153:. After cross-checking the information in the book (which is considered true Star Wars material) with that webpage, I found the webpage to be accurate to its best, so I decided to add the information to Knowledge (XXG). Assuming that that webpage wasn't the only source (a likely source was Star Wars Insider, from which that webpage probably got its information), I noticed also that a file I downloaded for a Star Wars game noted in the readme those same Combat Forms with all information the same. I did not cite the Visual Dictionary book because its information on the forms was less than complete, and I did not cite the downloaded file's readme's combat Form information because it was exactly the same as the webpage. So to my best knowledge it is true. --
286:
I'm not any expert either, but I think it's okay to remove the VfD thing since GRider withdrew his nomination. I went ahead and took the VfD box off; I hope that I'm not doing anything wrong, but the person who nominated it closed the discussion as far as I can tell. I think it might be a good idea
277:
Random question: I'm the author the initial page; I'm not a
Knowledge (XXG) expert; I'm just wondering if that "Votes for Deletion" box at the top of the article ever gets deleted upon our finding that the article is safe to stay (the box's contents instruct me not to delete it)? Apparently it is,
149:
After reading "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: The Visual
Dictionary," (DK Publishing, Dr. David West Reynolds) which included information on the fact that certain Jedi/Sith use certain forms, I seeked out the more complete explanation of them. The book didn't go into detail; I looked on the Web
125:
1) I've heard about this many times in the Star Wars EU; it's not something made up by fans. 2) A source is cited. Did you not even look at the article's history? The person who made the article gave a link to where he was coming from. 3) Sidenote: GRider has a lot of nerve and shouldn't be making
300:
to remove the box after the page is removed from the VfD listings. You can ask an admin to delist the page, but there's an anomaly if it's listed here without the box appearing on the page itself. So while this VfD discussion is still live, I think the box should stay.
109:
insufficient to deter you? Do you plan to justify your conduct to anyone, either in the ArbCom case, on your talk page, or anywhere, or is your self-righteousness such that it is your role to question, and the role of others to meekly concur? Discuss.
327:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
278:
and I'll be first in line to rename it
Lightsaber combat and expand upon it if someone else doesn't get to it before me, so I was hoping that that ugly box didn't have to stay there forever. :) --
287:
to rename the page to "Lightsaber combat". Then the page would explain that
Lightsaber combat consists of seven forms blah blah blah etc etc. I left the move for you to do if you want to.
105:
outstanding against you for making VfD nominations such as this should make you think twice about such a nomination? Is the fact that this process is widely considered
296:
The procedure is for the page to remain on VfD for a week: don't worry, it's not in any danger as there's a consensus to keep. Standard procedure is usually for an
102:
139:
does seem to check out. But I applaud GRiders nerve in nominating all kinds of fancruft equally, mostly people stick to the minority stuff.
60:
17:
68:
31:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
52:
167:. There is now several sources. It's not original research, I've read about the different forms on various sites myself. --
268:
renamed
Lightsaber combat and much work is done to diferentiate between the content of films and the terms from the EU.
228:. This is the ultamite example of fancruft. This article is completely unencyclopedic, and could never be encyclopedic.
72:
297:
151:
137:
64:
157:
03:01, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) Additional edit: ah, after revisiting the source, I noticed that it did indeed cite
233:
305:
241:
114:
218:
198:
90:
78:
106:
317:
Okay, thanks
Lacrimosus (or do you prefer Slac?). I responded to your message on my talk page.
255:
188:
36:
45:
27:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.
302:
238:
111:
178:
269:
259:
196:
168:
101:
do you think that the fact that you currently have two
Requests for Comment and a
41:
318:
288:
140:
127:
201:
279:
154:
86:
75:? Does this article hold potential to become "encyclopedic"?
71:? In any case, should this be deleted in accordance with the
85:
Nomination withdrawn as sources have now been cited by
214:. No rename needed. This needs to stop, GRider. --
107:disruption of Knowledge (XXG) to make a point
89:. Would support a rename if appropriate. --
8:
161:Issue 62. (See the very bottom of the page.)
254:though I would prefer to see it renamed as
258:, and redirect from "Seven forms...". --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
67:, does that suggest that this is
63:a "general knowledge base", and
53:Seven forms of lightsaber combat
73:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_policy
150:and finally found that source
1:
136:and/or Transwiki. The source
33:The result of the debate was
330:Please do not edit this page
29:This page is no longer live.
212:Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki
81:\ 21:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
48:) 01:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
347:
282:01:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
221:01:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
93:\ 17:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
204:09:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
321:04:30, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
310:05:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
291:01:52, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
262:11:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
246:06:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
181:07:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
171:07:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
143:00:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
130:00:22, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
119:23:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
272:01:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
103:Request for arbitration
195:as important concept.
61:Knowledge (XXG) is not
232:(Unsigned comment by
123:Keep and/or Transwiki
65:no sources are cited
77:Please discuss. --
234:User:67.180.61.179
308:
256:Lightsaber combat
244:
189:Lightsaber combat
159:Star Wars Insider
126:VfD nominations.
117:
69:original research
37:Lightsaber combat
35:keep and move to
338:
306:
242:
115:
346:
345:
341:
340:
339:
337:
336:
335:
334:
56:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
344:
342:
325:
324:
323:
322:
312:
311:
293:
292:
275:
274:
273:
263:
249:
248:
247:
219:Riffsyphon1024
216:
215:
205:
182:
177:, and expand.
172:
162:
144:
131:
120:
95:
94:
55:
50:
32:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
343:
333:
331:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
304:
299:
295:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
281:
271:
267:
264:
261:
257:
253:
250:
245:
240:
236:
235:
230:
229:
227:
224:
223:
222:
220:
213:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
132:
129:
124:
121:
118:
113:
108:
104:
100:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
82:
80:
76:
74:
70:
66:
62:
54:
51:
49:
47:
43:
39:
38:
30:
19:
329:
326:
276:
265:
251:
231:
225:
217:
211:
207:
192:
184:
174:
164:
158:
146:
133:
122:
98:
58:
57:
34:
28:
26:
307:speak up!
243:speak up!
179:Megan1967
116:speak up!
270:Drhaggis
260:Lochaber
169:Crevaner
99:Comment:
266:Keep IF
199:Radiant
226:Delete
185:Rename
91:GRider
79:GRider
42:Korath
319:Aidje
298:admin
289:Aidje
141:Kappa
128:Aidje
16:<
303:Slac
252:Keep
239:Slac
208:Keep
193:keep
191:and
175:Keep
165:Keep
147:Keep
134:Keep
112:Slac
46:Talk
40:. —
280:qrc
210:or
187:to
155:qrc
87:qrc
59:If
332:.
237:--
202:_*
44:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.