Talk: Anakin Skywalker/Legends/Archive5

Back to page |
< Talk:Anakin Skywalker | Legends

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.

Assassination attempt by Maul

When was Anakin a target for assassination by Darth Maul? I thought Maul was only ordered to dispatch Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. Someone care to clarify?--Lord OblivionSith holocron30px 00:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I always think that hadn't Qui-Gon told Anakin to duck, Anakin would have been killed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • By no stretch of the imagination does that constitute having Anakin as a target for the Sith. .... 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Four Dots. Maul probably would have attacked Anakin, but only because he was with the jedi who were his stated target.--DannyBoy7783 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OOU

I have gone through and meticulously rewritten the 'Interpretations of the Prophecy' section, doing my best to rid it of OOU. I need an outside opinion as to if I succeeded or not. If not, then what must be improved, and, if I did help it out, can the OOU tag be removed? -Solus 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe a little work, upon further inspection, but it's very good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I tried to make it okay, I'm glad you like it. What parts needed work? I like to fix things as soon as I notice them... being a perfectionist is annoying, trust me. -Solus 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's just that your quotation marks and apostrophes appear different than mine. You're not the only one whose's computer is like that, though. Anyway, I think I managed to fix that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • That's weird. Thank you for fixing that, I had no idea. -Solus 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing all the articles i wrote!!!!!!!!!!! i write something then all of you try to claim it as yours...i wrote the force potential bit and the interpretations of the prophecy and Lightsaber training....i had to read a lot of information and it took me nearly 3 weeks...what do i get for it...nothing...not even a thank you you guys just go on it and alter it as you see fit like removing all my original quotes and you mock me Admiral we need 2 have a word!!!!!!Jibers 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

De-merge or seperate article

I suggest a de-merger of Anakin and Vader, or at least split the article so its easier to distinguish between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. Maybe another one of those window thing with Vader's picture, his 'time of birth' and 'time of death' or something. At the moment the article just seems to long and 'unformed'. —Unsigned comment by 151.200.16.242 (talk • contribs)

  • Well, the length is precedented elsewhere. As for unformed, that just means it needs further shaping up; the merge was fairly recent, after all, and a lot of the problems with the article would still be problems if the articles were separate. jSarek 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well would it be alright if I go ahead and attempt to "draw the line" in the article to seperate between Anakin and Vader? —Unsigned comment by 151.200.16.242 (talk • contribs)
      • No. Kuralyov 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, Come on! We have to de-merge it! They are in the same body, but they're different people! If the Databank has them separate, we should too.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)
          • They're the same person, just markedly changed. If The New Essential Guide to Characters has them together, we should too. jSarek 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Merging them was the right choice. It's like trying to separate Clark Kent from Superman. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
              • A stronger division within the article could be made to show when/where the differences between Anakin/Vader lie. And perhaps a re-titling. "AnakinSkywalker/Darth Vader", perhaps.Tocneppil 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Nah. Don't bother. It will only get worse, as I see nobody is in favor of re-separating them.
  • Well, what makes me tick is that we had a great Darth Vader article and he's one of the greatest Sith Lords, brought about the near extinction of the Jedi, etc., but now he's kind of a footnote on the Anakin page, one of my least favorite characters and an almost entirely different person. And you can't say that the difference is merely cosmetic. I know that we have Darth Bane, Revan, and Palpatine all as different than their characters before their complete transformation into Sith. Although, we might as well use the example of the transformation of "Dessel" into "Bane" and then "Darth Bane", and rename Anakin's article into Vader's, which wouldn't make sense at all, despite him being Vader for more of his life than he was Anakin. It just doesn't click. Obi-Wan puts it dang straight (as best as I can quote): "...your father ceased to exist, and became Darth Vader. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view." Right. The point of view of a lot of sensible people who don't understand why it hurts to have them as two different people, like the Databank. The Databank, if I remember correctly, is higher canon, being on the official website. At the very least, we should definitely have Darth Vader as a seperate article, BUT, still have a section on the Anakin one that says:
icon Main article: Darth Vader

