Talk: Anakin Skywalker/Archive/Darth Vader/2

Back to page |
< Talk:Anakin Skywalker

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Darth Vader's Public Identity?

Was it known publicly that Darth Vader was the former Anakin Skywalker?

  • No. Obi-Wan, Yoda, Bail Organa and Palpatine knew; possibly also Palpatine's shocktroopers who accompanied him to Mustafar. Vader told Roan Shryne before his death, but I don't think many others were aware - Kwenn 08:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And put new topics at the bottom of the page. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

the clones that marched into the Jedi temple (the 501st)must have known Anakin was Vader they saw him before the mask came on and was called/renamed vader's fist after the empire was created

  • Yeah, but those clones were killed off and replaced by humans. So, in the long run, only those mentoined by Kwenn were aware. [[[User:Lord vader1414|Lord vader1414]] 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]
    • Not true. As of 3 ABY, there were still 501st Jango Fett clones in the legion, as shown in Battlefront II. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • True, that. But stormtroopers probably wouldn't care anyway - Kwenn 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Massacre on Mustafar

Reading this article over, I was very surprised to find that it makes no reference in the biography to Darth Vader's second mission as Dark Lord of the Sith: The Mission to Mustafar, as our other article calls it, where Vader slaughters the heads of the Separatist Council and ends the Clone Wars. Of course, we already know this information from ROTS, I just think there should be some mention of it in the early part of the bio, as well as a screen cap or two from that event in the film. I also feel that the duel between Vader and Obi-Wan at the end of Episode III should be elaborated upon a little bit more in the bio, since all it says about it is that it Vader "suffered great emotional and physical damage."--Knightfall 22:39, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, this information should be in there. I'm surprised that it wasn't in there before. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:00, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • How's it look now? — Silly Dan 23:37, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Pretty good. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:48, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • That's great, Silly Dan. I'm glad I could point it out. Would you like me to find a screen cap of the Separatist massacre as well? Or do you think the one Mustafar picture we have is sufficient?--Knightfall 23:51, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, there are plenty of good pictures of Vader's work, but we'd have to find a good one, perhaps with Vader killing Gunray. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:53, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • Okay.I'll get right on it--Knightfall 23:58, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
              • Okay, so now I've got the screen caps. The question is, do you want a shot of Gunray standing before Vader begging for his life or a shot taken right after Vader slashes him? Opinions anyone?--Knightfall 00:17, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
                • I was thinking one where we see the lightsaber slash in Gunray's chest with Vader looking at him. The caption could be something like "Vader finishes his mission with the death of Nute Gunray". Admiral J. Nebulax 00:32, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Bah, just noticed I used the "twisted and evil" quote even though it's already the header quote in the article. Anybody who wants to remove the quote in the bio or change the header quote, please do. — Silly Dan 00:44, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • I've got good news, and bad news. The good news is that I have the picture uploaded, cropped, and looking all nice. The bad news is that I can't find a decent spot to place it without screwing up the article text.--Knightfall 01:03, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

thumb|100px|center

  • Well, I put it where (I think) it looks the best. PS: Thanks for getting this image. It's just the one I've been looking for on the Clone Wars page.
    • Thanks. I'm glad to be of help.--Knightfall 01:11, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • It messed up the text where it was. I had to remove it. But it still is in the Clone Wars page. --Master Starkeiller 12:55, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, any chance that we could make that section longer and add in the picture? Then, we'd have to put the pictures on the correct side, but that's easy. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:06, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia split dispute

There is currently a heated dispute going on at the talk page for the Wikipedia article for Vader. The subject is whether or not to spilt the article into two: one for Anakin, one for Vader. Anyone's input would be great. See Wikipedia:Talk:Darth Vader Adamwankenobi 00:43, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • This may be a stupid comment, but don't we already have two pages for those characters?TIEPilot051999 00:45, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Wookieepedia does. But Wikipedia has them combined into one article. Adamwankenobi 00:55, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Gah. I gotta learn to pay attention.TIEPilot051999 00:58, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's kinda stupid for Wikipedia to combined them into one. Anyone agree? I just posted my comment there on the talk page under my user name DivineLadyWikipedia:Talk:Darth Vader. Go check it out! - Divinity 08:13, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm with ya' on this one. I saw your comment on Wikipedia. Maybe it will calm those two down. I've stayed out of this for the most part so far, and let the two of them duke it out. Adamwankenobi 09:57, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • That article on Wikipedia should become two separate ones, instead of one whole one. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:11, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh well... Looks like my comment there didn't help at all. It just somehow placed me into the arguement itself. But then, let's just be glad that Wookieepedia did the right thing of not merging Anakin and Vader together. - Divinity 12:12, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, User:Philwelch over at Wikipedia is now calling everyone here a fanboy, and is mad at me for even suggesting that anyone from this wiki go over and give their input at Wikipedia! He seems to be accusing me of having sockpuppets and trying to get everyone here to help me out. Hell no! I only asked for people to give their opinions, and never gave my POV here. Adamwankenobi 09:26, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Obviously, this "Philwelch" idiot is the fanboy. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:23, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • More of like being a jerk! - Divinity 06:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I've just left my two cents worth over at the wikipedia article for Darth Vader. I agree with Nebulax, he is being a pathetic, fanboy ---- and deserves a punch in the face for being so difficult (but don't quote me on that) Jasca Ducato 15:35, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree, he does need a good punch. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:29, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I remember Philwelch when we got into an argument about the Cylon article. He kept insisting that there are only 12 models total of all Cylons, even after I showed him statements from the series' creator that say otherwise. Don't waste your time is my advice, you'll never win him over. Kuralyov 21:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • We don't want to win him over, we just want him to loose. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:34, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • He's worst than a certain user on this wikipedia!!! Jasca Ducato 15:59, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, they have been plenty of other idiots on this Wikicity in the past, that's for sure. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:07, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • There is currently a poll being held at Wikipedia to determine whether that article should be split or not. For those who are in favour of either having it split or not, go ahead and show your support by voting here. It's up to you. Divinity 05:11, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the link. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:21, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • You welcome! Divinity 16:26, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Casted my vote; I'm 68.83.86.147, as I forgot my password. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:36, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I saw it. But you'll need to sign in because they typically won't accept anon votes in their polls. Adamwankenobi 17:48, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

