Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive4

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

Thank you

Thank you for fixing this, QuentinGeorge. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:52, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Declared" vs. "anointed"

Palpatine declared himself Emperor in front of the Galactic Senate on Empire Day. Therefore, "self-declared" is more appropiate than "self-anointed". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:08, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • "This bickering is pointless." "Declared" is just as good as "anointed". A bit better, maybe, because it fits the situation better, as Admiral Nebulax said. In any case, "declared" is not an ounce less appropriate than "anointed", and we have to decide which it will be, because leaving it as "self declared/self-anointed" doesn't flow well with the rest of the text. - Angel Blue 451 21:26, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Please visit my talk page. We are dicussing the matter there. And what is up there now was only ment to be there for a short time. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:27, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

User: Dark Lord of the Sith

Someone (I mean admin) please warn Dark Lord of the Sith that he's gonna get himself banned if he keeps molesting the page with his fanon hallucinations. --Master Starkeiller 15:25, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I say ban him right now. He's been screwing around with the page for long enough. I just had to re-add everything for "Palpatine reborn" to "Styles of address". Admiral J. Nebulax 15:27, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • If he has done it before, then kick the bloody guy outta here. --Master Starkeiller 15:44, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I posted on the idiot's talk page. I suggest, Master Starkeiller, that you post there as well. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:45, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I did. These morons seem to prefer this page to exercise their stupidity, and I don't like that, 'cause it's my favorite page. --Master Starkeiller 15:50, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget we have a Wookieepedia:Vandalism in progress page, where you can report vandalism to the moderators. They're a lot more likely to see your concerns if they're addressed there. jSarek 21:21, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, since this page is vandalized so many times, I think this might just be the "vandalism in progress" page. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:25, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Lightsaber picture solution

DannyBoy and mesa have a disagreement on the saber picture of the article. I consider horridly awful the one he considers perfect and he considers horridly awful the one I consider perfect. We voted but it was a tie between the one I want and the one he wants. May I propose a solution? Why don't we turn to http://www.thelightsaber.com? It is full of fanon, but the saber pics it has from the films are accurate and nicely framed by a glow in the saber's blade color in front of a black background. Not only that, it seems to be the only one that has a pic of the black saber Sidious uses against Yoda, which is much cooler than his widely-known golden one. So we can have two of Sidious's sabers in the article. I think the solution would satisfy everybody.