I rest my case. --Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • I would stronly suggest that people like Magnum and "Tnu" go and read the CT archive which decided that we would merge. I am sick to death of having to repeat myself. .... 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It... just doesn't feel right. I'm sorry. I suppose that we just have to make the Vader section better. My opinion of this site has become somewhat worse because of this change.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • I have a feeling that, sometime in the near future, another consensus track will be formed on this. When that happens, I will vote to separate. We who wanted two separate articles will get another chance. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 18:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, yeah, you'll get your chance. Just don't get your hopes up. A vote against policy is a tough battle to fight. .... 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. It will never be separated—this is not a fanon encyclopedia. --Imp 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Darth Vader isn't fanon, Imp. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But he is redundant. .... 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, i wouldn't say that ;-) File:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Listen, I don't want another debate on this. But Vader was very different from Anakin. Not redundant. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
            • No...he is redundant. We already have an article on him. This one. .... 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Oh, so Cade's redundant now is he? Cor, that was a short Legacy sotryline. [[File:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif <sub> [[User talk:Jasca Ducato|'''Sith Council''']] </sub> <sup> [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato|'''(Sith Campaign)''']] </sup>]] 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                • ...what the hell are you talking about? Oh, and btw, your sig broke. .... 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well we have an article on Cade Skywalker, so i guess he's redundant now as well. According to you he is. Jasca Ducato 09:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • Why? Do we have another article based on his life somewhere? Does he turn into Darth such and such, and if so, do we have an article on him? .... 09:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Not that we know of, but either way. That's not what you said. You said we have an article on Vader, so he's redundant. We have an article on Cade, so i'm reasoning that (according to you), he is redundant also. Actually, seeing as we have articles on almost everythig to do with Star Wars; we might aswell just stop editing completely. Thats it then, i'm off. Jasca Ducato 09:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Oh, I see what the game is. Take a miswording I make and take it to a ridiculous level. Just in case you didn't comprehend, I meant in terms of having a seperate article. I am so sorry I am not foolproof. .... 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • No problem. Jasca Ducato 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Vader is not redundant, Thefourdot. This article isn't just about him. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • Oh, boo hoo. Have you seen Revenge of the Sith? The Empire Strikes Back? Return of the Jedi? I strongly suggest that you do so. Because in those very film prints, you will find the content that voids all arguements for splitting them up. Now, this might be a bit of a spoiler for you, but get this: Anakin is Vader. Sorry to burst your bubble. .... 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he becomes Vader, but is then redeemed by his son. You see a change in him; but not physically until he gets toasted by his master and put in the suit. It doesn't void all arguments. Read my argument above, specifically what Obi-Wan said. Don't come back trying to imply that we don't understand what we're talking about if you disagree.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • The vote was made, policy was followed, and this page was merged. If it bothers you so much, I suggest you find another page to edit. QuentinGeorge 21:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know. This discussion is for a different time. I'm just talking to the other people.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