- Leave it seperate. I'm reading wikipedia's crap now. --Darthsith19 20:01, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been over for a while. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:22, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I hate it anyway. Lonnyd 14:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, not to be digging up a dead horse to kick, but if this article split is justified, then you have to split Darth Revan and Nameless Jedi Guy Who Destroyed the Star Forge. And Ulic Qel-Droma. And Palpatine. It's a bad precedent, is all I'm saying. Lonnyd 14:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well dont dig up the Horse then. This conversation has been over for a while. Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are two different people. Period. Jasca Ducato 15:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
          • A DNA test would prove otherwise. Period. What makes Anakin and Vader different people more so that Revan and Nameless Jedi Guy. This is a terrible precendent. I dont' care if it was already decided, its a bad idea. Maybe it should be put to vote again. Period. Lonnyd 09:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader lived two different lives. Therefore, two separate articles are needed. There's no need for one article on them both. Period. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
              • That's fine. All I'm looking for is consistency. When do we start the splitting of Revan and Jedi Guy? Lonnyd 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                • If "Jedi Guy" doesn't have a name, it can't be split. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I'm going to continue to voice my displeasure. Maybe someone else will agree eventually. Not having a name is no reason. Thats why we have a category for Nameless Characters. Or we could just file it under "Lonny," that's what his name is in my saved games. I'm not trying to be annoying, I just think this is rediculous. I can understand why Wikipedia would have two seperate articles, but this is supposed to be an in-universe encyclopedia. What exactly is the reasoning for Anakin/Vader having two entries that can't be applied to another Sith Lord? Lonnyd 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lonnyd is right. And can someone please tell me how the two were so different? --Imp 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • While they were technically the same person, they led two separate lives with much information in each. Having one article would have, in my opinion, too much information than having two articles with just enough information. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Honestly, the idea that a single article for both of them would be too bloated is the only argument in favor of the split that I see any merit to. There's actually more difference between Darth Revan and "Nameless Jedi Guy", since there was no memory loss involved in the Anakin-to-Vader-and-back transition. Just because Obi-Wan considered them two separate people doesn't make it so; he also believed that redeeming Vader/Anakin was impossible, and Luke certainly proved that to be wrong. Red XIV 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Really, although they were indeed the same, they were two different people. Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi Knight, Darth Vader was a Sith Lord killed by Anakin Skywalker. Sure, it's point of view, but still, you get the idea. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay time to go again. They're not two different people, we've been over this. No more than David Wilkerson is two different people (anyone get that, am I too old?). Your best arguement so far has been that the article would be too long. But that's hardly an arguement at all as the Luke Skywalker article is nearly three times the length of this one. Lonnyd 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
            • They are technically the same, yes, but refer to what I had previously said: "Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi Knight, Darth Vader was a Sith Lord killed by Anakin Skywalker". Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree with you, Lonnyd. And (surprise, surprise), I disagree with Nebulax. We need to be consistent on people who change their names or get amnesia. My inclination would be to make one article about Anakin and Vader, as they are the same person. — SavageBob 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Another issue: What would this joint article be called? Hopefully not "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader". That's like having "Qymaen jai Sheelal/Grievous". Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, that's what The New Essential Guide to Characters calls him, but that's not our policy here. Our policy is to use "the name by which the character was most commonly known in the the Star Wars universe, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames. Titles, such as military ranks or titles of nobility, should be omitted." Thus, the article would be at Anakin Skywalker. jSarek 01:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is unchanged from when a merge was suggested here nearly a hear ago: "I also feel these two should be merged. Anakin WAS Vader. Just because he thought a bit differently and had several boo-boos doesn't magically make him an entirely different being, any more than Luke losing his hand and his innocence on Bespin means we need two Luke articles." jSarek 01:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Still, it just doesn't seem right having them as one article under the name Anakin Skywalker. As many characters have said, "I've got a bad feeling about this..." Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • SO........ The question is does anyone SUPPORT two seperate articles that isn't an Admiral of Nebulax? I don't know how to create a consensus track, otherwise I would. Mods? Lonnyd 11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I support it. It's pointless to create a single article; we can cover much more with two articles focusing on the two specific personnas of the character - Kwenn 11:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgivness

In ROTJ, Vader said "the Emperor is not as forgiving as I am", since when did he every forgive anyone? Double D 22:52, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • It wasn't supposed to imply that Vader was forgiving. He just said that to show that even though he was not forgiving, the Emperor was worse. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:55, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Vader lets Admiral Piett live after R2-D2 gets the hyperdrive going again in Empire. --DannyBoy7783 02:11, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I read somewhere that Vader didn't kill Piett because Vader was upset at himself or something like that. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:29, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm just thinking, just because Vader let someone live, he never said he forgave them. Double D 19:11, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, Piett was a loyal officer, and it wasn't his fault, after all. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:16, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Vader just killed people who failed him, then moved on. Palpatine did worse than that. Things like killing Bevel Lemelisk multiple times, wiping out the entire families of people who offended him, etc. And of course, the main point of the line was to let the audience know how evil Palpatine is. That even Darth Vader is considered soft by comparison. Red XIV 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And that was originally hard to believe, at least for me. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's look at the differences in how Vader approached Luke at Bespin from the Emperor on the second Death Star. VADER ON BESPIN (after having a long fight with Luke) - "Don't make me destroy you."...EMPEROR ON DS2 (after being merely insulted by Luke) "If you will not be turned, then you will be destroyed!" or even in the office with Windu after being insulted, "No, no, no! You will die!" As you can see, the Emperor is not as forgiving as Vader, because he has no patience and a terrible temper, while Vader usually allows for one mistake to be made, but no more, "You have failed me for the last time, Admiral (Ozzel)", or "Don't fail me again, Admiral (Piett)"

Length

Does this article end at Return of the Sith because another article picks up after? If that is the case I think that is a horrible idea. If not, is there any reason why his post ROTS events aren't included? I was surprisedat how much isn't here. --DannyBoy7783 02:07, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It appears someone was messing around. I checked the history and it seems like I showed up in between some article fiddling. It's back to normal now. Perhaps this article should be watched for potential vandalism?--DannyBoy7783 05:34, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • It happens all the time to the major articles, like Palpatine and Vader. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:27, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't the article include mentions of what happened in Purge and Dark Lord? --AdmThrawn 05:22, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • If anyone wants to add any of these be my guest: Purge artwork--DannyBoy7783 06:15, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • If any, I'd say the first one. The rest aren't really that good. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:04, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree about the first one. They are all good it's just the last 3 aren't finished artwork.--DannyBoy7783 19:07, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Vader's Actis

Can I post a picture of his Actis? Cant find a good enough space... I might have to move/resize if I do.

