Talk: Palpatine/ArchiveDarth Sidious

Back to page

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.

Archived talk: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Combination

Now combining article "Palpatine" with "Darth Sidious". Name of article: "Darth Sidious". Point of view: "Evil". Definition: Calling Palpatine Sidious. By: "KFan II. KFan II 21:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I oppose this procedure being carried out. This would be like combining Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker. Bad idea. – Aidje talk 21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Aidje; they should be seperate. JSarek 22:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Vote changed; see below. JSarek 22:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It would probably be a good idea to ask for opinions before you merge them. Personally, I'm against the idea. If anything, I would say that Darth Sidious should be a section in Palpatine's entry. --Fade 22:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep these separate per Aidje's reasons. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be a consensus to keep these articles separate, could you revert them please, Riffsyphon (especially the Palpatine article, which is now just a redirect)? It's quite a bit of work without the rollback button. – Aidje talk 01:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess I better be the one with the minority view. I think Sidious and Palpatine should be fused (though not until ep 3 spoilers are gone). I actually think keeping Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader separate is dumb. They're the same person. One person, one article. Darth Tyranus doesn't get an separate article. We should be consistant. FUSE THEM --Death Regis 22:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Darth Tyranus does not act as an individual character. We only see Count Dooku. This is an important difference. --SparqMan 22:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, upon reflection, I'm inclined to agree with Death Regis and change my earlier vote. Sidious and Palpy are the same person, as are Anakin and Vader. However, the resulting article A) should wait until after RotS releases to be made (we still *technically* don't know for certain that they're the same person), and B) should go under Palpatine's name, not his Darth Sidious title. JSarek 22:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, Vader and Anakin are the same person, but they're different personas, both of whom play large roles. As SparqMan said, we never see different personas for Dooku and Tyranus, that's why it's a non-issue for him. – Aidje talk 22:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I take the same view as Aidje. The vast majority of work that Dooku does is under his own persona, rather than that of Tyranus. Whereas both Anakin and Palpy do a lot of work under their Sith titles. --Beeurd 22:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Tyranus hired Jango Fett for the clone army. That's more than Orn Free Taa ever did. --Death Regis 18:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • But we are led to believe (at least before anything that may be revealed in ROTS) that Dooku simply used Tyrannus as a pseudonym when hiring Jango. Palpatine and Sidious are two (until ROTS) separate personas.Murphy 09:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Orn Free Taa actually has a decent amount of backstory in the EU. No one's gotten around to filling it in. --SparqMan 18:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't have anything against Tyranus and Dooku being split, I just see why they're not. Right now, I don't care either way in his case. Also, the Orn Free Taa argument is completely irrelevant in this case, because it's a totally different scenario. Orn Free Taa doesn't have multiple personas, and that's the issue being discussed. – Aidje talk 18:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't the rules dictate that everyone should be under their real name (unless their real name is obscure, as in Thrawn's case)? In which case this guy would be under Palpatine if it's all one article. I think it might be a good idea to present other personas in a 'timeline' format- for example, Anakin would be under his name, with a section in his bio entitled 'Darth Vader', which would comprise the second half of the article, then have a redirect from Vader to Anakin. Whether or not they're different people "from a certain point of view", their whole story should probably be included in one biography under their real name. Just my thoughts. --Fade 19:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, one might make the argument that Sidious is his real name. I mean, Amidala is the state name of Padmé Naberrie, but the academic debate aside, Palpatine was never publicly known as Darth Sidious, and as such the article should be under Palpatine. We need a vote.--Eion 12:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • But Sidious isn't his real name either. Just as Vader's isn't "Vader", but Anakin, Sidious is, as with the rest, more a regnal name than anything else, with the extra charge of being a short descriptor of the personality of the holder in many cases. -Murphy 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations whoever managed to de-wookiee this article. --Fade 08:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What in the blazes is going on with this article??? It looks like crap now. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm working on it right now. It's mostly stylistic, but I believe I'll probably have to hack at the explanation of the original trilogy quite a bit, as precious little of it is actually relevant to Darth Sidious, in my opinion. While it is important to note his control over Vader, it's too much to go into detail about Hoth and Vader being Luke's Father (though the latter may be relevant with regard to the DVD special edition, during which (evidently) Palpatine and Vader have a nice little chat about Luke's father. Also just noticed that there's an enormous amount of redundancy in this article, as everything that's directly below the EpIII spoiler graphic is exactly the same as in the Rise to Power section.-Murphy 16:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And, for the reasons I outlined above, this should still be under Palpatine, regardless of Kfan II's preferances. Currently, Palpatine redirects here, which doesn't seem right at all. --Fade 09:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Palpatine, though the same person, is an entirely separate entity than Darth Sidious, and is quite important in his own right as the public persona of the Sith Lord. "Palpatine" should not redirect to Sidious, regardless of their status as the same person for the same reason "Anakin Skywalker" shouldn't redirect to "Darth Vader". They're separate personas. Furthermore, shouldn't this article have the header "Darth Sidious" rather than "Sidious"? --Murphy 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, Murphy. His Darth Title should not be compromised in the article, and Palpatine should not redirect to Darth Sidious because for the longest time they are kept as separate entities, and only at the end (Ep III) does Palpatine reveal himself to be Sidious. If KFan continues this, I will have to block him temporarily. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the two could be merged in the future, when the fact that they are one and the same are public knowledge? Imperialles 16:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But even if its obvious that the two are one and the same, I still think that they both have traits so different, that each deserves its own perspective. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Having read both articles, I have to disagree. In order to reduce redundancy, we should merge both articles, since the Darth Sidious persona and the Palpatine persona merge, too. Darth Sidious should redirect to Palpatine. Gen.d 00:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm fed up with this- why is it that everytime I fix the perspective, someone makes it oou again?! --Fade 20:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Anakin Skywalker ceases to exist when he literally undergoes a physical transformation into the complete Darth Vader. These two characters are separate in Lucas' treatment of them. The entire saga is dedicated to Skywalker's dual personas. Thus, two articles are necessary for him. This is not the case with the other Sith Lords with two identities, Sidious/Palpatine and Tyranus/Dooku. An aside: Palpatine is the real name, as he was born on Naboo and given this name. Hence, if the article was to be merged, it should be under Palpatine. Tyranus is not a significant character on his own, so, of course, Dooku should be a merged article. For Palpatine, it is known that in his role as Emperor he is a Sith Lord with the name Palpatine, hence, the characters are already merged in many respects. However, either way serves well for this wiki, as the Databank has Sidious and Palpatine as separate characters at this time. When www.starwars.com updates the Episode III section it will be fully known whether they combine the articles or not, and, thus, a suggestion for the merging of these articles. -24.253.120.206 12:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello. This is KFan II. Thanks for keeping my article. You guys treat me better than Wikipedia. Thanks again. KFan II 23:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

