Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Palpatine/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.

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

Sidious merge

Fused with Darth Sidious. Please don't revert. I put a lot of work into it. If you want to edit, go ahead. It needs editing, though please don't destory the concept. KFan II 21:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I think these two articles should be kept separate. Please wait until you have other people's opinions on this proposal. – Aidje talk 22:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed; these should be seperate articles. If they must be combined, I recommend keeping them under Palpatine, not his Darth pseudonym. JSarek
  • Keep these separate per Aidje's reasons. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha!

Hello. I believe this page has to be mass edited due to the template on the page. I have found that my article - the one that fuses Palpatine and Sidious - is the only option. Sorry! KFan II 23:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. Its gonna be called "Darth Sidious", no hard feelings there.

  • You cannot do that without consensus on an issue this large. You have already been outvoted KFan. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Was it you, KFan, that anonymously changed this entire article into a redirect even after that same edit had previously been reverted by a sysop? If so, that was very foolish of you, and I have a feeling you're not winning any friends. As Riff said, you've already been outvoted. It doesn't do you any good to act like we're not here or like we can't do anything. – Aidje talk 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • By the way, cleanup never means merge—there's a different tag for that. – Aidje talk 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why was this merged?

Unless there was a new vote that I missed, KFan's edit needs to be changed. I'm especially miffed personally, as I spent quite some time overhauling the Palpatine page, whereas the Sidious page deserves a We're Doomed! tag. Of course, that's not much justification itself, but I add it to remind KFan of people he's annoying. --GenkiNeko 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the Sidious page deserves a doom tag because of stylistic and relevance issues. As for the separation, I am personally for the concept of two pages. The democratic process (which we're at least attempting here) should not be subverted simply because one user dissents. We've had this talk for a while now. More people that have contributed to talk appear to want them separate, yet the individual articles are continuously destroyed. It's abuse of editorial power. I could go onto wikipedia right now and delete the article on, say, Constantinople[[1]], alleging that is now Istanbul. But common courtesy and respect for the concept of Wikipedia as a valid project prohibits me from doing so without first nominating Constantinople for deletion and suggesting a merge, after which a vote follows and I can only proceed if the vote indicates that merging is what people (read: Not Just Me) want. If it does not, I should respect the arguments of people that disagree with me and acknowledge, perhaps, that there are good reasons for keeping Constantinople and Istanbul apart (though they are the same city, they are defined by different historical periods). That these articles keep being merged is abuse of power and completely violates the premise I've set, which is, I believe, somewhat indicative of the will of many wikipedians. Murphy 14:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

A Final Vote on Combination

Refer to Talk:Darth Sidious to read the info on the final vote to end this dispute over combination of articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles of Address