  • We'd have to find a really good space. Then, we'd have to move all the pictures to fit with the format. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:08, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Appearances section

Should we have his appearances as Anakin Skywalker in the article? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Reserve those for the Anakin Skywalker page. Adamwankenobi 13:12, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • But they should be here when you think about it. They were one-in-the-same, as we all know. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:14, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • No, they weren't! That is the whole point of having to seperate articles. They are both mentally, emotionally and physically (to a certain pin) different. They are not the same. Jasca Ducato 15:57, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • It's already been decided to keep the two characters separate, so no, Anakin's appearances won't be added here. It'll only make the page unneccessarily longer than it needs to be. Why duplicate information? - Kwenn 17:32, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Calm down, Jasca Ducato. And yes, they are the same, just with different names. And I don't care if the Anakin appearances aren't added here. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:08, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations

It has probably been disputed hundreds of times on hundred and ten forums, but I still think we should take it from an encyclopedic point of view: Anakin bringing balance in the Force by making the number of Jedi and Sith equal is practically false. Obi-Wan and Yoda were not the only Jedi survivors but there were only two Sith. For simplicity, let's just assume that ONE Jedi survived the "end of the Purge with the death of Obi-Wan Kenobi). Pick a name which Jedi, it really is not important. This means 3 Jedi and 2 Sith. As we all know, despite the number of maths classes we visited, 3 > 2, not equal.

Point: it is a possible interpretation and should be included, but being an encyclopedia, we should prove with the 3 > 2 example that this interpretation is generally flawed. It can only be true if we take the major characters in consideration, which is pretty much out of universe, because despite there are hardly any other Jedi who survived and appeared in the movies, they still canonically existed AND survived 0 BBY. - TopAce 13:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

THE MOST POWERFUL SITH LORD OF ALL TIME

Obviously the candidates are Darth Revan and Darth Sidious...

  • Okay, enough with this opinion of yours. Leave it out of the Wikicity. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WHY? were should i put it

Is Darth Vader more powerful than Yoda?

Yes he was.

Is that an answer? If not I would like to here one.

  • No, it's not. It's more of a complaint. I'm sick of these opinion questions. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, chill, it was gest a question

  • No, because Wookieepedia has had tons of people asking stupid questions like that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 22:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jack. Cut it out.--DannyBoy7783 00:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Wookieepedia is a place to present canonical facts, not a forum to discuss personal opinions. You may discuss with friends in your user talk page, or find a forum / chatroom / etc to discuss it freely. Darth Kevinmhk 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You all sound like a bunch of nerds I mean come on! You all act like this is your life and thats jest sad. I pitty you all.

  • If you want to ask a pointless question like that, find a forum that cares. This is an encyclopedia. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The discussion is indeed a meaningful one, but not in this place, as Admiral said, this is encyclopedia. Darth Kevinmhk 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really a meaningful one, though, unless a source said it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The discussion about the so-called "ranks of power" can be meaningful, if one quotes canonical facts and analyze them to propose a list. In my opinion it can become a meaningful discussion / analysis / debate, although this debate should not take place here. Darth Kevinmhk 14:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lock

Someone keeps changing Vader's birth year to 19 BBY and is not stopping. I suggest a locking of the page. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see there point. Darth Vader was born in 19 BBY, Anain Skywalker died at the same time, Anakin died and became Darth Vader. This would sound confusing, so I vote we put date of Anakin's birth, and date of transformation.

SOMEONE KEEPS CHANGING WHAT I WROTE UP IN THE LIGHTSABER TRAINING ABOUT ANAKIN BEING GIFTED WITH MORE RAW FORCE POWER THAN ANYONE HISTORY CAN U LOCK IT PLEASE

How am i vandalizing information that i created man!!!!!!!!! i put it there i made a mistake by putting obi wan and i changed it so...i want 2 correct it...u cant vandalise ur own work

  • No, you're vandalizing the page by adding it. Knock it off. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BUT I PUT THAT LIGHTSABER TRAINING THERE!!!!!!WHY CAN I NOT CHANGE IT...it was my idea why didn't u say i was vandalizing when i put both the light saber training and possible interpretations of the jedi prophecy on the page???huh

  • No, you were just vandalizing when you changed Obi-Wan to whatever you changed it to. And just because you create something doesn't mean it can't vandalize the page. You could very well put "your idea" in there, and it can be vandalism. So I advise you to stop adding in whatever you did, or you could very well be blocked for a while. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my point...why didn't u remove it when i first wrote it up huh....why can't i change my write up????????

MY QUESTION IS THAT WHEN I WROTE THE LIGHTSABER SECTION IN THERE WHY DIDN'T U REMOVE IT??HUH....WATS WRONG WITH ME CHANGING MY WRITE UP MR ADMIRAL...!!!!!!!

What do u mean maybe...if it was bad it would have been off...i'm changing it 2 what i intended to write....u fukin prick!!