    • Thefourdot: Stop acting like a smartass already. You need to learn to talk to others in a more polite way. Quentin: Another vote will likely happen in the future. It's inevitable. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • And pointless. .... 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Fourdot, as Nebulax said. Just because we cannot physically see you at your computer doesn't mean you can try to take over this wiki. Stop being so rude, you've already launched a personal assault against Nebulax (which is what i said you could have been banned for) and you may have won your little consensus track, but it is inevitable that another one will come up, and you might lose. Jasca Ducato 10:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By this logic, we should split the Revan article in three—Revan, Darth Revan, and Revan (redeemed). No. Splitting articles up because of fan interpretation will not happen as long as I am administrator of this site. --Imp 14:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • First, this isn't just fan interpretation. Second, like I said, this won't go away. If a vote in the future results in two separate articles, there's nothing you can do about it, Imp. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes there is—I do what's right according to policy, not what's popular. If you want to propose a policy where individuals turned to the dark side warrant two articles, feel free to do so, and I will follow it if it passes. Until then, the split won't happen. --Imp 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but-- can you actually SHOW us the policy, where it came from, how it can be changed, etc.? Don't harass me if this is obviously a blatantly public document.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • I don't think policy can be changed, unfortunately. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Forget policy - we have in bold writing, on our main page, "Encyclopedia". Encyclopedias do not award people two articles, just for the sake of a shift in personality, appearance, and allegiance. How many Michael Jackson articles do you think there would be? .... 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I think that he should be the exception, not the rule.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • The problem is, you allow one exception, and that is a precedent for many others to be made. .... 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I still don't see why this article couldn't be titled "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader" to at least show the equal weight of both aspects of his personality.Tocneppil 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I wouldn't have a huge problem with that. That also opens up the possibility of having a Jacen Solo/Darth ______ article. But I'm not a huge fan of it. Honestly, I think it's fine as it is. .... 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Anakin/Vader is the only character that has significant 'presence' (ie. 'screen time') in both incarnations (which is where all the hue and cry originates from).Tocneppil 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Thefourdot: If an exception is needed, then there has to be an exception. Tocneppil (and Thefourdot, for that matter): I can understand why it could be a good idea to have it at Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. And, Tocneppil, the fact that he has significant screen time could make that title an exception. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes. The reason why everyone wants a separate article is because they believe Vader holds more 'weight' -enough to stand as a separate character. If this combined article was simply called "Darth Vader" I bet there wouldn't be such an uproar. Most of the other characters with dual identities have simply an 'alias' that they've gone under. Anakin/Vader is the only exception.Tocneppil 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Tocneppil. This is why it should be the exception. However, renaming the article Darth Vader wouldn't be right.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • If an exception is needed, then there has to be an exception. But at the core of this issue is the fact that there is nothing at all wrong with the current article. If there was some alarming discrepancy, or technical error in the current article, then yes, a split might be a viable option, but at the moment, all that is being fought for is a sentimental tribute to a fictional character. It's all subjective, and unless you can find an objective reason, I really don't see a split happening. .... 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, it is subjective. The whole point on which this argument revolves is point-of-view. Fourdot, I can see your point on wanting to maintain an encyclopedic integrity, but I also can see how the others' perspective also has validity, in that Vader was a significant presence, both In-universe and in our pop-cultural references. When people speak of Vader, they mean Vader (both In-universe and Out). If there is a question to be raised regarding how this article is presented, it would be that Wookieepedia follows Lucasfilm's lead as the definitive source, and the official site has two separate entries for Anakin and Vader. Wookieepedia's own definition of G-canon states:Directly provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas . . . . Elements originating with Lucas in the movie novelizations, reference books and other sources are also G-canon. The official site is monitored and updated every week by Lucasfilm, and so far no attempt at merging the two characters has occurred. For Wookieepedia to go against the official site lessens Wookieepedia's standing as an authorative and reliable source of information. Our merging of Vader/Anakin could be seen as a fan assumption flying against Lucasfilm's official policy (comparative, perhaps to preferring the original theatrical releases of the Original Trilogy, and not mentioning changes made during the re-releases).Tocneppil 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This debate can rage on and on, but to counter claims that it's "unencyclopedic" to have two seperate articles, I would like to direct your attention to Steve Sansweet's Star Wars Encyclopedia, which has Anakin and Vader listed under seperate entries. Don't forget, said encyclopedia was written in close co-operation with Lucasfilm. Also, as Tocneppil pointed out (as I'm sure many other have as well), the OFFICIAL SITE has two different entries for the same person. Who are we to go against what the official site says? Quite frankly, doing that seems arrogant on our part. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The Official Site and it's respective Databank is not an encyclopedia, nor does it claim to be. Being an encyclopedia, we must look at things in black and white. Emotional, physical, and spiritual seperation are not things which we should look at at all. This is this, and not anything else. And as for Steve Sansweet's "Encyclopedia", we can factor in the whole "Spoiler" thing. And, for encyclopedic references, I'm not sure that I'd be looking to an obvious piece of merchandising based on a fictional universe. I'd rather look at Wikipedia, or Britanica, or any other sort of "proper" encyclopedia. Also, the NEGTC has them under one listing. But then, that's not an encyclopedia either. .... 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree, it is important that emotion not get in the way of gathering information. Also true the Official Site isn't an encyclopedia. However it is a primary source of information as established by Wookieepedia's rules regarding canonicity and interpretation of information. And if they have two separate entries, which they haven't changed, there must be a reason. Like Lucas' decision to change the 'Han shot first' scene, it might not make sense, but that's the way the information is presented at the source (which is the Databank part of the Official Site, not the merchandising department).Tocneppil 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
            • But let me point out a key thing about the Databank's entry - It stipulates that they are one and the same person. The Vader article says that he was once Anakin, and vice versa. And it is vital that we look at them as the same person. In our case, it's simply not enough to have two respective articles that serve one another, we must have a single article. We must keep a standard which says one article per person. And to make an exception, quite frankly, is a dangerous thing. .... 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
              • No, we must not have anything! THis wiki performed perfectly well with two seperate articles, and like you said; the Databanks has two articles. So you just proved yourself wrong, again. Jasca Ducato 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • And, for encyclopedic references, I'm not sure that I'd be looking to an obvious piece of merchandising based on a fictional universe. I'd rather look at Wikipedia, or Britanica, or any other sort of "proper" encyclopedia. I'd like to address the fact that Wikipedia has Anakin and Vader as two seperate articles. They've even had several discussions on the subject, all of which ended in the decision to keep them split. I can't comment on Britanica (due to the fact that I don't read it). StarNeptuneTalk to me! 09:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
              • And couldn't it be said in this case that by creating a single article for two characters -as shown on the Official Site- we've made an exception? Our individual entries for Anakin and Vader also referenced each other, much like, I might add our separate entries for the various incarnations of the 'TIE' series of vehicles. I agree that we must maintain certain standards, but included in those standards is the importance of following the lead of Lucasfilm (ranked as 'G-canon'), be it Greedo shooting first, how many clones actually fought in the Clone Wars, or Anakin and Vader having separate (but complimentary) entries.Tocneppil 09:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Databank entries are separate because they have restrictions on article size… Wookieepedia has no such restrictions, ergo the article stays unsplit. --Imp 10:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And how do you know that? Regardless, the Databank and the Star Wars Encyclopedia have two separate articles. And Thefourdot, enough with your "They're not encyclopedias, but we are" crap. I'm sick of it. They are more of encyclopedias because they don't have "that anyone can edit" followed by "encyclopedia" like us. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Nebulax on this one 100%. And if Fourdot starts to treat Nebulax or myself like imbeciles again i will consider it a personal attack. Jasca Ducato 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Jasca Ducato: Fourdot is hardly the one making the personal attacks here. I strongly suggest you two leave eachother alone. --Imp 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that an accusation Imp? If so, i challenge you to quote me once in this entire arguement where i have personally insulted Fourdot. He's the one treating me and Nebulax like imbeciles, just because we don't agree with his POV. He thinks Vader/Anakin should be merged, i don't. And because of that, i'm an idiot! (According to God that is) Jasca Ducato 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Anyway, I think that a Darth Vader article on it's own would certainly address his pop-culture significance more than any Anakin one. I don't really think that Encyclopedias would really have it one way or another. We realize that they are the same person. However, I think it would better benefit a Star Wars website to have them as separate. I don't know where Jasca Ducato and Fourdot really insulted each other because of a disagreement. Where are you getting "insults" from, everybody?--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • Not once did I insult Ducato. He's got this bee in his bonnet where he thinks that I've got a personal vendetta against him. Well, don't flatter yourself, mate. I don't have a personal vendetta against anyone, but if there's anyone I do spar with on a frequent basis, it's Jack, not you. All of a sudden, you're arking up because I was sarcastic in a few posts. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm a sarcastic person, and if that makes me a prick in your eyes, so be it. I don't give a damn. I'm not here to please you. I'm also not here to insult you. Yeah, you don't agree with my POV, but i'm going to continue debating regardless. I swayed several votes in the CT to have them merged (remember, the one that was archived when you edited it...the one where you couldn't count the votes) so I see no reason to stop. I can't recall making any personal attacks, and if I did, I'm sorry, but as long as I'm not breaching Civility, I'm not stopping. [Redacted by administration]