What's wrong with my images? Some of them are "missing". Could someone tell me what that means, and how to actually put images on Wookieepedia? KFan II 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You need to upload images using Special:Upload. If they are missing, it's because no image with that filename exists on this wiki yet. Angela (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
How do you make images larger?KFan II 23:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Is it really necessary to include all those quotes? There are other wikis that deal with quotes, so they seem to me to just be clutter here. --Fade 08:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to the appropriate Wikiquote page. Seems much easier than loading up a character's page (especially when the character, like Palpatine, has generated so many quotes) with tons of quotes. For some smaller characters, the list approach might be ok.Murphy 11:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's been reverted. I, and I think Fade would agree with me here, believe that the quotations would be better suited as left to the wiki that deals with them, wikiquote. Other character pages do not include quotes for the precise reason that there's already somewhere else for them and including them clutters the page. Murphy 15:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Quotes removed --Imperialles 12:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...

My article has been vandlaized, it seems. It also seems someone has made Palpatine the fused Sidious and Palpy. Or is it fused at all? NO! Just put them together under Sidious, let's get this over with, I mean, life is short. KFan II 03:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you not realize that you've already been banned once for your arrogance? Perhaps you would do well to simply stay away from these two articles altogether. – Aidje talk 03:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "My article" is a dangerous term. Attachments are dangerous things. No one owns a wiki. Possesion is a path to the dark side.--Eion 06:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Look, you've been outvoted and it's a rule that people are put under their real names wherever possible- stop 'claiming' articles for your own and getting stroppy about them. Life, as you say, is short. --Fade 09:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, you hurt your aim by acting like that - unless you are a mastermind like Sidious and your aim is that both articles remain seperate (and to mire the wiki with baseless discussion). Gen.d 23:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • This is so boring. Yes, life is short, so why don't I start my own Star Wars website where Sidious and Palpatine are merged under "Sidious". Don't I have to pay less internet that way? Anyways, I like my articles. Maybe we should have ownerships, and one should consult the owner. I mean, we must get real. Democracy and "freeness" are all illusions. Now, if you don't mind, I have to go to bed. KFan II 01:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
        • What? What the fuck are you talking about, KFan? --Imperialles 16:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead an create your own database if you want- after all, you must expect a wiki format on a Star Wars wiki. Just take look at the bottom of the screen...