  • Okay, you're really pushing it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • About our earlier dispute. I think one of the points of Star Wars is that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are different people (from a philosophical point of view.) We should put date of birth, date of fall to dark side, date of redemption and date of death.
  • And Mr. Capital Letters, no text on this wiki belongs to anyone.It is not "your" write up. If someone is improving it, we have no reason to change it back, and you have no copyright.
  • yeah, man. and enough with the profanity. Admiral Nebulax, I vote that we kick this guy off the site as far as we have power. All in favor? [[[User:Lord vader1414|Lord vader1414]] 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]
  • Oh, ok. I didn't notice. (I've gotta start reading the dates on these things...)[[[User:Lord vader1414|Lord vader1414]] 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)]

Vader pic

What's wrong with the new main Vader pic? I had replaced the former pic with an image of him storming the Jedi Temple, which well represents him, but someone reverted it. Adamwankenobi 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because for twenty-four years Vader wore the suit. Besides Palpatine, Kenobi, Yoda, Bail, and R2, literally the entire galaxy only knew of Vader through the suit. He was sent into the suit a day after becomign Vader. To the public, that is Vader. Hence why the picture should remain. Kuralyov 06:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • When you think Vader, you don't think wussy boy Anakin with the yellow eyes, you think a figure in big black space-samurai armor (What we REALLY need is to put one of the IV, V, or VI pics up there). Thanos6 06:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is, the pic I posted represents Vader at his strongest point - and a pivotal point, in his life. Were this wikipedia, I could understand the logic on "what he represents to the public," but that's not our job here. Adamwankenobi 06:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The fact that that's the only thing you have to say against my argument I think proves my point. And I definitely agree that we need an OT pic here. Same for Palpatine. None of these rediculous PT pics. Kuralyov 06:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Hold on a second. You clearly have a bias toward the OT. What's the problem with having a picture of Vader when he was at his most powerful point in his life? Adamwankenobi 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
            • In terms of raw Force power, perhaps. In terms of ship command, fear generation, pure influence...his power was nowhere near its peak. Thanos6 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Plus, that was his first chronological appearance as Vader. It was the first time he was assigned to a mission, and the mission was the pivotal Jedi purge. I think that makes the particular pic I posted noteworthy as the main image. Adamwankenobi 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be hung up on "most powerful point in his life." That doesn't matter. What matters is for over 99.99% of his existence Vader wore the armor, and to the entire galaxy outside of a handful of people, he was known only as the armor. That is why that picture should be up there. Especially since the other picture and the point about his abilities are stated elsewhere in the article. The fact that it was his first or most important mission also doesn't matter. Look at the pages for Luke, Corran, Kyle Katarn, etc. Kuralyov 06:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Very well. Adamwankenobi 06:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Black armor=Vader, no armor=Anakin. It's as simple as that. The armor became a part of Vader. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Am I the only one who would prefer the main picture of Vader (the one with his details etc) to be an iconic Prowse/Vader one, as opposed to the rather generic and clinical looking promotional picture? (Ulicus 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC))
          • No, I definitely agree. Kuralyov 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
            • You mean for keeping the current picture? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)thumb|right
              • Definatley go for one of the Prowse ones. That's actually Ryan Kaufman in the suit in that pic, y'know, although LFL don't seem to like him telling people that. Tam 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Like this one? --Redemption 00:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Father vs. Son First Duel

I read the article and was shocked to hear that not only that the fist duel was in fact not on Bespin but on some remote planet where Luke won the duel. This is not only ludicrous but possibly in direct contradiction with the movie itself. Anyone could tell that Luke had no idea what he was up against.

  • You obviously don't know the movies very well, then. It was on Dagobah in the Sith Cave. True, it wasn't the real Darth Vader, but it still happened.
    • Actually neither of you know the movies that well. It wasn't on Dagobah, it was in fact on the planet of Mimban, in between Episodes IV and V. Sorry to burst you're bubble :-D. Jasca Ducato 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The order of the duels is like this: Mimban, Dagobah ("false Vader"), Bespin, Death Star II. There might have been some that I forgot, but you get the picture. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

its these kind of contradictions that i complain about....how could luke even b able 2 stand against vader when he destroyed ppl like roan shryne...who was a jedi master....he should just remake the OT and correct his mistakes

  • The problem is the Expanded Universe not fitting with the movies. Seeing as its canon status isn't up for debate I would suggest you accept it and move on.--DannyBoy7783 15:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. It's canon, so deal with it. Lucas would never remake the original trilogy and give it so many radical changes, anyway. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the trilogy should be remade, but one should certainly make sure what becomes canon and what does not. I would also like to know from what source this incident came from.
  • The first duel between Lord Vader and Luke Skywalker.
    • Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yup, it was a low budget, alternate EP5 if the original STAR WARS was not a great success. Darth Kevinmhk 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank God A New Hope was good. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Why the heck would Palpatine want Luke as his apprentice rather then Darth Vader?
            • because after Mustafar Vader's potential & ability decrease a lot. Darth Kevinmhk 03:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
              • And, as Dooku said "Treachery is the way of the Sith." Jasca Ducato 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Exactly. Luke was more powerful than Vader as of 4 ABY. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • Plus, even though Vader lost 120% of his power after Mustafar (he was only 80% Palpatine's power following the duel), he was still a threat to Sidious and, being a Sith, Sidious didn't want to be deposed, so he decided to get rid of Vader and remove the threat. Having a new apprentice would mean a fresh start, and possibly a new experiment to work upon, like Mara Jade. Jasca Ducato 20:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • Wait, is it 200% total or 100% total? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • Yea sorry, it is a little confusing. GL has said that if Vader hadn't sustained his injuries against Obi-Wan on Mustafar he would have been 200% Palpatine's power, but seeing as he did, he's only 80% Palpatine's power. Still enough to be a threat to Palpatine, and so enough of a reason to remove him from the picture. Jasca Ducato 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Back on topic, Luke was "possessed" by Obi-Wan's spirit on Mimban (Kenobi basically acted through Luke during the Vader confrontation), which is why Luke manages to stand up to him—though a bit of bad luck on Vader's part also contributes. Thus, in ESB, Luke is beaten by Vader because Obi-Wan "cannot interfere". Luke's earlier victory may also have made him arrogant, and overly-confident in his chances in a rematch - Kwenn 20:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "Darth Vader's Talent" section

  • This section was meant to use In-universe or Out-of-universe point of view? If it should use in-u then we have much content to rewrite. Darth Kevinmhk 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be in-universe. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • alright, let me try to rewrite it Darth Kevinmhk 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I already did. (Probably should have put up the inuse tag). Anyways, I'm pretty sure you could do it better. TIEPilot051999 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

can Darth Vader even use the Force? I dont remember ever seeing Darth Vader use the Force thorughout the hole trilogy.