File:Palpatine\'s Lightsaber 1.jpg

File:Palpatine\'s Lightsaber 2.jpg

These are the two. Everybody happy now? --Master Starkeiller 12:12, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'd just prefer whichever one is up there now. That's a fan-made background, and we can't have one of those. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:42, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • No, that's not true. The background, fan-made or otherwise is of no importance as long as it is just a frame for our picture. Plus, it's a nice background and the only pic of the black Sidious saber. It would be unwise to discard two great pictures for other, inferior ones, just because their backgroung is fan-made. --Master Starkeiller 18:30, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if I remember correctly, pictures aren't supposed to have a fan-made background. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:10, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • The lightsaber itself is taken from the Master Replicas website, I believe, which currently has the best image of this weapon around. I suggest we just use that, sans fan background - Kwenn
          • The fan background is good. And it's just a background. If it's good why not keep it? There are other pages with fan-made backgrounds here anyway. Plus, there isn't a black saber Palpy picture with no fan background. And they aren't from Master Replicas. Master Replicas has some big yet awful gifs. --Master Starkeiller 19:26, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, if a better picture can't be found, I guess that will do. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:27, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • OK, the good news is, I like either saber picture. The bad news is, I don't care for the backgrounds on either one. Why? Because they're black, and the reason I think that's bad is because I don't get a sense of the true shape of them this way, or at least I wouldn't, if I didn't know them already. Call me crazy, call me weird, but I like the white backgrounds better. Sorry if this puts a clog in Starkeiller's plans, but in this particular case, the background's not good to me. Erik Pflueger 01:06, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, like I said, we'll have to use these until better ones can be found. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:43, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • So I seem to be the only one that likes the backgrounds... Okay, should anyone find any better pics (or any with the black one), we shall vote or talk about it again, OK? I've searched for the hundredth time only to find the same crappy shots. --Master Starkeiller 02:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Starkeiller, do you not realize that that image is EXACTLY the same as the one I originally posted except it has that [Redacted by administration] black and red background? Sheesh. I would suggest anyone interested read the post vote conversation on the Archive 3 page near the bottom (for the initial vote we did) I think the logic behind what I says is still valid (As I am the "defendent" in this situation it is your responsibility to "meet the burden of proof".) This new vote you are asking for is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the original vote. As I said on the 3rd page of the Palpatine discussion: there was plenty of time for people to vote in support of your image. You didn't get enough votes to beat me so it stays. Analogy: Would you give a world record to the second person to make it? No, they would have to do better. Anyway, if that black saber was used against Yoda I suggest we get rid of that black and red crap so it matches the one I posted and include it. If it's fanon crap or something done by MR and not in the movie (I never noticed it but I am not refuting it) then I think this issue is closed. Also, I think it is dangerous to allow fanon - of any kind - to be posted on this Wiki. I don't think that is a slippery slope we should go down...--DannyBoy7783 06:12, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I have gone back and reviewed the new article section "Lightsaber" which was heavily laden with speculation and frivolous excessive wording. I also did some research online (google, rebelscum, Master Replica's site) and didn't see anything about this Black Sidious saber. The only thing I found was a special target exclusive MR saber that was entirely black chrome. I think this is a photoshop job of the original image to give it a black handle. I also reviewed the movie and at no point can you tell that it is black (during Yoda's lightsaber battle with the Emperor). I removed both images because a) they are partially fan images and b) the black saber currently has no factual evidence to its canon status. I replaced the canon saber that Starkeiller put up because the original one was of a higher quality. The saber images with the black background are a lower resolution which can be seen along the handle. The shading isn't smooth like it should be. Unless you can provide evidence from a reputable source or a screen capture that unequivocally shows this black and silver saber then it doesn't belong on the main article page. Lastly, I would like to point out that I don't have a big problem with the image Starkeiller replaced mine with during the original vote. I just think the one I originally uploaded is superior because it shows not just one side of the hilt detail but a little bit of both sides. The diagonal image that Starkeiller prefered didn't do this. I also think it is a bit silly for you, Starkeiller, to say that you think my image is "horridly awful" because the golden and silver Sidious saber with the black and red background is exactly the same as mine just with a cheesy background (and smaller I might add). I think this supports my theory that, for whatever reason, you have something against the fact that I have put this image on the page not the actual image itself. Your user pages states you are fanatical about Palpatine and I respect that but I think you are being way too possesive of the article.--DannyBoy7783 08:29, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I told you, Starkeiller, we can't have fan-made backgrounds. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • DannyBoy7783, the only reason I consider the picture you support horridly awful is its resolution. It isn't good. That's my only problem. And yes, I am obsessive about this article, I want it to be perfect. If you have a problem with that, sorry, but I ain't gonna change. If you can find the same image in better resolution (like the one with the fan background, which may have been smaller, but it had a decent resolution), I'd be glad to see it there. Like this one http://www.thesabervault.com/files/MasterReplicas/Items/PalpatineROTSbig.jpg for example. Currently, I consider it horridly awful. I don't have anything against you, I have a deep hate towards low res, that's all, pal. You do realise the pic you support is low res? And here's proof the black Sidious saber is as fanon as the golden one, I'm restoring the picture:

center|150px|Sidious has a black lightsaber|thumb

I'm also restoring my paragraph. I respect the results of the vote, but the speculation and "funny" wording were fitting to the article (my tribute to Erik's writing and interesting ideas I came up with while researching). Oh, please! SPECULATIVE CRAP? Come on! --Master Starkeiller 16:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Starkeiller, why don't you make the image with Palpatine and his black lightsaber smaller and avoid using the pictures with the fan-made backgrounds? Admiral J. Nebulax 17:20, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I will avoid it. But in this case it is necessary as there isn't one with no fan background. --Master Starkeiller 17:22, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • That's better. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:28, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • You mean the size of the picture? --Master Starkeiller 17:34, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes. And the caption could be something like "One of Sidious's lightsabers". Admiral J. Nebulax 18:47, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Added in new image to replace previous one. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • I realize now that resolution isn't the right word for what I was trying to describe. The black background saber pic is simply a sub par photograph. You can see this when you look at the shading in the reflection along the handle. Compare it to mine and you will notice that yours has a jagged differentce in color as it goes along. Mine makes a smooth transition because the photograph of the lightsaber is simply better. Also, the resolution of my image IS better. Mine is 300 pixels per inch. Yours is 72. Now shut up about my picture because it is bigger and better and there is nothing wrong with the quality of the photo. If you think there is upload a copy that points these so called "flaws" out. Is there any further proof of the black handled saber? The new image appears to be it but it's a little hard to tell. Can we find some more information on it before he go headfirst into adding the info for it to the article proper? Also, there is NEVER a need to make something overly wordy. This is a wiki and it is designed to give people information on the character. This isn't your private page where you can give tribute to someone. I don't think someone who comes here for the first time is going to appreciate having to wade through your drivvle in order to get to the information they need. What you are doing here is what every high school student in the world learns how to do: BS their homework by adding nonsense text. This isn't high school and you aren't being graded so stop doing it. It makes the page longer than it needs to be. So, in conclusion as I have said twice before now: this page is not yours and the entire internet community is allowed to make alterations to it. Your insesent reverts are becoming increasingly frustrating and selfish. PLEASE STOP PRETENDING YOU OWN THIS PAGE. IT IS NOT YOURS ALONE. Your opinion of what is better may not always be the case and to think otherwise is naive and ignorant. I reverted your section...yet again. I would be happy to go through your version of that entire lightsaber section and point out everything that doesn't belong because of over wordyness or speculation. I don't think you notice when you do it but this wiki should remain as to the point, factual, and neutral to all sides. Bias skewes information. It isn't our job to comment on Palpatine's character being good or evil but to present the information about him so the reader can make that decision. Real encyclopedias don't say Hitler is evil. They simply tell you what he did as the leader of Germany. End of story. When you learn to be concise and to the point I will stop fixing your text.--DannyBoy7783 18:55, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • You need to calm down, DannyBoy. He's done plenty of good things for this article. So shut up. He knows it's not his page. He does things for the better of the article, not because he thinks it's his own. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:59, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • I have no doubt Starkeiller has done a lot for this page. Don't get me wrong. It's good that he's watching it like a hawk> especially with an article this long because it would be easy to slip things in here and there. The point is that his opinion of what is better is not necessarily what is better. It's just one person's opinion and I think he forgets that at time. He thinks everything he does is better so he automatically changes it without thinking about if it really is better or not.--DannyBoy7783 19:06, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • Well, perhaps he doesn't think that, and the reason he does it is because he thinks it will improve the article for everyone, not himself. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:08, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • You are honestly going to sit there and tell me you think an overly wordy passage is GOOD for the article? I have no doubt Starkeiller has done a lot for this page. Don't get me wrong. It's good that he's watching it like a hawk especially with an article this long because it would be easy to slip things in here and there that doesn't belong. The point is that his opinion of what is better is not necessarily what is better. It's just one person's opinion and I think he forgets that at time. There is no defense for making something longer and more complicated that it has to be unless that is the intended goal. Otherwise I'd stick with the the old saying "Keep it simple, stupid"--DannyBoy7783 19:06, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                        • This discussion about it being too long has arise before. While I think it might be overly worded, it's a lot better than having nothing on his early life. And you basically repeated what you just said before. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:14, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                          • Because it appears no one listens to my argument because they say things I have already made a point against.I'm not saying that overy wordy is worse than nothing but if someone recognizes excessive writing and can cut it down, why not?--DannyBoy7783 19:18, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                            • Look through the archives and you'll find my failed discussion on the subject. I tried saying the exact same thing. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:20, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                            • I think I recall skimming over that at one point. I'll go give it another look in a minute. It would seem that I am an acolyte for your cause Nebulax :)--DannyBoy7783 19:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • I will not answer to any personal attacks from DannyBoy. I don't like hearing people saying "shut up" to other people and I will not do it myself. Please attack my person somewhere else, not this page. Now, I do really believe the overly wordy paragraphs are good for the article FOR ALL people, not just myself. I am honestly going to sit here and tell you I think an overly wordy passage is GOOD for the article and keep putting it back. As for the picture of the black saber, check the film and you'll see it is identical to the one it shows. Despite the fan background, it should stay there. And as for the picture of the gold saber, I don't like yours because it's grainy. Okay, not low-res, but its grainy and of low quality. I don't really know this stuff, it just isn't good. --Master Starkeiller 19:34, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well said, Starkeiller. But the current picture (with Sidious and the black saber) should stay there. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:42, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • I agree. I just checked the movie, and it shows the saber's TIP being black as well, which makes the fan picture incorrect. --Master Starkeiller 19:47, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • The way the section is now is just fine. --Imp 19:49, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • I agree with the current picture choice as well. Starkeiller, You have a point about the personal attacks and the "shut up". I apologize for that (sorry man, I didn't mean to get so heated). --DannyBoy7783 19:50, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • Starkeiller, I'm a bit taken aback too. Danny referred to the article being "overly-wordy" and implied that to be school-level writing, and since I've been as much for more-is-better as anyone, then I feel he's got an issue with my work as much as with yours. As Jack said, we've been down this road before, I've stated why I back this approach, and the majority has decided the issue. I have no desire to revive the past debate, but if it's already been kicked up again, I feel obligated to speak my piece.