Please note that all contributions to Star Wars may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.

Our 'democracy' is a simple voting system. The reason democracy isn't perfect? Because too many people are too fixed on getting their own way. Sound at all familiar? --Fade 18:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

A Final Vote on Combination

To settle this dispute on the merging of Darth Sidious and Palpatine, we will have one more vote. This vote will end exactly one week from this posting. The decision will be made by consensus, meaning an overwhelming majority of votes one way or the other. If there is no consensus, then I will either find another way to settle this, or hold a general assembly. Below vote whether For Merge or Against Merge. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Shall we have a supplementary vote as well on which name we put them under if we vote to merge? Silly Dan 02:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

For

  1. For merging, though I strongly suggest Palpatine be the article title, not Sidious. Silly Dan 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. For merging under the name Palpatine, to stay consistent with the Darth Tyranus article and avoid needless repetition. Maybe Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader warrant two seperate articles, but Sidious is Palpatine. "There is no conflict." Gen.d 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. For merging them under the name Darth Sidious. This makes so much more sense because Sidious just took on the name Palpatine to take over the galaxy. KFan II 01:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    He went by the name Palpatine all his known life, whereas Sidious is just his 'shadow' name, so I don't see how it makes sense at all. --Fade 11:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. For. They're 2 names for one guy. He's basically the same person throughout the saga. It's not like he undergoes a big change in mindset to match the namechange, like Anakin does. He's just goes by different names in different circles. Also, the article should be under Palpatine, because that's what his name was before he became a Sith, and what he's known as throughout his reign as Emporer. But that's not as big a deal as the merge question-LtNOWIS 03:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. For merging under Palpatine. They're the same person, and thus should be in same entry. Incidentally, also for merging of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. JSarek 09:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. For merging the majority of the article under Palpatine, with perhaps only a stub on Sidious explaining it is a shadow name, or just a section in the Palpatine Article.--Eion 12:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. For merging them under Palpatine, that is. --Imperialles 16:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. For. As Palpatine. --Death Regis 06:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. For merging as Palpatine. We know they are the same person, but the article must be carefully written to concurrently state what he did as Palpatine and what we know for certain he did as Sidious. As far who to merge it under, while the audience knows of Palpatine's Sith powers, few outside of the upper echelons of the Empire know that Palpatine was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so it is safe to assume that he used his Sith name as a pseudonym adopted during the lead up to the Clone Wars. --SparqMan 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. For merging under Palpatine. -- Austicke 17:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. For merging under Palpatine. Before Episode III, there was a slight possibility that Lucas was gonna pull a surprise and make these two separate characters. Now that we know for sure, I like how Wikipedia has handled it explaining that it is an alter ego. WhiteBoy 20:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against -- Riffsyphon1024 22:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Against merging them under Sidious. Wouldn't mind so much under Palpatine. Prefer them to be kept seperate. --Fade 22:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Against Should be kept separate regarding details about Sidious as a Sith lord and Palpatine as a senator/chancellor/Emperor. But if it has to be merged it should be under Palpatine, like the Wikipedia page--Mantus 13:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Against BUT, should the decision be made to merge it should be under Palpatine. --Beeurd 15:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Against Different personas, and the article would be quite massive if these were combined. In any case, democracy should prevail. That is my highest concern, even if it goes against my personal preference. – Aidje talk 15:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Against -- Merging should be done under Palpatine not Darth Sidious, and I am personally against merging because the personas are different enough and handled differently enough to merit two separate articles. While they are the same person, their personas are more contrasting than Dooku and Tyrannus (The latter simply used his Darth title whenever he needed a pseudonym, the former carried out two separate lives using each of his names)--Murphy 23:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Against -- If this must be merged, it should be merged under Palpatine.--Darth Fisto 22:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It has been a week, and the vote is now closed. The consensus (11 For, 7 Against) rules that the articles shall be merged under the name of Palpatine. Since Wikipedia has already come to this, we should look at it for how they best set it up. We must also make it apparent that Palpatine was the real name, and Darth Sidious was the Sith Lord Alias. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Shame, really. You would have thought that on a Star Wars wiki that you could afford to have them both; the wikipedia one just looks confused to me. But that's life for you. --Fade 09:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why not start a disambiguation page, with the contents