What Force powers did he ever use?

That helps alot, thanks! but if Darth Vader can use the force, who would be more powerful in the force, Darth Vader or Yoda?

  • Well, in 19 BBY, I'd say it would be very close, but in the early Galactic Civil War, I'd say Yoda, but in 4 ABY, I'd say Vader. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is interesting to see that when Vader(healthy) vs Obi-Wan in a Force push v Force push contest, it results in a evenly match; while on Coruscant, it looks like GL intentionaly let Sidious knocked Yoda acrossed the room first, followed by Yoda knocked Sidious flying. And at last let a blast to knock both supreme masters away... That say in terms of "Magnitude in Applications", Yoda seems even with Sidious while Vader(Healthy)/Anakin seems even with Kenobi. But in terms of "potential", Ani/Vader is always the top of all time. Darth Kevinmhk 02:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

but why didn't yoda go and fight Vader himself In Star Wars: Empire strikes back insted of Luke? And is the suited Darth Vader still powerful in the Force.

  • Because Yoda was getting old. And yes, Vader was still powerful. After all, he lifted Palpatine and threw him into the second Death Star's reactor, despite the fact that he had only one hand and was damaged from Luke's and Palpatine's attacks. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • According to our own Vader article, Suited Vader ~=80% X Darth Sidious. Darth Kevinmhk 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yet Vader threw a powerful, if not the most powerful, Sith Lord into a giant battlestation's reactor with one hand. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
        • According to NEG to Weapon & Tech, cyber arms could generate an awesome output of power if the situation desire. So it is physical possible and not difficult to perform the "lift and throw" action. On the other hand, Palpy was arrogant, he underestimated both Luke's power and the good in Vader(Ani)'s heart. Palpy was caught off guard, and in a wider point of view of canonity, DE explained that Palpy did not affraid to die, as he knew he can resurrect. Last but not least, Palpy blasted Vader to fatal condition b4 being thrown into the core. Darth Kevinmhk 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
          • "Last but not least, Palpy blasted Vader to fatal condition b4 being thrown into the core". Exactly. Vader should have been weaked, but he wasn't completely. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

what does throwing Palpatine have to do with how powerful Vader was in the force? Was Vader more powerful then Luke or Count Dooku?

  • If Vader wasn't able to use the Force, it's doubtful that he could lift and hold a Sith Lord shooting Force lightning with one hand and throw him into a reactor. As for the comparisons to Luke and Dooku, it depends on what time of Vader's life. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Power varies with time. In EP3 novel, the new born Suited Vader's Force waves could not harm / touch Palpy at all! Both Rise of DV & Shadows of the Empire shows that Vader trained very hard in order to even with Sidious again. As described in RoDV, this is the only goal to keep Vader alive now. On the other hand, mastery in the Force cannot completely overcome old age, as explained by Yoda in ROTJ. I believe Sidious more or less was not as capable to combat as in EP3 - physically & mentally. He got used to that he is forever the ruler of the galaxy, invincible, untouchable, infalliable. Vader not only trained hard but keep doing active field works for 20 years. Lastly, Vader made a death wish already when he betrayed the dark side - A guy willing to die for what he love/believe can generate unbelieveable power. Darth Kevinmhk 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • For the comparisons to Luke and Dooku, in 19 BBY (before the Mustafar duel) or around 3-4 ABY, Vader could have definitely defeated Dooku and Luke. In fact, had Vader not have taunted Luke about Leia turning to the dark side, Vader might have been able to kill Luke, since Luke wouldn't have been enraged. However, that's just my opinion. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just a side-note Nebulax, but Vader wouldn't have killed Luke at all. This has been confirmed by Lucas. But he could have had he wanted too i agree. Jasca Ducato 14:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Ani could kill Dooku in 19 BBY, but i doubt he could do the same thing right after his rebirth as Suited Vader. Before DS2, Vader definitly has the ability to kill Luke, but he wont. He wanted his son to join him, so that they can overthrow Palpy together and let Luke's power to boost Vader's training so that Vader could break through limits and heal himself. Even on DS2, the novel in-universly confirmed that Vader duel Luke only because Luke was not ready to kill Palpy yet. He has to seduced Luke to the dark side, plus make sure Luke align with him instead of with Palpy, then they will kill Palpy together. However I doubt Vader could kill Luke. Luke would not kill his father, enraged or not, but Luke would defend himself (unless he voluntary give up). Insider 62 states that by observing Vader's blade work, Luke became the fastest Form V user ever exist and launch Form V moves of his own by mirroring Vader's moves. I do believe Luke could evenly match with Vader, not to mention the advantage of age and biologically more human than Vader. Darth Kevinmhk 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does Darth Vader use Force Choke soo much? And inbetween Ravenge of the Sith and A New Hope I dont get why Darth Vader could kill the jedi that survived Order 66 so easliy and have Luke put up a good fight.

  • Because he probably wants to see those who fail/disappoint him suffer. And remember, Vader had sustained massive injuries on Mustafar—they probably made Vader weaker and weaker. Plus, the other Jedi probably weren't as powerful as Luke, even though Luke didn't have a lot of training. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How did that make Vader weaker and weaker? And weren't some of the Jedi that Vader killed Jedi Masters?

  • Just wondering, what's with all the questions? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How did that make Vader weaker and weaker? Read EP3 novel. And weren't some of the Jedi that Vader killed Jedi Masters? Yes, and so what? Finally, please kindly sign your post. Join us if you are not a member yet! :) Darth Kevinmhk 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I mostley just asked all the questions to annoy you, but don't get mad because actually I learned alot of stuff I wanted to know! I wont ask any more questions but thanks for the help.

Just great...

Some idiot vandalized the page. It needs to be reverted ASAP. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection: to be added to the article?