I don't regard this page as my personal page, but I will defend the integrity, not just of my work, but of others that have made great contributions. That means Starkeiller, it means Nebulax, it means Kuralyov, and it means DannyBoy. In fairness, Danny, I don't really know if a separate lightsaber-themed section was really necessary, but I still feel that you dropped the ball on dealing with it (again in fairness, I've done just as bad when writing on adrenalin). You apologized, and since you weren't pointing at me, I consider the matter honorably settled. Erik Pflueger 02:06, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Format discussion

I have locked the article until we all agree on the format. Please use this section to discuss the matter. --Imp 20:10, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • We have come to this... again? Oh well... --Master Starkeiller 20:15, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are going to argue that a wordy paragraph is better you need to explain why? What purpose does it serve that is better than a paragraph that is direct and to the point? Please enlighten us.--DannyBoy7783 19:50, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will. The article is structured in such a way. It is written in a beautiful insightful way like no other article in the encyclopedia. Thank Erik Pflueger for that. I structured this paragraph in a similar way, with prose and interesting ideas about Palpatine's lightsaber. Much better than a dry: "Palpatine had this lightsaber and it was lost and then he got another one and we don't know what happened to it". I did it for the reader, not myself. --Master Starkeiller 19:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a novel. It's an encyclopedia. Real encyclopedias don't do this, why should we?--DannyBoy7783 20:06, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, then you disagree with the way the ENTIRE ARTICLE is structured. Not just that paragraph. Most people seem to like the prose, except for you and Kuralyov, that have called it "crap". If the majority likes it, it should stay as it is. --Master Starkeiller 20:10, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Nebulax mentioned his dislike for it as well. I don't have a problem with this type of writing. It just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. It would serve us all to keep this community as professional as possible. If someone wants pretty writing they can go pick up a book and read about this stuff first hand. They come here because they a) Need the information boiled down or b) are too lazy to go read the book themselves. :)--DannyBoy7783 20:15, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • This writing IS professional. And I remember Jack liking it. Jack? --Master Starkeiller 20:20, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Imp, please add the "Lock S-foils" tab in the article. --Master Starkeiller 20:28, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • "This discussion about it being too long has arise before. While I think it might be overly worded. Look through the archives and you'll find my failed discussion on the subject. I tried saying the exact same thing. Admiral J. Nebulax"--DannyBoy7783 20:35, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but what is your current view? And it's not only about being long, it about the style. --Master Starkeiller 20:36, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Just checked archives. I remembered we had come to an agreement that the article was fine. --Master Starkeiller 20:41, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't involved in that argument and I had trouble finding it in the archive. Can you link to it please?--DannyBoy7783 20:45, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Right here. -- SFH 20:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I was about to say that. --Master Starkeiller 20:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • This section from that argument explains my opinion. The problem is not the length of the article because of the facts it includes. The problem is the fluff that is added to it EVERYWHERE:

"While it should be long, the sections on Palpatine's early life should be shortened, as we have no information on that. If you notice, it's mainly questions and other somewhat unnecissary statements. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:59, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC) I don't think any of the information should be removed. But definitely the fluff that is sued to pad the information should be toned down. Consider: By the time biographers turn their attention to the lives of the most infamous figures among us, such individuals often become the subject of legends so far removed from reality that it is difficult to concieve of them as ever having been young or innocent. The very idea that there was a time when Palpatine could have been an innocent child is difficult—if not impossible—to accept. Such a possibility seems overshadowed by his later actions. Too often did he affect an air of innocence to achieve his ends. Nevertheless, even for Palpatine, the rule must remain: he was a child before he was a man, and a man before he was a monster. The difficulty comes in documenting those very years of innocence, if indeed there were any. Information about Palpatine's youth is extremely hard to come by. What there is often cannot be verified by primary sources such as archival documents, since most records on his homeworld concerning his ancestry, his immediate family and his upbringing had "mysteriously vanished" by the time he became a Senator, most likely deliberately destroyed. It is known that Palpatine was born on the eleventh day of the eighth standard month, in the year 82 BBY.

Those two paragraphs could be toned down to just:

Although much of the data on his family and early life was lost, perhaps erased deliberately by him, Palpatine was born on Naboo in 82 BBY.

That is much easier to read, there is no need to sift through mounds of flowery prose to get to the information (after all, like you said, this is an encyclopedia, and should be written like one) is the style that all other articles here use. Kuralyov 21:05, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • That's what I was thinking. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:06, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Though I agree the prose is unnecesary, I prefer two paragraphs instead of the sentence. Let's make it simpler, not crop it down. --Master Starkeiller 21:11, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Then what shall we do? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:14, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Make the text more encyclopedic, not cut it down to one sentence. --Master Starkeiller 21:20, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Cutting it down would make it more encyclopedic, since the only reason it's so long is because it's clogged up with so much unencyclopedic nonsense. Kuralyov 21:23, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)"

Starkeiller even points out what I am saying: Though I agree the prose is unnecesary" The entire article is full of this. It's great that User:Erik Pflueger likes to write but this is not the place to write what he apparently likes to do. The entire point of this site is to synthesize all of the Star Wars information. Not make it long and flowery.--DannyBoy7783 21:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

      • We came to an agreement though, that the prose is fine. That's what makes the article the best in Wookiepedia. If it wasn't "fluffy and flowery", it would suck. We have a great article here that people (especially Erik) have worked so hard to build, why ruin it? Only you and Kuralyov have called it "crap". Though I agreed it was unencyclopedic for some time, I realized Erik was right, and "turned back to the light side of wanting the article to be fluffy and flowery". --Master Starkeiller 21:18, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Nebulax had a problem with it as did others. Stop trying to create a false majority Starkeiller. This is simply not the place for fluff. Starkeiller, you seem to have trouble discerning between relevant information and fluff that is added. If this were a novel it would be appropriate. This is not. It doesn't belong. It's all well and good that Erik put his heart and soul into this but the fact of the matter remains: this is not the place for it. I would really like an admin to respond on what the site policy os or should be in this situation because this argument isn't going anywhere at the moment. We are simply restating our arguments over and over. If that isn't an option (because they want to leave it up to us) then I propose a vote for either removing the extra prose or keeping it.--DannyBoy7783 21:31, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Danny, I took part in that discussion and I remember two things: a) a majority supporting Erik's marvelous writing and 2) an agreement at the end of section 24 that the prose is fine. For a while, I did support the idea that the style was not encyclopedic until I was convinced there isn't such thing as a standard for encyclopedic writing. So, I'm not making anything up. See for yourself. Goodnight for now. At least I can feel safe with the page locked, though I'm not really a fan of locking pages up in the encyclopedia everyone can edit. At least I know nobody will wipe out Erik's appropriate hard work that has made the page as wonderfull as it is and belongs here more than anything else. --Master Starkeiller 21:38, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Don't hold your breath Starkeiller. We'll vote or we will hear from an admin. Either way the fate of this article is yet to be seen.--DannyBoy7783 21:39, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • Relax, man, this isn't a war. It's a discussion. Just an advice: Read the article. You'll see how great it is and why I'm supporting the "fluffiness". --Master Starkeiller 21:43, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • DannyBoy, I don't have a problem with it being long anymore. I really don't care if it's long or short. But now, to the both of you: You've started something that caused the page to get locked. Yes, you're both trying to make the article better for everyone, but your arguement has locked the page. Now, you both started it. So, I suggest you come up with an agreement so people are actually able to edit the page. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:50, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • The majority shall decide now if the prose should be here or not. --Master Starkeiller 21:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • I just said that Starkeiller....--DannyBoy7783 22:06, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • So? I repeated it as an answer to Jack. As I said, Danny, you need to relax. And since my plans for going out have sank and I don't have anything better to do, I'll be here to talk about this. --Master Starkeiller 22:12, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Prose Vote

The wookieepedia community is asked to vote on a matter concerning the style of the Palpatine article. Should it remain as is, and be more descriptive, or should it be edited down, and be more concise? Your vote is greatly appreciated in this matter.

