Forum:CT:Rename Anakin Skywalker article "Darth Vader"

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Rename Anakin Skywalker article "Darth Vader"

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was leave Anakin where he is. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:31, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

I was originally going to present a proposal to split the Anakin Skywalker article back into his two incarnations, but found that there weren't any very compelling arguments for such a split as I prepared the proposal. Instead, I'd like to suggest renaming the article "Darth Vader" (which has been suggested before, but here the arguments and votes would be better-organized so that everything isn't thwarted just by one policy). Instead of rambling on about my opinion, I'll try to present all the arguments I can for and against either side (feel free to suggest your own):

For "keep"

  • Anakin Skywalker was the character's final form, and as such, the article should be named after him due to the "final status" approach.
  • Wookieepedia doesn't seem put as great an emphasis on a character's "real-life" cultural impact and reception than mainstream sites such as Wikipedia. In fact, it should be irrelevant.

For "move"

  • Within canon, the character became more known and (in)famous as Vader than he ever had been as Anakin, as he practically ruled an entire galaxy, only answering to Palpatine.
  • In real life, the character is much more well-known and has made a greater cultural impact as "Darth Vader". As Vader, he's practically the figurehead of the entire Star Wars franchise, while "normal" Anakin seems to get less "mascot use" than Yoda, R2-D2 and other characters, in addition to his future self. Although Wookieepedia is canon-based, an exception could be made here.
    • In addition, most people new to the site who don't yet know that Anakin and Vader are the same article would probably look up "Darth Vader" and be redirected to Anakin's article. This would mean more people would currently end up being redirected to the article than going directly to it. If the article were named "Darth Vader", this would be reversed.
  • Because we aren't droids, computers or bureaucrats, it wouldn't really hurt to allow more flexibility and make an exception to the "final status" approach, especially concerning one of the most-visited articles on the site.

EDIT: I wish to withdraw this proposal. In addition, contrary to what I thought originally, this isn't the only page that prioritizes a lesser known incarnation of a multi-incarnation character due to canon; the Revan page seems to do so too.

Votes

Keep

  1. Because he died as Anakin. Simple as that. See Wookieepedia:Naming policy. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:04, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • D'awww, I think it wouldn't hurt to make exceptions, as stated above. On the Star Wars Fanon Wiki, for example, they have a strict crossover policy that (somehow) ended up allowing Soulcalibur articles because they had a crossover with Star Wars, even though it wasn't the only crossover.--Darthrai 22:16, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
      • Using Star Wars Fanon as a rationale for going against Wookieepedia policies and canon is going to earn you some major LOLs. =P - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 22:17, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
      • Wookieepedia is not any other site. Any policies, procedures, etc. found on other sites do not, and never will, have any meaning on Wookieepedia. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:21, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
      • As an additional note: policies are made to be followed, not ignored. If you want to change our naming policy, make a CT for it yourself. CC7567 (talk) 22:22, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I really do not see the use of trying to reiterate past arguments. CC7567 (talk) 22:11, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • People on the talk page (not just me) seem to keep re-iterating them over and over again, so obviously there's some continuing controversy.--Darthrai 22:16, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Jon & CC. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 22:13, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  4. He was born as, and died as, Anakin Skywalker. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 22:23, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  5. Old. Not even worth discussing. That's it. Tyber J. Kenobi's Droid 22:39, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Are you freaking kidding me? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:43, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per above. Grunny (Talk) 22:45, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  8. I was hoping we as a site would collectively ignore this forum to show how stupid we all think this is, but since not, for the last time, NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:47, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  9. DO NOT WAAAANNNNNNT IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 23:05, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Altough I would like to note that there are indeed Bureaucrats among us. XD. Also, with so many supporting this Anakin Skywalker option, I fail to see why Kreia hasn't been moved to Darth Traya yet. But that's another discussion. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 23:18, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Move

  1. As creator of the proposal.--Darthrai 21:58, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I can’t vote (pesky single-issue-voters policy =P), but I want to chime in here in regards to the rationale for the move:

  1. Whether a character was more infamous (which is wholly POV) under one name is irrelevant if they died under a different name. It’s a canon fact that the character died as Anakin, not Vader, and therefore his last known canon name was Anakin Skywalker. He later appeared in canon after his death as a ghost, and he did so not as Vader, but as Anakin.
  2. Real-life is irrelevant. Wookieepedia follows what canon says, not what the mainstream public and the mainstream media says. If we followed what things are known as in public, the ROTJ article would be “The Return of the Jedi,” because the public never fails to add “The” in front of every film name.
    1. Anakin could very well have a section about how he’s a cultural metaphor. Someone just needs to be bold, do some research, get some verifiable sources, and add it in.
    2. By that same token, people who type in “Anakin Skywalker” would be redirected to Darth Vader, so I fail to see what point you’re trying to make here.
  3. By saying we should ignore the “final status” approach once in awhile, you’re advocating that we go against a canon fact. You’re not going to get much support from that one.
  4. .1 years is a very silly argument.

Your intentions are good, but your rationale is completely off. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 22:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

My opinions on your arguments are below:

  1. I took that argument from something that someone posted on the archived talk page, and never even knew myself.
  2. First of all, it shouldn't be completely irrelevant. There should be some flexibility here, although I'm guessing that Wookieepedia is intended to be a strictly canon-based site, rather than a "Wikipedia for Star Wars articles".
    1. You're right about that one. Then the section could just be named "As a cultural metaphor" and divided into separate sections for the two incarnations.
    2. More people would likely search "Darth Vader" than "Anakin Skywalker" anyway. Thus, the number of newbies who get redirected and those who get directly taken to the page would be reversed.
  3. People make exceptions all the time! See above. Probably the Anakin article is one of the most-visited articles on the entire site, so it wouldn't be silly to make an exception for that page.
  4. .1 years is indeed a silly argument, I just thought that it might add something.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion, and I'll add your opinions to the main description above. At least this isn't as annoying as when I was trying to get Wikipedia to make the Transformers pages just named "Optimus Prime" and "Megatron" not only about the old-cartoon versions of the characters.

BTW, I remember you from SW Fanon Wiki...--Darthrai 22:37, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

My replies to your reply:

  1. You should know more about an argument before you post it. =P When it comes down to it, he was Anakin Skywalker when he appeared after death, so that's what the name needs to stay as.
  2. Canon is canon. We write what canon says. Let the real world come up with their own versions if they want to.
    1. Agreed.
    2. I fail to see the whole point of your redirect argument to begin with. Regardless of whether Darth Vader redirects to Anakin Skywalker or vice-a-versa, the information is still there. What the name of the article is has absolutely no bearing on that. This argument would make more sense if your point was dividing the articles into two separate ones.
  3. Except canon is canon, and we don't make exceptions for it, especially not something like this. Changing the name to Darth Vader wouldn't just change the title, but it would change the entire meaning. The name would suggest that he was called Darth Vader at death, which is 100% wrong. He was redeemed. He went by the name Anakin again, including after his death.
  4. Glad we agree on that. =P

And yes, I remember you too. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 22:32, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I just withdraw this proposal and make the often-reiterated proposal some time in the future to just split the page again?--Darthrai 22:36, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe you can withdraw the proposal (I'm not really savvy on the Wook's forum procedures), but let me give you a tip: don't propose splitting the article. That's going to crash and burn and it'll just end up being a waste of time. Anakin and Vader are the same person, so they don't warrant two separate articles, no more than Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ben Kenobi, Jacen Solo and Darth Caedus, Revan and Darth Revan, etc. warrant two separate articles. It just won't happen, so IMO you should just save yourself the time and aggravation and just let it go. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 22:39, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, I guess so, but maybe then people could work on the Anakin article so that "cyborg Vader" doesn't seem "secondary", something that I think people are trying to fight anyway. For example, I proposed using a "double portrait" of both Anakin and Vader for the article's infobox, rather than a picture of Anakin after being named "Darth Vader" but before getting his armor; someone said that it was tried once and it looked bad, but I might work on a picture and post it.--Darthrai 22:45, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

That's a discussion best left for the talk page then, because it deals directly with improving the quality of the article as opposed to policy and procedural stuff. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 22:46, November 7, 2009 (UTC)