Given the recently canonized status of the Star Wars Tales story Resurrection on Leland Chee's blog (http://blogs.starwars.com/holocron/22/comments), should the elements of this story - Vader's fight with a cloned Darth Maul - be added to the Vader article? The story itself hints at the constant testing and distrust in the Palpatine/Vader relationship, as well as provides a look into Vader's true feelings (Maul asks, upon being stabbed, "What could you hate enough to destroy me?" to which Vader solemnly answers, "Myself."). Cutch 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Resurrection is pretty good. but did Darth Maul relly dominate over Darth Vader? How could that be? Darth Vader is a far better Lightsaber duelist than Darth Maul and not to mention Darth Vader was more powerful in the force. Darth Xarcon 5:26, 3 May 2006

  • Let me put it this way: if not for Vader's last ditch move, Maul would've won. Cutch 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Darth Vader is a far better Lightsaber duelist than Darth Maul". Not really. It depends on the form of lightsaber combat and the person's mastery of it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Can I have some help in watching that this newly canonized info doesn't get deleted? Cutch 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As recently revealed, while his armor made it sort of difficult to move, Vader was very swift with a lightsaber, and yes he was much better than Maul would ever be. The old theory of Vader being slow is no longer true, which is why I question the canon tagging. Also Maul didnt dominate, he just used ridiculous acrobatics...but again this was a time when the common theory was that he was slow because of his armor, while other sources show him to be anything but that. This is why I think that for now it should be in the behind the scenes. LC has also stated that the Vader vs Maul is infinities, which also makes me question the canonocity. It is also not in the Databank either. I say place it in Behind the scenes, as this may simply be an error on LC's part, as he has made many before. DarthMalus 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Vader is slow, or at least slower than he was as Anakin. Dark Lord and Purge reveal as much, and also see him sustain a variety of injuries from much faster Jedi opponents. And at the minute, it's considered canon, since we're inclined to take newer sources (i.e. Leland Chee's latest blog) as definitive. Also, you may notice many, many elements are missing from the Databank, so that has no basis in your argument - Kwenn 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Although during the purge Vaders apponents were quicker then he was but Darth Vader was far more powerful in the force, evan if he had lost much of his force potential. Darth Vaders mastery of the Force would put Darth Maul in the shade. But I do think that Darth Maul does have more speed than Darth Vader. Darth Xarcon 5:14, 5 May 2006

  • Of course he did. Vader was, as Palpatine said, "a sick man in an iron mask". Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That was a great fight. Maul 2.0 was young, fresh, fast, healthy, grace, Juyo, double-bladed, and slained Jinn (though not exactly himself). Vader was experienced, slower, single-bladed, master his power and emotion better than before, forceful with his cyber arms, Ultimate Djem So mastery + Shien Mastery + Soresu & Ataru elements + Dun moch, slained Dooku, Cin Drallig, that Gate Master, Shaak Ti, wound Mace, purge numerous Jedi. Indeed a great duel! Darth Kevinmhk 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You will note that his "injuries" sustained from those jedi knights were at a time when he was still adjusting to life in the suit. You will also notice that later on he takes the dooku approach in merely toying with his opponent and sometimes deceiving them to think they won. General Grievous was more droid than Vader yet could move fast. Vader has demonstrated to be very fast. He could perform acrobatics but I'd imagine it would be uncomfortable seeing as though his vision is somewhat impared by the mask, but he could sense others through the force. Darth Vader simply outspars, uses little effort, and trickery to achieve victory. Domination of the physical, psychological, and spiritual parts of his opponents. That is the Sith way. What seems to be the case in this little battle is that I'd imagine he was firstly surprised to see "Darth Maul" and the thought that his master betrayed him was probably also upsetting. Remember in Marked where Sidious seemingly betrays Maul? Maul began to loose, but what happened? He remembered his masters teaching used his anger his rage his hatred and dominated the fight. It seems to be what happened to Vader. Vader cared for Sidious as much as he hated Sidious, but he truly hated himself for falling for Sidious's empty promises. Blamed himself for his wife's death and would not be struck down here, especially by an inferior opponent. Perhaps he was trying to get back at Sidious and decided to kill both Maul and himself. It is apparent that Maul was the one killed, as would be the expected outcome, and Vader enraged by this treachery was going to confront the traitors but Sidious stepped in and destroyed them, thus regaining Vader's trust, as Vader always seemed to give Sidious the benefit of a doubt, and trusted his master, as much as he could trust Sidious, and went to seek medical assisstance. The thought that Vader would soon have to destroy Sidious crossed his mind as Sidious seemed to be growing more weary and distrustful of Vader's increase in power. He would need an apprentice with enormous force potential to help him defeat Sidious, and find this potential before Sidious does. Fits into the timeline now with that in mind, though I still believe it to be a clumsy addition into the continuity. DarthMalus 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vader v. Maul quote

"What could you hate enough to destroy me?"
"Myself"
―Darth Maul to Darth Vader following their duel[src]

Is it just me or does this seem near-conclusive proof that Anakin Skywalker (not Darth Vader) regretted turning to the dark side, or at least what he had done to become the Dark Lord. I mean, the fact that he hates himself is a classic case of regretting a previous action one has committed (i.e. the death of Padmé). Jasca Ducato 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Isn't it a beautiful quote? I think it's probably one of the best in all the EU. Cutch 15:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This quote is great, the one i put in Maul vs Obi-Wan is great too. "There is no Palpatine. No Empire. No Jedi. There is no light, no dark... just you and I here now." This is so great for Maul! Darth Kevinmhk 15:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You know, I must agree, the "What could you..." quote is a very great quote. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Something i literally just realised. I personally beleive it makes Vader's eventual return to the light in Ep. VI much more meaningful and personal. Jasca Ducato 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Vader's Actis

Can we switch or at least add the picture of the toy version of Vader's Actis fighter? It actually looks black, compared to the one now, and it doesn't have a smudged amateaur photoshop looking job done to it.