The discussion from Darth Sidious/TAlk continues here. "His Imperial Majesty Emperor Palpatine I" is just outrageous! The Emperor was never shown to style himself in any of these manners, so there is no reason for us to use them. --SparqMan 21:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, the clone-troopers in ROTS refer to him as "Your Majesty". It occurs in the Mustafar rescue scene.--Eion 21:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, they called him "Your Majesty", but not "Your Imperial Majesty Emperor Palpatine I". I'm with Sparqman on this one. At the very least it is rediculous to add the "I" after his title since there was never a Palpatine II. SeanR 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Given the situation, such an extensive (but far more accurate) title would seem out of place. Additionally, they had already spent a great deal of time with him on the flight over. When referring to an Emperor the first time, you should do so as, "Your Imperial Majesty", but in further instances, it is normally acceptable to refer to him as "Your Majesty." This is perfectly acceptable conjecture. I too believe that "the first" should not be listed as part of his title, both because there was never a second emperor, and also because Palpatine intended to rule for all eternity (As stated in DE.)--Eion 23:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how "His Imperial Majest Emperor Palpatine I" is any less ridiculous than any other title that Palpatine did not explicitly style himself with. I could care less what seems conjecturally logical based on stylings of our own government leaders or what other canonical, source-supported titles may be. --SparqMan 23:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We're just going to have to disagree on this one. Palpatine has never shown a genuine relectance with grandious titles (Why should he, he's a Sith). He's called "Your Majesty", He's and Emperor, "Your Majesty" is a short referal for "Your Imperial Majesty." It makes perfect sense to me, given the situation, that a clone-trooper would not use the full title, but makes no sense for Palpatine not to have the use of the title. GL could have given him any style he pleased, but he chose "Your Majesty" for the film, so I think the artist's intent is very clearly shown there.--Eion 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
      • However, I'm sure someone, somewhere, can find some quotation from a book of the EU that refers to Emperor Palptaine as an "Imperial Majesty," and if there isn't out there yet, I'm sure it'll spring up in the post ROTS enviroment.--Eion 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Then the only required reference should be his last, as in Wikipedia. So, the start of the article should integrate the styling, as in, "His Majesty the Emperor Palpatine, (84 BBY - 4 ABY, spirit destroyed 11 ABY), also known as Darth Sidious, played a central role in the Galactic Civil War as the founder and leader of the Galactic Empire." --SparqMan 00:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I have not problem with this. The other styles have little oficiality, though they are resonable, they are far less so than his Imperial style. Others may wish to weigh in, however.--Eion 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to "His Imperial Majesty" as a title, but I strongly object to putting the "I" or "The First" after his name. --SeanR 00:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Merged it with Darth Sidious, finally. I haven't yet redirected Darth Sidious here and left it as it was, just in case. Removed doom, but added attention, because I believe the article is still quite raw - more info should be added to the Imperial section, and something should be said about the post-Endor era, if only two words. The previous debate related to the merge and the styles of address duscussion was moved to Talk:Palpatine/Archive. - Sikon 08:44, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

DOB

Where is it revealed that Palpatine was born in 84 BBY? - Sikon 14:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The Star Wars Timeline Gold puts his birth at 82 BBY, based on conjecture from the Episode I: Insider's Guide--Eion 15:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The guides to Episode I have him as 52 during TPM. 59.167.63.94 06:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So is it 84 BBY or 82 BBY? Becuase right now, he's listed as being born in both years.-LtNOWIS 20:31, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Dates

I had a reason to extend the "Secret de facto leader of the Separatists" period to 32 BBY. Although the Separatist movement itself was not present at this point, he was the secret shadowy manipulator behind the Trade Federation - one of the main members of the later CIS. - Sikon 03:15, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Trade Federation does not = CIS. If you mean "Shadowy Manipulator behind the Trade Federation" than state that explicitly. The two are NOT equivalent - the Trade Federation and Commerce Guild were often in conflict against each other prior to the Clone Wars.
    • Plus, for the record, Sidious' influence in the Trade Federation extends long before the 32 BBY, so what you had was not strictly correct anyway. QuentinGeorge 06:04, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Secret leader?

The succession box for "Secret de facto leader of the Separatists" is useless as it doesn't point to anyone else. --SparqMan 13:17, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Clearly, Palpatine is the central villain of the Star Wars saga. It is understandable to use some terms, but "maniacal monstronsity" and its ilk are beyond the pall of NPOV. If you have the chance, try to clean those up here and there. --SparqMan 19:36, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

84 BBY birthdate

The 84 BBY birthdate must be changed. We have no info on Palpy's age. He could be older than Yoda as far as we know. The 84 BBY birthdate simply isn't canon. (Unsigned comment by User:Starkeiller)

  • We do. See the DOB section above. He cannot be older than Yoda anyway, Lucasfilms stated that he's no older than McDiarmid by the time of the prequels. - Sikon 15:48, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The Episode I Guide was referring to Senator Palpatine, the good man the Galaxy knew, not Darth Sidious, the Sith Lord behind the mask. The Galaxy thought he was 52 at the time, but in Ep. III, the mask fell and Sidious' true face was revealed. The 84 BBY birthdate was part of that mask. (Unsigned comment by User:Starkeiller)

