? Probably not, but I won't be upset if it stays. Also, I once again would be in full support of some sort of section here where all of this Darksaber info could be fleshed out more in the production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on this and the comments by and, it sounds like there could be some support for "but the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the ship with the Darksaber", with that sentence cited by the Lucasfilm/Esposito sources (or the citations can go in the efn, if you think that should still remain). Would that work for you? — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 19:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Note: I've sent notices to the talk pages of the other editors who contributed to the previous discussion of this topic; the only ones not contacted were those who are currently involved in this new discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have noticed that the majority of comments note the crush of of reviewers who think the item is the the Darksaber. I would posit that these sources were immaterial when arriving at their use in a plot summary in the earlier consensus (now only three weeks old). We don't use sources in plot summaries. Additionally, one editor argued that we have to utilize our "collective knowledge...built up from over 40 years of serialized fiction". I utterly reject this almost textbook definition of OR and SYN; we do not get to use our personal knowledge of a subject in articles, since we ourselves are not citable sources. Lastly, not one person has addressed the main reason why anything goes into the plot summary: "what plot impact did this item have in the episode, season or series?" We cannot say how it might become important. We can only address its importance now. And, fan-buzz aside, there isn't any. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Jack, I think it would be best if we tried to avoid counterarguments in this RfC and instead focus on including other voices. But I will say, once again, the question you raise about the impact has been repeatedly answered, you just don't agree with the answers: for example, the fact that the weapon is so notable that the show chose to make it the series finale-ending twist strongly indicates its impact and relevance (hence the significant response from the press). I get that you disagree with that, which is your right. All of that being said, I think the reason the new consensus is leaning toward inclusion is not related to that, nor to the large number of sources from reviwers, but rather to the new official confirmation from the Lucasfilm website. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 02:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I've always hoped you would provide a far better proof of the impact of the item beyond your interpretation of its placement in the episode. My interpretation - not being the uber-fan that *clearly* a lot of the editors who want this info in are - is that the Mandalorian and the Child getting away left no cliffhanger. It was a good close to the season. That's the thing, though, about interpretations and Wikipedia - because theyoften differ dramatically, we use a view of events directly in the middle of impressions. There are going to be super-fans who are going to plotz over the appearance of an item from the cartoons and there are going to be the rest of us, who are just oohing and ahhing at the gadgets. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We're fortunate, then, that we don't edit Wikipedia based on OUR interpretations, but rather by depending upon reliable sources. And there are a multitude of sources out there that specifically identify the appearance of the Darksaber as a cliffhanger (,, , , , , , , , , and to name only a few). To disregard a cliffhanger simply because it didn't seem like a big deal in your subjective opinion is contrary to how Wikipedia works and, frankly, almost feels like a sort of WP:OR by omission. And as I said elsewhere, completely omitting what many reliable sources are identifying as a cliffhanger feels a little bit like writing about Citizen Kane without mention the sled at the end. In both cases, the plot summary would be incomplete without it. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And again, they are all of them speculating. Jedi use the Force; not we as editors. We aren't supposed to search our feelings or offer our speculations. We work on the primary source only for plot summaries. No value means no value. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

, the recent edit you made is unacceptable. Please refrain from stoking the fire while an RfC is underway. We should patiently wait for its closure. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I personally don't think we should explain what it is ("an ancient Mandalorian artifact"). We should just call it the Darksaber with a wikilink for anyone who needs to know what it is. That's what we do for other objects as well as characters. That would address 's "nerdsplaining" concern. Likewise, we shouldn't describe it as "a dark sword outlined in white energy" either. We don't identify other known/established items with their descriptions. We just call them what they are. Like I said before, if they're important enough to be included in a 7-word description, then mentioning them directly doesn't do any damage. We don't mention lightsabers by their description and we don't nerdsplain them either. So, just call it "Darksaber" and move on.—  Starforce13  14:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If cutting the "ancient Mandalorian artifact" bit and leaving the rest in the plot summary (along with the citations) would be a sufficient compromise for the opposing voters above, I'd be fine with that. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 14:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said in my response above, I'm also in agreement of excluding that portion, or keeping it in the efn note. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Question - for, does calling it "the darksaber" imply that the object played a bigger role in the story than if we call it "a dark sword outlined in white energy"? The only difference is that in one case, we refuse to identify it directly but that doesn't diminish or magnify its role in the plot. It's just using too many words to say too little. So, the argument about its significance in the plot doesn't seem to make sense to me.—  Starforce13  14:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I answered this in the last conversation when you brought this up:
 * "It's not that simple. Imagine someone reading the plot summary that hasn't seen the episode (or knows very little about Star Wars lore). Would you simply say, "...cuts himself out of the downed ship with the Darksaber"? I doubt you would. You'd need to provide more context on what exactly the Darksaber is. You'd probably add "a Mandalorian artifact known as", and you might even keep "energy sword" in there somewhere. Doing any of that makes the word count swap a wash and possibly even an increase. Furthermore, you'd need to retain the efn to describe exactly where this clarification is coming from, since it didn't come directly from the source material itself."