  • A toy version? I don't think so. This one is fine that we have up. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like a toy though, it looks like an actual fighter picture. And like I said, it's black, not dark olive looking, and it doesn't look lke a smudged photoshop job.
      • It does look like a toy. This current image came from The New Essential Chronology and therefore shows the real thing. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • That's impossible. The picture looks horrible. There are white pixels all over it where the fan-artist failed to color in black. I could do a better photoshop job than that.
          • It's from The New Essential Chronology, whether you like it or not. A fan artist didn't create it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
            • When did Nebulax become the guy in charge of Wookieepiedia?
              • As far as I can tell, there's no official pic of the toy version yet anyway. The only news I can find about it is here, with no picture, and the only picture I can find is here, with "not official image" posted right on it. We don't do fanart, so we'll live with a bad scan of an official pic. - Darth Culator 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
                • The Admiral was merely pointing out a fact. The picture is from The New Essential Chronology, a canonical reference book. There is nothing wrong with it. Darth Kevinmhk 05:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vader's Head Based off of an ancient Sith droid?

I know that there is seperation between wiki- and wookiepedia, but at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_vader it says that his mask was based off of an ancient sith droid. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -Admiral Chamrajnagar

  • Where exactly did you find it? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I found it. It could be fanon, but then again, how can we tell? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • As far as i could tell, Vader's Suit was based on ancient Sith Armor, I think I read that from Databank. Darth Kevinmhk 03:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe that's correct, but I don't know about this Sith droid. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Same here. I dont recall the Sith has any particular droid worth remembering. Anyway another BTS about Vader's Helmet was possibly that the head of the Noghri species was implied to resemble Vader's helmet. I believe it was from Databank too. Darth Kevinmhk 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Interesting. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I remember a part in Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader, where Roan Shryne & Co. are inside a Seperatist base being chased down by Clone Troops, and the base is full of shut down droids. However, at one point, Roan comes upon a statue that has a head that looks like Vader's helmet. Or, at least that's what I got from it, seeing how the actual text was something along the lines of "Roan looked up the statue, and found himself staring at Darth Vader."

Growing taller

How did Vader become taller after the duel on Mustafar? Are his mechanical legs longer than his real ones, or something? Double D 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It's the suit. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • AND the fact that his mechanical legs are longer than the real ones. Even that helmet wouldn't add five inches to his height. I wouldn't imagine so anyway.(Ulicus 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC))
      • It was bulky armor. It didn't fit him perfectly. It gave him room to move and grow, I suppose. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • What do you mean it gave him room to move and grow? Last time I checked Anakin was about 21 or 22 years old by the time it was 19 BBY. Darth Xarcon 3:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • To move: Well, that's pretty obvious. To grow: For that, I was just basically trying to explain why it was bulky. I just quick added that in before I saved it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I think longer legs were mentioned in Dark Lord. It's not unheard of for people to get longer legs through leg surgery; with new legs, it would also be possible. -LtNOWIS 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Also, if Vader was still growing, he could just get new mechanical limbs. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
                • The extra height was something the Emperor wanted so that Vader would be more imposing. As for the helmet, the extra inches are for the mechanisms inside the helmet and on the top of the mask which connect the two pieces together firmly.

Merge with Anakin

I don`t see any reason why Anakin Skywalker shouldn`t be merged with Darth Vader although most people say they were different people. He still had the light side in him and was never really Darth Vader, he was always Anakin. Jedi Exile 21:52, 25 May 2006

  • Now you've done it. Lonnyd 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What does that mean. Jedi Exile 21:59, 25 May 2006
      • We've been through this at least once before. Please see Talk:Darth_Vader/Archive1#Merge and Talk:Anakin_Skywalker/Archive#Merge_with_Vader.3F. If you want a formal vote on the matter, please start a new consensus track. -- Darth Culator 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • god, just by syaing that this page will increase by 100 comments, because ohte rpeople will agree, while others won't and its one the most argumented articles out there Jedi Dude
    • That's why I suggested a consensus track, since this issue affects two different articles. And both articles are very well-developed, so combining them is no small task. But I don't think anything needs to be changed, so I'm not going to get the ball rolling. -- Darth Culator 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • We have been through this many times, and the outcome has always been two separate articles. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • My God, don't merge it. Cutch 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree. But I doubt that, even with a vote, the articles would be merged. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Can we put something at the top of the talk page saying VOTE CONSENSEUS, NOT TO MERGE! Coz otherwise i'll end up getting angry like i did with Nebulax last time lol. Jasca Ducato 07:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, that would help. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
                • If I can just wave my hand and the articles would merge themselves perfectly, then I would definitily support a merge. Darth Kevinmhk 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • However, the majority would probably vote to keep them as two separate articles. Anakin and Vader, while they were the same, were both different people—unlike Palpatine and Sidious. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • I see no harm in keeping them separate, as long as the two articles cross-reference w/ each other (i.e. "See also" or "Anakin Skywalker" in bold at the top of the Vader page). Basically, as is. Cutch 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Anakin and Vader are two different personalities all together. Anakin's persona is trapped inside the Dark Side persona of Darth Vader. Even Vader refuses to be recognized as Anakin Skywalker as he says "That name has no meaning for me." Yoda says "The boy you trained, gone is he, consumed by Darth Vader".
    • Good point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • ...Yoda also said "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Darth Kevinmhk 14:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You know, that "dominate your destiny" part doesn't seem to apply to Anakin or Luke or some other Jedi that fall to the dark side. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Exactly, so dont take everything Yoda said as absolute and infalliabe facts. Darth Kevinmhk 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Was it not Yoda who first predicted the prophecy, was it not Yoda who, in AOTC, said that the prophecy could have been misread. We all make mistakes. Jasca Ducato 08:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
              • You mean RotS. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, RotS, thanks. Jasca Ducato 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • Like you said, we all make mistakes. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • But getting back on point, i noticed that Kwenn said that the information is already at the top but in my opinion, that only fuels people who want a merge. I still think we should put a hidden message in the edit box saying that consensus has decided that these two pages should not be linked. Jasca Ducato 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • Well, it doesn't have to be hidden. Perhaps it could be in a box like the nominations for featured articles are. Something that says "It has been decided that this page will not be merged and redirected into Anakin Skywalker." Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • Personally i'd rather just go around a shoot anyone who suggests a merge but i'm not going to be allowed to do that. I agree with you Nebulax but i thought that would spoil the top of the page, thats why i suggested a hidden mesage in the edit box. Jasca Ducato 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • Spoil the top of the page? If you mean the whole "Anakin is Vader" thing, I think most people know that by now. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • No, i mean it would ruin the page by having a box at the top of the page like the boxes at the top of this page. Having one of those on the main article (like in an Improvment Drive) would ruin the article i think. Jasca Ducato 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Remember Vader's own words in Return of the Jedi, "That name (Anakin), has no meaning for me.", so keep Vader as a separate section. Only a small glimmer of Anakin Skywalker can be seen in ESB and the beginning of ROTJ. As Darth Vader, he attempted to forget his past mistakes and focus them on a few personal ambitions, 1) Find and battle Obi-Wan Kenobi, 2) Find out if his offspring survived 3) Kill the Emperor so he can become ruler of the Galaxy and have "a life of significance".
    • What you have just said about Darth Vader trying to find out if his offspring survives proves that he is Anakin.