Now, in regards to Vader being a pop-culture symbol, that's all well and good, but in the light of our format, our methodology that shouldn't warrant a seperate article. It should be on this, the current article, and on the ANH article. Yes, the Databank and other sources have them seperate, but they say, quite explicitly, that they are the same person. Not that they are seperate characters. As Imp said, they have size limits - we do not. I see no reason to adpot the hinderances that plague Hidalgo's work. .... 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thefourdot, watch it. You're beginning to prove Jasca right. Now, both of you shut up and take it to your talk pages. This isn't the place for it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I know Jack. See above. I ended it and returned to discussing the article. At any rate, the CT is running again (!) so we can discuss things there. .... 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That little fight between you two shouldn't have even been here in the first place. It would have been better to end it on his talk page. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't even know there was a fight until I came here this morning. .... 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe you actually didn't know, Thefourdot, but you were a part of it for a lot longer than just today. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, a lot of this crap seems to be going on behind my back, and since I'm in a different timezone than the rest of you, I find it hard to keep up with the squaballing. Yeah, you've had little discussions about me here and there, but, you know, I cop it on the chin and get on with my work. I don't go to every single talk page and complain about another users demeanor. Yeah, I had that chat about you with Cull, and that was probably wrong, but at least you had the dignity to acknowledge your faults. I've tried to pull back on the personal insults, but for everything else, it's just my personality, and I adress you or anyone else as I would if I were standing next to you. That's just the way I roll. .... 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, Thefourdot, if you address us as if we were right next to you, I wouldn't want to be standing next to you anytime soon. No offense. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                • And vice versa, purely on the basis that there's a high chance of things getting violent. .... 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • With all due respect, Thefourdot, I'm the one trying to become nicer. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • Bully for you. But a community can't be constructive if all it does is agree with one another. .... 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is great. Your discussion, which by now has zero to do with Anakin, ends now. --Imp 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • One last thing: A community can certainly be constructive if everyone agrees. Now, onto Anakin: How can it be made known to all that we don't want another consensus track on this issue for a while? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Will there be a link to said consensus track?--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • You mean the one going on now, or the one that will happen (without a doubt) in the future? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Click Here to see it. - Yoshi626 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And when there's another one, I'll provide the link here. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • How can we ensure that another CT does not appear for a while? Well, when a new one arises, we should immediately close it, at least for four months or so. .... 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And perhaps next time more notice could be given to allow everyone signed up to Wookieepedia a chance to vote (something like the banner announcing "Mofferance" or asking us if we're going to "Celebration IV" would be nice). That way the true weight of opinion can be judged by the number of votes, as opposed to the small handful which gives the appearance of 'Minority Rule'.Tocneppil 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, already on the current CT, there are more votes on the "Keep" than there were last time. This is the chance to get a strong consensus and dissuade detractors for quite some time. .... 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Some only voted to keep them merged because they didn't want another vote for a while. In no way should this vote decide the fate of this article. What we should do is close down the consensus track, regardless of the vote, and write a note on the page saying "A new consensus track will be held in the future. Please do not start another one until it is decided to". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything recently said.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • Ditto. Jasca Ducato 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So, let's have the consensus track closed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No. Besides the fact that it is still ongoing regarding issues like creating a special infobox, image placement for said infobox, and deciding what to name this article, it seems the only ones who are complaining about having the CT closed and/or invalidated are the ones who are losing the vote. Maybe the result is unfair, but the CT was already there...I just put it into vote format because Tnu probably didn't know how to. However, I do agree with making a banner at the top of this talk page warning people not to make anymore CTs on the subject for at least 6 months to a year. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"And perhaps next time more notice could be given to allow everyone signed up to Wookieepedia a chance to vote (something like the banner announcing "Mofferance" or asking us if we're going to "Celebration IV" would be nice). That way the true weight of opinion can be judged by the number of votes, as opposed to the small handful which gives the appearance of 'Minority Rule'." What? Why should this CT get some kind of special notification that others don't get? All interested users should be checking the CT regularly as it is, because all of those posts deserve "the true weight of opinion." We can't put up notices for *every* contentious issue we have here. jSarek 12:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • StarNeptune, the reasons I'm saying to end the consensus track is 1) it's obvious which side prevailed in it and 2) we didn't want another one so soon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, Jack. But we're using it to decide on adding a second image to the infobox and the title for the article so it probably shouldn't be locked until that's done even if the vote on keeping it merged is pretty clear. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry JSarek, I had intended that a banner announcement for voting would prevent people who weren't aware of all this from coming in and complaining that the change had occurred on 25 votes.Tocneppil 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • For that infobox vote, it should be copied to a new consensus track and then lock the consensus track for the merge. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Nebulax's is correct on this one. It should be moved and locked. Jasca Ducato 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Administrators? Any objections? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Whilst I wouldn't have a problem with it being locked, it's time isn't up, and a call from you saying that it should be locked because you're not happy with it, or that it shouldn't have been started in the first place isn't good grounds for closing a thread. It's not harming anyone - if anything, there's a strong enough consensus to ward of detractors for quite some time. .... 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Thefourdot, it's still going to discourage a vote on the issue for a while when it's closed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • You would think so, wouldn't you. But unfortunately, there are those who do not accept something unless there's a strong consensus to slap them in the face. (No, I'm not talking about you). It's usually the more immature users, so if we let this just go through its normal run, we can just show it to them and stop them from going too far. .... 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • The first consensus track was enough. Even now, this doesn't need to be finished to get a point across. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • If I recall correctly, the last consensus track did have more votes for the merge, but it was only majority, not consensus (it was a margin of one, or something), and so the CT was closed with the very wise decision to revert to policy. Now, due to the lack of consensus, there's been a lot of rumbling from the vocal minority (which includes you, Jack), and whilst I don't think that you are complaining on grounds of no previous consensus, there are many who are (Marty Feldman for one). So if we just let this run it's course, there can be no reasonable excuse for starting up another CT in the forseeable future. And I can get the current article up to FA. .... 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • Well, just for the record, the "forseeable future" is up to four to six months, roughly. A new consensus track should take place around that time. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Sorry, in my country we don't have set times for the forseeable future. Anyway, if I were advocating a split, I'd listen to SFH - Wait a year. .... 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "And I can get the current article up to FA" Fourdot, you don't own this article, alright? I think we should take Nebulac's suggestion and i also think Fourdot should stop being God's representative! Jasca Ducato 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what the heck do you mean? We know he doesn't own the article. He's saying he can do good work on it- if we had more people like that, this entire encyclopedia could be improved ten-fold! And what do you mean, "God's representative"? You mean a priest?! A Prophet? A Bishop? Please don't be so sensetive, Jasca. Everything is worked out. You are incurring against Fourdot, not the other way around. Not once did I see him insult you on either of your talk pages, or this entire discussion. Stop being stupid and wasting page. I am not declaring you an enemy. We should stop kriffing around and work on the article.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)

