Darth
Just FYI, The Essential Guide to Warfare refers to Naga Sadow as "Darth Naga Sadow". It does this only once, and simply uses "Sadow" for every successive reference. Should we move the page based on this, or possibly wait and ask Fry what his intent was with the "Darth" title here when he does his Q and A on facebook on the 11th? Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 01:07, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea. Also, Jason Fry has said that he will release his endnotes for TEGTW next week, so hopefully they might shed some light on his intentions. --Jinzler 09:21, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
- This is becoming a tradition. The origin and use of the "Darth" title is constantly beign retconned, isn't it?--LelalMekha 09:42, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it just a typo? As far as I know (didn't read the entire book) the Darth Title is mentioned only once. May be the author meant the Dark Lord, I don't know...--ScorpiO 15:51, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
- During his Facebook chat with Fry and the fans, Urquhart said: "Yes, there was a specific intention with using the name Darth Naga Sadow. It’s meant to indicate Sadow’s ambition, and his status as “supreme viceroy” (i.e. top Dark Lord). The context needed a title that wasn’t Sith’ari. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a contemporary usage." (Source here) LelalMekha 17:03, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
- In Star Wars: The Old Republic Encyclopedia, it called the Sith Emperor as Darth Vitiate once, rather than Lord Vitiate. 76.166.130.139 13:10, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
- This is becoming a tradition. The origin and use of the "Darth" title is constantly beign retconned, isn't it?--LelalMekha 09:42, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
Questionable accuracy of the main picture
While I know that the current main picture is the best portrait we have of Naga Sadow, it's still technically inaccurate. When I GANd Hakagram Graush, I was asked to move the picture of Ajunta Pall beheading him because it contradicts a single textual evidence. In Sadow's case, it's pretty clear thar Naga Sadow was red-skinned, as mentioned in multiple sources from the original Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi — The Golden Age of the Sith to the more recent Lost Tribe of the Sith series. For the sake of accuracy, we should find another main image. I know it's a shame, because if you overlook that sickly yellow complexion, the current pic rocks... --LelalMekha (talk) 19:26, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Force lightning?
Is that FL in those pics? If so, shouldn't it be added to Powers and Abilities?--Lucasart don't care about their fans 15:13, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
Sadow Canon?
Is Naga Sadow Canon with the Sadow escarpment being mentioned in the new Visual Dictionary? --Vohki (talk) 06:23, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
- Unless the name Naga Sadow is used in canon, then not. Right now its just a reference to something or someone named Sadow, but we don't know who that was--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:26, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
Move
The name "Naga Sadow" is now canon, so the page should be moved to Naga Sadow/Legends so the canon page can take the name. --Potsk (talk) 06:22, September 12, 2020 (UTC)
- I have already submitted a request yesterday.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 06:25, September 12, 2020 (UTC)
Darth Naga Sadow?
Why did we suddenly move this article to "Darth Naga Sadow"? The lone occurrence of Sadow in conjunction with the title of Darth in Warfare has already been discussed, and Paul R. Urquhart himself said (emphasis mine): "Yes, there was a specific intention with using the name Darth Naga Sadow. It’s meant to indicate Sadow’s ambition, and his status as “supreme viceroy” (i.e. top Dark Lord). The context needed a title that wasn’t Sith’ari. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a contemporary usage." --Lelal Mekha 
(Audience Room) 06:46, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
- As discussed with Toprawa and Ralltiir on Discord, this is canonically the more formal name. - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 08:20, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
- All right, then. I haven't seen the Discord discussion, but if it's the new consensus, I'll have to abide—even though we have explicit word from the very author of Warfare that it shouldn't be taken too literally. --Lelal Mekha
(Audience Room) 10:12, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate how the Discord discussion went, I raised the point that "Darth Naga Sadow" appears to be the character's most formal version of his name in continuity, which the Naming policy tells us should then be the name of the article. We go with that even if the name is only used once in sources (example: Leia Skywalker Organa Solo). Since the character apparently died while still being a Dark Lord of the Sith, there doesn't appear to be any indication he would have shed this name/title, so it stands to reason to me, at least, that this should be the article title. I was not aware of the Paul R. Urquhart commentary when we had the discussion, and I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I'm not too bothered which way this ends up going. I will say, however, that I think Urquhart's comments are kind of interpretive. He's not explicitly saying not to do what we're doing; it appears he's kind of taking a "maybe" position, which would possibly have allowed future source material to clarify this situation (that's just my guess?), which of course never happened. So I don't think we're necessarily wrong in treating "Darth Naga Sadow" as his formal name. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:51, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing what was discussed in discord, Toprawa. I honestly believe such discussion should've been done here as the "an agreement was made" lacks any fundaments and this really warrants a talk page discussion and agreement so it's written and accessible the reason for the name change. There's a single use of "Darth Naga Sadow" and from what Lelah says even the author himself makes it sound ambiguous. Only if we determine this strange change to the name to be truly intentional should we follow what's in our established naming policy. If we can't determine that, then it should be up for vote similar to what we did with Vitiate. Winterz (talk) 17:58, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