It was Anakins Offspring not Darth Vaders, Luke and Leia were concieved before he was a Sith Lord and in The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Sidious says its Anakins child that is still alive not his own.

He didn`t even know he had children he thought he killed them when he Force Choked Padme.

There is also no canonical proof that he ever wanted to kill his Master, even though he probably did want to. And there was also no canonical proof he wanted to find and kill Obi-Wan he obviously wanted revenge, but he killed tons of Jedi before Obi-Wan.

Also the only personal ambition Darth Vader had in the Prequel Trilogy was to save his wife from death, this is what drew him to the Dark Side. Also if the name Anakin never meant anything to him and he was sucked into the Dark Side, why would he save his son from death and kill Darth Sidious.

So dont talk about stuff you dont know about 65.95.169.113 (Whateva your name is) because it pisses me off when people talk about stuff and try to change star wars canon to suit their personal opinions, They can discuss them but they cant say what people did when they dont know shit about it.

  • Here's the best answer for why we shouldn't merge: it'll be a huge pain in the ass. Cutch 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, Jediexile, the anon is not trying to change canon. And calm down. He's actually mostly correct. When Anakin/Vader realized that he had a son, he knew it was his son. And yes, he did want to find and kill Obi-Wan. You're way out of line. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Who are you to tell me that I am out of line I was only expressing an opinion and correcting some possible mistakes at least I dont sit at my computer from 1:00am to 3:00pm every day (British Time) talking about Star Wars, Come on get a life
      • "Come on get a life". Look who's talking. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you people, were talking about a merge, stop making it personal, its really quite sad how you can make something simple and turn it into something to use agianst each other, so end it and get back onto the topic at hand, and so what if hes on late, some people work, come home 2 tired to go out and so relax. Jedi Dude
  • I think Cutch 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC) comment pretty much won the arguement here :)...lol. So true. Don't merge. It's perfect the way it is, though I personally believe more Vader images should be on the page. DarthMalus 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ways to avoid future pointless "merge" discussions

  • I still like the hidden message in the edit box. Any other ideas? Jasca Ducato 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "You have fought gallantly, Jasca. Worthy of recognition in the history archives of the Jedi Order." Cutch 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's still bad policy. Just sayin. Lonnyd 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • PS - I just checked, there has never been a consensus track on this. Why don't we just start one, you guys are so sure that it would go in your favor, so what's the harm? Lonnyd 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No, because while there was no consensus track, this issue had been discussed numerous times. They will still remain two separate articles, and there is no need to start another pointless debate that will end up the same as all the others. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • In the immortal words of Jar Jar: "Oy boy"... Cutch 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
          • There should be a consensus. This "it would be too much work" excuse, which is the best one yet, is weak. Wookieepedians are not lazy. And your other argument, the "because we say so" one, is terrible. If you want this over once and for all, have a consensus. That way, when your side wins, you can point people to that, and say that this argument is dealt with. You're invisible sign is going to stop next to no one. First of all, most noobs are going to completely ignore it anyway. Lonnyd 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I tend to agree with Lonnyd. I thought as Star Wars fans, we know "Always in motion the future is." and "No one is infalliable." well. Who can say "No merge" would absolutely win every single time in future consensus? What if suddenly the "Do merge" hardworking guys swarm Wookieepedia and vote for a yes? Darth Kevinmhk 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
              • The future is always in motion, yes. But this arguement is in the past! Whats the point in going back over it again! I mean, we've been through this at least three times and each time its been decided to keep them seperate. Just stop trying Lonnyd, its not going to happen. Jasca Ducato 09:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Exactly. There is no need for a consensus to discuss something that have been resolved numerous times. You're just upset that the articles can't be merged, Lonnyd. You have to realize that you can't always get your way here. No one owns Wookieepedia. If the majority has said "No merge" numerous times, then it's no merge. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • I wont question the results of previous discussions, of course, and I am not starting a new consensus to argue it again myself, but I wanna suggest that a timeframe should be setup: The same debate cannot be reinitiated for a finite time after the previous decision has been made. By agreeing for a suitable cool-down timeframe, users would not need to keep debating for the same topic, while new decisions can be made if the majority do change their mind. This is just like voting for a party to sit the government: You wanna support the other party, wait for the next voting year. Of course, getting the majority to agree on the quantity of the timeframe itself would be tricky. Darth Kevinmhk 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • For this issue, I'd have to disagree with that. We've discussed it numerous times, and the results have always been the same. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • I, Kevinmhk, would like to suggest something else which will end all the argueing once and for all. GIVE UP and just leave the pages alone. We don't need a CT because the result will remain the same. Jasca Ducato 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cutch 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC) throws hands up in the air...
  • Wookiepedia should declare some issues "vicious cycle" arguments, which take up space such as merging articles and the dispute and are fueled by multiple interpretations, paradoxes, etc in Star Wars canon works. If a vicious cycle argument appears to begin, it should be stopped before it gets carried away.