 * We need to keep the uninformed reader in mind. Sure, most can click a link to read more, but articles should be able to stand on their own without relying on links or forcing its readers to use them (per MOS:LINKSTYLE). The reader needs to understand the plot summary at THIS article, and I'm still not convinced that calling it the Darksaber in running prose enhances that understanding. It certainly isn't a critical component. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And Starforce, the difference between naming it and not naming it is the difference between a splinter of wood and a piece of the True Cross; naming something makes it important. TIE fighters are just ships. Lightsabers are just weapons. The Darksaber is unique. It is a plot device (a MacGuffin) all on its own. Until it actually warpes the story around it, we shouldn't mention it. I believe that has been my take on this from the beginning. I apologize for perhaps not explaining myself better earlier. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

So it seems that editors from both sides of the argument are leaning toward a compromise involving mentioning the Darksaber by name but either keeping the "Mandalorian artifact" bit in the note, or removing it altogether. Jack Sebastian, where do you fall on this?— TAnthonyTalk 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am annoyingly aware of the fansquishy need to mention the Darksaber, and am still opposed to it, as no one has impressed me with a valid answer as to its impact in the plot anywhere in the first season. I find myself wondering at the almost fanatical opposition of these same folks to an analysis article in the production section that would allow them room to explore what the sources said without beating our plot summary rules with a lead pipe. I'm equally boggled that they spend so very much energy demanding it be in the plot summary of this article, and yet won't lift a finger to - you know - actially write an article for the episode. Its difficult to get be happy about a group of people who want all of the benefit without any of the work, no matter the cost. So yeah, I'm frustrated at the entitlement on display.
 * That said, if the consensus - after the RfC plays out (these things usually run their course in about a week) - if the consensus is that we mention the item, then that's the consensus. However, I will fight to the death any intention to mention the item as a Mandalorian artifact in the plot summary; thai is my line in the sand. You wanted to take my temperature on the subject, and now you have it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian --"I'm equally boggled that they spend so very much energy demanding it be in the plot summary of this article, and yet won't lift a finger to - you know - actually write an article for the episode." -- are you referring to this article? Chapter_8:_Redemption -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "I will fight to the death any intention to mention the item as a Mandalorian artifact..."
 * And therein lies the problem... We can't simply swap "dark sword outlined in white energy" for "Darksaber", because doing so loses any context we had on what exactly this object is. Once you introduce "Darksaber" per cited sources, you are then inclined to specify "Mandalorian artifact", which is also supported in sources (several are listed in Hunter Kahn's !vote). That slippery slope is more slippery than it looks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. Because you know if Darksaber gets in, the Great Fansquishy will then demand that it be termed the Mandalorian artifact. And because we released the parking brake on the Patience-Mobile, there will less room to oppose it. I am glad you see the problem - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not "inclined" to explain what the object is. When we mention other objects, we don't explain what they are. There's no reason the darksaber should be any different. The reason we're doing this is to make a final consensus that we will all enforce. So, claiming that people will ask for more is just assuming bad faith. Otherwise, all compromise consensus would be useless if you refuse to agree based on assuming bad faith that people will ask for more. The difference between this and the other temporary consensus was that we hadn't got any confirmation from anyone associated with the show or Lucasfilm that it was the darksaber. It was purely based on the fact that it's identifiable and it was supported by the media. But now we do, including an interview from the actor who had been told it was going to be the darksaber even before he filmed the scene (removing any possibility of media influence). — Starforce13  10:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "When we mention other objects, we don't explain what they are. There's no reason the darksaber should be any different."