  1. Palpatine (Senator)
  2. Palpatine (Darth Sidious)
  3. Palpatine (Emperor)

? At the moment, both (especially) the Darth Sidious article and the Palpatine article are too long. And we could deal with the problem of person vs. persona. In my book, there are three personae: The politician Palpatine and the Sith Lord Sidious merge to form the Emperor Palpatine. --Gen.d 00:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, as far as I'm concerned. --Fade 11:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This would be better than merging --Darth Mantus 13:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I also think that this might be a good idea. If we merge them all as one article, it will be very long. I would, however, suggest something more along the lines of "Senator Palpatine" rather than "Palpatine (Senator)". If we use the parentheses, then we'll never be able to do a simple wikilink. – Aidje talk 15:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? I've seen it in the original wikipedia numerous times. You could always link it to Palpatine (i.e. the disambiguation page) if you want a simple link, and to a specific page if you have a specific concept you want to relate to. --Gen.d 13:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally don't like this idea. All information about Palps should go on one page, if possible. I think if you trimmed the redundancies and whimsies from the existing articles, the combined page size would be less of an issue. If we *must* disambiguate, then how about using Palpatine and Palpatine (cloned)? At least those are two seperate physical beings, if not two seperate persons. JSarek 17:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Who was the idiot who came up with making a disimbugution? They should be one article, even if it is long! Sheesh! (Where do these people come from?) KFan II 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • They come from university. You know, the place with books and manners. --Gen.d 16:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You might want to try being a little kinder, KFan. Just because someone disagrees with you (or is thinking outside of that box called your brain) doesn't mean they're an idiot. And by the way, I said might, as in "I'm not entirely sure that I like the idea." – Aidje talk 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Do not slander and hassle other users, KFan. You can state your opinions in another less harsh way. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm...you know what? This is an even better idea than merging. This should be done.--Darth Fisto 22:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

All people who want the disimbuguation! One of the admins has set up a vote for merging or not merging. If not merging wins, this might be considered. Until then, I advise all of you (I have no position of power, so this is not a threat) to stop argueing on this. PS I am sorry for being rude - also, my brain is not a box! That's insulting, whoever said that! 68.162.175.2 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Apology for being rude accepted, KFanII. Calling somebody an idiot might be only slightly more insulting, though. Also, could we move the unproductive bickering somewhere else, maybe on your talk page, KFanII? I want to talk about my suggestion here. --Gen.d 12:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. If unproductive bickering must happen, it shouldn't be on so many talk pages (as it is now). I'm sorry that I got sucked in (as seen below), I was only feeding the fire. – Aidje talk 14:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, KFan. You did a little better job of spelling 'disambiguation' than you did on your last attempt. Anyway, I believe we can discuss this if we want to. It's sort of a third option, although I admit it is in a way a sub-option of the separation option. The thing about your brain being a box: that was a sort of play on words, but I guess you didn't catch it. Or maybe you did. It's kind of hard to tell when all you do is fuss at people who disagree with you and pat people on the back when you think they agree with you. Here's how it works: You think that everyone should agree with you and not have any ideas or opinions of their own, therefore, idiomatically speaking, you wish for them to think "inside the box." Since the box in question is "your own opinion" rather than the more typical "standard procedure," I called your brain the box. See? I'm sure you'll appreciate my cleverness now that I've explained it for you in excruciating detail. Yes, I'm still annoyed, and perhaps even a little out of line in the nature of the condescending speech which I just made as a result of my annoyance. I'm sorry, and I certainly hope you don't start fussing again, although I'm about 98% sure that you will. Still, I can hope that I'm wrong. Seriously, dude. Chill out. I'm really feeling bad about how rude I'm being to you. I'm trying to be nice, but you're making that incredibly difficult by the way you're acting. You're making this difficult for all of us. You're not in charge, please stop acting like you think you are, and please go get an ice pack or something; I think your head is swelling a bit. – Aidje talk 04:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I see now that you actually had an apology in your last post. This is an impressive development. I should go make myself eat a bar of soap or something. I wish I had noticed that before I blew my top. Sorry about that. – Aidje talk 04:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I get the "box that is your brain" thing. I thought it was an insult, since my science teacher once mentioned a box of air...which reminded me of the quote "you brain is full or air", or is that "airhead"? By the way, what does "chill out" mean? Do I have to jump in a tub of cold water? I think you are trying to hint that I need to jump into something cool to stop my head swelling, but its not. I have not hurt myself recently, so what does "head swelling" mean? If these are figures of speech, then I'm sorry if I don't understand them. Could you be a little more specific in what you mean? I mean, if you think my head is swelling because I fell off a bicycle or something and I need to get something cold to put on, then why not just say that? Do you mean something else by "head swellling" and "chill out". Also, what is "dude"? Perhaps you wanted to spell "dud", which would be mean if that's what you meant. Please answer me on my Talk page, we are wasting space here. KFan II 18:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Poor Aidje got so angry he descended into colloquialism :P Er, anyhow, how about a vote on this? And then we could get rid of some of the discussion to save space. --Fade 18:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah yes, I feel like such a fool. It's probably best that you didn't understand, KFan, because I shouldn't have said that in the first place. It was all plays on words, many of which (or perhaps all?) involved American idioms. Some of it was advice, some of it was rude and insulting, and I apologize. Don't worry about it, as it should never have been said. (By the way, a "dude" is just a "person," basically; it's slang, and not insulting in any way of which I am aware.) By the way, it looks like the other poll has decided to merge Palpy and Sid, so I think that this discussion is now irrelevant. – Aidje talk 01:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Unless you feel like fighting for this option, when we just need to get it out of the way. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles of Address