  • First of all, please remember to sign your comments (see your talk page for more information). Also, please remember to indent your posts on Talk pages by placing asterisks in front of them. Thank you. As for the "Sith Lord behind his face" issue, apart from the fact that the "true face" theory is debatable POV and the guide is an official source, the fact that Palpatine and Darth Sidious are the same person was never meant to be hidden. Therefore, Darth Sidious, with his real name being Palpatine, was born on Naboo in 84 BBY. - Sikon 16:12, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • The Episode I Guide does not reveal that Palpatine is Sidious. So the Guide is talking about the guise.--Starkeiller 16:17, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe we should just leave it until someone else clears this up with a better source. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:34, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Uhm... whatever; the Palpatine-Sidious thing was supposed to be obvious after Episode I, and the editors of the Guide were aware of that. As long as the theory that "Palpatine is a mask" remains speculation and we have two canonical pieces of information: a) Palpatine and Darth Sidious are the same person and b) Palpatine was born in 84 BBY, it is assumed that c) Palpatine, also known as Darth Sidious, was born in 84 BBY. It seems to be a logical choice. Any other choice would mean valuing speculation over facts, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If you do not believe that any information regarding Palpatine's image is factual, at least it can be stated somehow in the article that 84 BBY refers to this image, rather than completely omitting the date. It would cause nothing but more misunderstanding and speculation. - Sikon 16:37, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--Starkeiller 16:48, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)Then we'll have it as a possible date of birth, as a conjecture. Everyone would be happy that way until we have the canonical date of birth for Sidious, be ot 84 BBY or whatever BBY.

  • It's not conjecture—it's logic. To say otherwise is conjecture. – Aidje talk 16:53, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, listing it as a possible date is certainly better than providing no date at all. But I insist that 84 BBY is a canonical date. The starwars.com Databank now lists "Homeworld: Naboo. Species: Human" for both Sidious and Palpatine, so why can't the birth date be accepted as true too? Why invent arguments against, as tedious as repeating this phrase may be, an official source? - Sikon 16:59, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed. If anything, it should merely be noted that some people do not accept 84 BBY as the birthyear of Palpatine, with a short explanation why. But the birthyear should not be removed from the article and it should not be presented as conjecture. – Aidje talk 17:11, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.104 19:45, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)With a questionmark next to 84 BBY, it is shown that we are not 100% canonically sure that Palpatine was born then.

On disfiguration

From the Databank entry on Darth Sidious:

With Anakin Skywalker's help, Sidious was able to defeat Mace, though he was severely scarred by the reflected power of his dark side lightning. To conceal his disfigured visage, Sidious returned to his simple Sith robes.

Does it mean the disfiguration dispute is finally over? After all, it does say that he was indeed scarred by his Force lightning and disfigured, not that he purposefully revealed his true face or had it disfigured as a direct result of unleashing his Dark Side powers (as opposed to a result of these powers being reflected on him)? - Sikon 16:59, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds that way. I'm deleting the following two paragraphs, but putting them here for posterity:
"There is also the possibility that Sidious had been deformed for as long as he had been a Sith Lord, a process which is believed to have happened to other devotees of the Dark Side. He would have therefore used some kind of Force trick (like Force Concealment) in order to cloak his Sith form and appear like a normal Human to others, even Jedi. During the battle with Windu, he lost concentration and temporarily revealed it to Anakin Skywalker. He then decided to present his appearance publically to accuse the Jedi, and ceased to hide it afterwards.
Another theory suggests that, since Sidious had never overtly used his considerable power before, the Dark Side took a heavy toll on his body when his full powers were finally unleashed. The fact that Sidious' eyes changed to the sickly yellow which such Sith as Darth Maul also had lends some credence to this idea." — Silly Dan 00:19, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.108 13:49, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)The last theory doesn't work. Wouldn't he have transformed earlier?

  • Actually, the last theory does make sense. Perhaps Palpatine realized that if he was going up againt one of the greatest Jedi, he decided to go all-out on Windu. There is really no record that I know of that says Palpatine unleashed his full potential ever before. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:48, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

--194.30.198.62 21:08, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)I meant from the beginning of the duel.