- There was nothing procedurally wrong with how this page move went down. The Discord discussion was a casual, impromptu conversation mostly between myself and OOM that started as a result of trying to determine the validity of this. Once we did determine it was accurate, I gave OOM my opinion and interpretation of the Naming policy that the article should be moved, an opinion I still stand by. He agreed and decided to be bold and move the page, which was a perfectly fair and legal course of action. If you disagree with the opinion and decision that was reached, that's also perfectly fair, but no procedure or policy was broken here, so it's not fair for you to levy criticism as if it was. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:13, October 17, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing what was discussed in discord, Toprawa. I honestly believe such discussion should've been done here as the "an agreement was made" lacks any fundaments and this really warrants a talk page discussion and agreement so it's written and accessible the reason for the name change. There's a single use of "Darth Naga Sadow" and from what Lelah says even the author himself makes it sound ambiguous. Only if we determine this strange change to the name to be truly intentional should we follow what's in our established naming policy. If we can't determine that, then it should be up for vote similar to what we did with Vitiate.
- Just to reiterate how the Discord discussion went, I raised the point that "Darth Naga Sadow" appears to be the character's most formal version of his name in continuity, which the Naming policy tells us should then be the name of the article. We go with that even if the name is only used once in sources (example: Leia Skywalker Organa Solo). Since the character apparently died while still being a Dark Lord of the Sith, there doesn't appear to be any indication he would have shed this name/title, so it stands to reason to me, at least, that this should be the article title. I was not aware of the Paul R. Urquhart commentary when we had the discussion, and I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I'm not too bothered which way this ends up going. I will say, however, that I think Urquhart's comments are kind of interpretive. He's not explicitly saying not to do what we're doing; it appears he's kind of taking a "maybe" position, which would possibly have allowed future source material to clarify this situation (that's just my guess?), which of course never happened. So I don't think we're necessarily wrong in treating "Darth Naga Sadow" as his formal name. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:51, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
- All right, then. I haven't seen the Discord discussion, but if it's the new consensus, I'll have to abide—even though we have explicit word from the very author of Warfare that it shouldn't be taken too literally. --Lelal Mekha
Controversial page title
If you take a look in the page history, it's clear that this decision was not made by community consensus, as in fact most people disagree with it. I instead support renaming the page "Naga Sadow" again, then noting in the article that he was also known as "Darth Naga Sadow" posthumously (as he was only mentioned by that name once, posthumously). --Potsk (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. The Essential Guide to Warfare mentions "Darth Naga Sadow" waging the Great Hyperspace War, so it is not a posthumous title. Secondly, there are anons disagreeing with content on Wookieepedia all the time, but the title "Darth Naga Sadow" is canonical fact. If you do have such strong opinions about the topic, feel free to start a CT. I'm certain the Wookieepedia community will have the right verdict. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 09:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Darth Naga Sadow v. Naga Sadow/Legends
Since this is quite a controversial topic, I'll just lay out my arguments here, all in one place:
Most sources refer to the character as "Naga Sadow," but page 35 of 2009's The Essential Guide to Warfare says this about the Great Hyperspace War: "The supreme Sith Lord, Darth Naga Sadow, had discovered a secret hyperlane leading directly from his Outer Rim despotate into the peaceful systems of the Republic."
Per the Naming policy, an article's title should reflect the most formal name of the subject. In this case, it's Naga Sadow with his "Darth" title. There is no reason to believe that, like Canon Maul, Sadow droppped his "Darth" title—in fact, he remained the Dark Lord of the Sith (in later TOR-related media, Vitiate made himself Emperor of a new Sith Empire, but that doesn't affect Sadow's status as a Darth) Like Leia Skywalker Organa Solo, it's one source with an addition to a character's name against other sources with the absence of that addition. Full, formal names should be used, and Darth Naga Sadow, while stupid-sounding, is no exception, even when authorial intent is ambiguous. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 14:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's been brought up that while in Leia's case, she identified as "Leia Skywalker Organa Solo" in-universe, "Darth Naga Sadow" is a name assigned to him in an OOU source. Still, that shouldn't make a difference here as I think we should reflect what the sources say. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 14:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)