  • Jasca, I'm sorry, but you really are taking this way too seriously now. Your comments are only promting a response from Thefourdot, not stopping him. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And it's taking every ounce of my self control to stop myself from tearing him apart. But I really don't want to cause Imp or Ataru the trouble of having to control the situation. So I'm cooperating. .... 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's appreciated. Thank you fourdot, for trying to keep a more civil environment. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That's what i'm talking about! Do me a favour Fordot, stop acting up; ok!?! Your not in charge of me or this wiki, so don't think you are. I'm not gonna contribute to this arguement anymore for the sake of the others, NEbulaxs and Ataru in particular. But if you really want to "tear me apart", come over to England. I'll welcome you.

But i apologise to Ataru and Nebulax for any trouble i might have caused. Jasca Ducato 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I must plead ignorance here – what have I done, again? .... 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This ends now. This is the third and final warning. Any continuation of this argument between you three happens on your respective user talk pages. --Imp 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please take a good, long look at the [edit] button, and slowly, carefully, deliberately back away from pressing the button if all you want to do is argue. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to press any buttons, but if we aren't using the Darth Vader page to discuss the person, it seems that an article of that title should exist, just describing the name used. We have a Kenix Kil page, for the sole purpose of discussing the name taken by Kir Kanos. As a matter of fact, there is an entire category for Category:Aliases, nicknames and_pseudonyms, and it seems that Darth Vader, if it's not his real name, certainly belongs in that category. Serendipitousus 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I've seen it at least once where there was a short article, then a redirect below that (it was for Lumiya's alias in Betrayal). I suppose that could be done. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. We could have alias articles, saying certain things they did under that alias. Both articles would still complement each other. I want to either do that, de-merge, or name articles with a new convention, "Blank/Darth Blank" or something, unless they totally became a different person, as with the case of Darth Bane.Vladius Magnum