 * Starforce, the reason has been pointed out to you twice before on this page. Common items in Star Wars lore like lightsabers and TIE fighters are well understood by the general public. The Darksaber doesn't fall into that category. The purpose of this RfC is to determine how we should proceed in light of two sources that are a step or two removed from the work's creators (Favreau and the studio). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, Jack, please refrain from referring to people as "fansquishy", "fanatical" and "uber-fans" just because you disagree with their position. That's just disrespectful.— Starforce13  11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential compromise
I share some of your frustration with the terms being used, Starforce, but this debate has been going on for so long, I can understand why emotions may be running a bit high. In any event it sounds like we're finally reaching a compromise/consensus here, so hopefully we'll all be able walk away from this conversation soon. Based on the above conversation it sounds like we can remove any references to the "Mandalorian artifact" and change the text to this...
 * "the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the ship with the Darksaber"

...and since there was some sort to keep the Efn intact rather than remove it, we can leave it and change the Efn text to this...
 * "Giancarlo Esposito, as well as Lucasfilm's official Star Wars website, have identified the weapon as the Darksaber,(cite)(cite) a Mandalorian lightsaber that has appeared previously in Star Wars animated series.(cite)"

...Since WP:RfC suggests the poster and participants can end the RfC when they feel a consensus is reached (it sounds like this is encouraged, actually, to cut down the backlog there), I suggest we let this go another day or so to make sure we're all squared away before making the change. Thanks all! — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 12:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. After a day or so, if the consensus doesn't change direction, it should be safe to use just "the darksaber" with an efn. — Starforce13  16:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hunter Khan -- "the Moff survives and cuts himself out with the Darksaber" would be correct grammar
 * Jack Sebastian -- sarcasm and name-calling make this discussion a lot worse. Objective discourse would be appreciated. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite right on the grammar . Copy and paste error on my part. lol Fixed! — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 18:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think most Star Wars fans are largely self-entitled toxic crybabies. Their tantrums are utter poisonous - just ask Kelly Marie Tran or Ahmed Best (the latter contemplating suicide after the fanhate). I refuse to give even an inch of consideration to their wishes here. If I call them the Fansquishy, I urge you to get used to it, because my hatred of them will not subside. Ever. Their opinions and wants have zero place in our articles.
 * Every article, from Order 66 to Hitler's Final Solution, get treated the same. We don't cite plot summaries, We don't push an unnamed item as being something sooper-dooper important because someone fromt eh fanbase thinks they recognized the item from cartoon. If someone in out editorship considers themselves an uber-fan, you have my my sympathies, bot you will not have my apology. I hope that illustrates my position crystal clear. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This last comment of yours explains perfectly why I think you should be banned from this article. Perhaps a topic ban on Star Wars-related articles would be even better. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting that that was your take-away from that, Debresser. I didn't say anything about Star Wars, which I love. Its the fans that I have no use for. Odd how you equate the two, though... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you just say you have "no use for the fans" and that most Star Wars fans are largely self-entitled toxic crybabies.? That's the kind of behavior that can easily get you sanctioned especially since you've been referring to all the pro-editors as uber-fans and fanatical. So, you're clearly attacking the other editors. It just means we're wasting time to reach a consensus with you since you've already made up your mind to stall the argument based on your dislike for the fandom. Anyway, a CONSENSUS doesn't need to be unanimous especially if most of the !arguments also make it clear they're not being objective.— Starforce13  22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wanted to add the 'ancient Mandalorian artifact' or who needed it mentioned from the outset without any solid rs close to the primary fit my category of disdain. I am here to build the best article for Wikipedia, not another crufty nest for the Fansquishy. If you find yourself within that latter grouping, you have only yourself to blame. I'm here to build articles that can make it GA and FA without major challenges. My actions are towards that end. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of ending an RfC early, the following needs to be taken into account per WP:RFCEND. The decision should preferably be unanimous, otherwise any editor who disagrees can simply restart it. The only thing that would prevent an RfC from being reopened would be formal closure, but to be formally closed, an uninvolved editor or admin would need to get involved. It's also highly unusual for formal closures to occur on discussions that are less than a week old (see WP:CLOSE).It's great that a compromise is being sought and seems to be getting closer to becoming a reality, but don't mistaken that as a way to strong-arm the discussion into ending. It's best to work with all participants involved or face the possibility that the RfC will need to run its course. After all, soliciting outside opinion is the goal of starting one in the first place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC) I support the revised proposal, and agree that it is better than the first proposal. If all would agree to prematurely close this Rfc, there is nobody who would stop us, but I don't think all of us will agree to anything but a formal closure. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with waiting for the RfC to go a full week then and run its course, to avoid even the appearance of being rushed or me attempting to "strong-arm" anything, which wasn't my intention. Will wait til the 20th. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 13:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @HunterKahn: I feel like the RfC is divided into two parts. First, there's the order of business as to whether there's enough justification for "Darksaber" to be mentioned. Then there's the concern of how it should be properly inserted. I still lean in opposition to the first part for the reasons stated, but should everyone else drop their opposition in favor of the compromise, I'd change my "Weak Oppose" to simply a "Comment" and not stand in the way. As for the second part (the compromise), I still think "Darksaber" needs some kind of context surrounding it. Maybe something along the lines of "a lightsaber known as the Darksaber". I think a few extra words go a long way in that respect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Something that is linked should not be explained in the text, as that is what we have links for. That is a basic of editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Debresser, articles should be able to stand on their own without relying on links or forcing its readers to use them per MOS:LINKSTYLE. Two of the last three bullet points make this crystal clear. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you both feel about adding some context (without the "ancient Mandalorian artifact" text) to the Efn? So the Efn could instead read something like "The item used by Gideon, a dark sword outlined in white energy, has been identified as the Darksaber on Lucasfilm's official Star Wars website,(cite) as well as by actor Giancarlo Esposito. (cite)"" It seems to me this would be consistent with the compromise proposed above, but would also allow for some of the context requested by GoneIn60 to be conveyed. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 17:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is not needed, but don't mind it much. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Stokes me as a bit too wordy. Following the KISS principle, I think keeping it to "a Mandalorian lightsaber called the Darksaber" with the starwars.com article linked as verification is all that's needed. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think has hit upon a necessary part of this; keeping it simple is going to benefit not only our ability to compromise and build a consensus that lasts longer than a few weeks, but one that is succinct and clear to anyone reading the entry what has been revealed and no more than that. To that end, I think we must keep the efn in place; even should future season(s?) be 'All About Teh Tingh', it has to remain clear that it had zero impact or importance when it first appeared in the first season.
 * With that in mind, what optional edits can be shown as an example, so we can weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping it concise and would support oknazevad's suggestion. My 1st preference would be to have it in the main summary text; the alternative of placing it in the efn would be my 2nd choice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be personally fine with changing the main text to "the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the ship with a Mandalorian lightsaber called the Darksaber", as long as the folks who objected to the use of the term "ancient Mandalorian artifact" are OK with it.   and  would you be OK with that? — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support "a Mandalorian lightsaber called the Darksaber" because it makes it easy to understand the text, without describing how special it is. Also, if we don't have near unanimous support with the new compromise, I'm fine waiting the RfC run its 7-day course. — Starforce13  20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this: "a Mandalorian lightsaber called the Darksaber" -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we leave out the Mandalorian bit and just efn the Darksaber bit. The explanations as to the origin of the Darksaber will be made in s2, if they are smarter than the average bear. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the Mandalorian bit has to be left out of the summary, because again, we don't get that knowledge from the series yet. Thinking of myself when I first saw the episode, I had not yet been familiar with any of the animated series, and seeing Gideon exiting the ship, I thought "that's cool! It's kind of like a lightsaber, but isn't." Only in my own research did I learn of its significance and history. So we should be aiding the reader that way with just saying "Darksaber" in the summary, and the extra helpful bits and sources in the efn for them to further explore what it means. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We may not get that knowledge from this series, but we do get that from the wider franchise, as confirmed by the official site article. A couple of words to provide additional context for the unfamiliar seems to me to serve the reader. I'm not married to keeping it in, but I do think we have to keep in mind at times that this is part of a larger franchise, one that permeates the popular culture. oknazevad (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that,, but I think has the right of it here. By simply mentioning the Darksaber as per the efn, we allow the reader to follow their bliss to learn more the item. While it is part of a larger franchise, understand that a lot of that franchise has folded into itself with prequel series, period specific series and sequels that leave plot holes one could drive the Death Star through. Precisely because it is prevalent in culture is what allows us the safety net of allowing the reader to Google up factoids about the Darksaber. The article - and especially the plot summary - do not need to serve as an all-inclusive repository to all things Darksaber-y. People could still write up that additional section... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, I'm fine with any option that calls it the darksaber, with or without additional context. A lot of casual readers don't know what an "AT-ST" or a "TIE fighter" is despite those objects being more common. That is, we can't always make the article 100% self-sufficient for all the readers. So, providing additional context shouldn't be the dealbreaker. So, you can count me as a vote for any version that mentions "the darksaber".— Starforce13  23:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to point out the difference between common and unique items again, so I will bypass that part of the post.
 * So, the intent is to mention the Darksaber in the plot summary with efn links from Esposito (as he is still the most direct connection to the source of its presence within the series) or confine it to the efn? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How about this wording and note content: Wording - the Moff survives and cuts himself out of the downed ship with the Darksaber. efn - Actor Giancarlo Esposito confirmed the weapon was the Darksaber,Existing IGN source a Mandalorian lightsaber that has appeared previously in Star Wars animated series.StarWars.com source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally like this wording, which I think addresses most of the concerns raised above and perhaps provides the best of both worlds. I would personally phrase the Efn something more like "Giancarlo Esposito, as well as Lucasfilm's official Star Wars website, have identified the weapon as the Darksaber" or something like that, giving the Lucasfilm site more direct attribution as well as Esposito. But that's not a dealbreaker for me. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 00:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be fine too, and still include the "a Mandalorian lightsaber that has appeared previously in Star Wars animated series" part after. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot say that, as it assumes information not evidenced by the series. It would be a variation of OR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say it wouldn't be OR because the Lucasfilm source specifically talks about the fact that it's been featured in past Star Wars animated series. As long as that source is used as a citation, it's perfectly reasonable to include it. (Especially considering this is going not in the plot summary, but into the Efn to provide context to what the Darksaber is.) — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 01:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have an source from the production company that explicitly makes the connection. No OR here. oknazevad (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All due respect here, the very mention of Darksaber is providing "information not evidenced by the series". The sources we're using for that also specify that this is an ancient Mandalorian weapon and a type of lightsaber. If the sources feel the need to provide that context, then so should we. I'm not a huge fan of having all the context tucked away in the efn, but if that's the only option that will get us to the finish line, then so be it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay,, mock it up so we can see what the proposed entry would look like. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, do we need a revised RfC on this new wording? The phrasing keeps changing in various comments, and it's hard to pin down the latest draft of the compromise. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I included the note in the original RfC question directing people to note the potential compromise. I've updated that compromise text accordingly, so people who see the RfC can see it, and so I don't think we need a revised RfC. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 01:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like we've all agreed at this point to insert "Darksaber" into the main summary text of the episode. Now it's just a matter of finalizing the wording. If there are no objections, let's remove the rfc tag to unpublish the discussion. There isn't really enough organization in this RfC anyway that would appeal to an uninvolved editor. Best to keep it local at this stage. Does anyone have a problem with that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we haven't really got any outside input. So, we might as well just close this locally. — Starforce13  12:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the above discussion, I've gone ahead and removed the rfc tag, and I've made the changes to the article itself with the plot summary and Efn language that I believe we've largely agreed upon. If any additional tweaks or changes are necessary, we can discuss them here, but I think we've reached a consensus/compromise here? — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 15:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated the episode article to reflect the new wording as well. — Starforce13  15:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.