What does this section add to the article? --SparqMan 17:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Bog all as far as I can see. I considered deleting it when I remade the article, but I guess I must have got lazy. There doesn't seem to be much point to it. --Fade 17:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I like the styles of adress, they should remain in the Palpatine article (since it deals with his political side). In the Darth Sidious article it doesn't make much sense, except if you add Mace Windu's "My lord" --Gen.d 16:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how they are relavent, or in some cases, accurate. --SparqMan 16:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If you have evidence that they are inaccurate, change them to their more accurate form. I think they are useful and contribute to the suspension of disbelief. Should the two articles be merged, we can discuss if they are still useful. --Gen.d 16:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that's not how it works. You need to establish their use (which appears to be missing), and then determine if they are a useful addition. --SparqMan 14:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • We're entering another canon debate here. How can I prove their use to you? In the films, all character only mockingly adress Palpatine: "mylord", "your highness" etc. But the fact that they do is telling, isn't it? The senator adress is a direct quote from Episode I (Valorums line, I think, it starts with "the chair does recognise...") --Gen.d 11:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Either way, they really belong in the Palpatine article, not Sids. --Fade 11:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Agreed. --Gen.d 15:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, I've removed them from this article, but someone else can decide whether to put them in Palpatine's entry. --Fade 15:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Good job. Now where are they? --Gen.d 16:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In the history of this article, if they aren't anywhere else.--Eion 16:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Valorum's use of the word "chair" is simply Robert's Rules. What I'm confused about is whether or not his title should be "His Imperial Majesty Emperor Palpatine I". That is, as there are no successors, is there EU precedent by which he calls himself "the first"?Murphy 21:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering that Palpatine intened to be the only emperor ever, I doubt he would be styled in official documents as Palpatine the first.--Eion 21:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Dark Lord of the Sith succession box

The succession boxes on this page need to be amended to reflect that Sidious is Dark Lord at the same time as his master and then his three apprentices. I've changed it three times, but KFanII keeps changing it back for no apparent reason. I'll hold off until we actually decide whether to combine this page and Palpatine. QuentinGeorge 07:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When?????

When are we going to merge Palpatine and Darth Sidious? KFan II 23:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm, no good answer, but I'm certain that when the time comes, there will be at least five exclamation marks involved. --SparqMan 23:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Whenever anyone gets around to it. I still can't help but feel it will be an unnecessary mess, but things have already been decided. I don't personally feel like working on it, as I've already put quite some effort into rewriting this article. --Fade 23:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There should be a temporary page that can be reviewed beforehand. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

This page was redirected to Palpatine and protected to prevent any future problems. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:26, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)