The vote was decided to make no removals of information to the article. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:57, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Finally, it's over. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:06, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • At long last if I might add. --Master Starkeiller 21:09, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Hopefully, any more edit wars will be avoided. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Our long national nightmare is over... :) Erik Pflueger 23:32, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you mean "worldwide". ;) Admiral J. Nebulax 00:15, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, looks like I came late to the game, but I'm glad it worked out. - Angel Blue 451 00:19, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • It's like my old gym teacher always used to say: "It doesn't matter if you're late to the game, it matters that you play in the game". Admiral J. Nebulax 00:21, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • Actually, Jack, I was quoting Gerald Ford after Nixon resigned. But, yes, worldwide is more appropriate. :) Erik Pflueger 05:59, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

For change

  1. DannyBoy7783 22:06, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  2. --MarcK [talk] 03:13, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  3. Imp 03:15, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  4. jSarek 11:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kuralyov 22:04, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  6. 000 23:14, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Against change

  1. SFH 22:08, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  2. Thanos6 22:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  3. Master Starkeiller 22:12, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  4. DarthMalus 22:34, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Darth Culator (talk) 23:17, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  6. Erik Pflueger 02:10, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  7. KEJ 19:18, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  8. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  9. Riffsyphon1024 20:53, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) for more description, but never reduce the size of an article to make room for more
  10. StarNeptune 21:30, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) Keep current prose, but add more!
  11. Eion 16:44, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Since when is more information a crime? keep it, and add more.
  12. --Gonzalo84 04:19, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) Keep it. This is an in-depth encyclopedia and a major character, specially one as complex deserves attention to detail.
  13. Angel Blue 451 02:37, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) - I feel it is in our best interest to take advantage of the format of this encyclopedia, which allows us to go in-depth to a degree not possible with any other.

Comments

I love it, the style is perfect. Thanos6 22:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • As a character in a movie made by a friend of mine said, "it isn't good; it's perfect". --Master Starkeiller 22:14, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • If too long is perfect then right you are! How about we save the comments until this is over?--DannyBoy7783 22:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • We're free to comment if we want, Danny. For the 32,646,732,857,342,985,694,386,043,906th time, RELAX. --Master Starkeiller 22:31, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me rephrase: can we leave the useless comments until the end? That first comment you made in this section is useless and doesn't help the vote. I'm very relaxed Starkeiller, trust me.--DannyBoy7783 22:38, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Useless or not, I felt like making it. Humor or light-heartedness aren't prohibited you know. --Master Starkeiller 22:45, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Due to the fact that I had originally been for a change and am now undecided, I will not cast a vote, unless I change my mind. But, I'd like to say that both of you (Starkeiller and DannyBoy) have been taking this way too seriously. You both could have talked it over here, but instead, you constantly reverted each other's edits. So, next time, talk things out. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:55, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • Jack, you can see for yourself that we tried.

And, are non-registered users allowed to vote? I remember that when I called some Star Wars fans from outside Wookiepedia to vote before being registered, their votes were deleted and I was accused of sockpuppetry (!), sad as it is as much I try to forget it... --Master Starkeiller 23:07, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, you tried. But I'm directed this at both of you. So, I'll ask this: who started it? And be truthful, because I can always look back and find out. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:12, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Now, I don't want to sound like I'm babying you or anything. It's just that I'm doing this to avoid future conflicts between the two of you. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:19, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem, I started it and I admit it without shame or pride. But I never considered it a war or something, an attitude Danny seems to have, claiming that he "proudly defeated me" and that I "shouldn't hold my breath 'cause it isn't over yet". It is an edit war, but I hoped discussion could solve it. And before Danny asks that I apologize for calling him a war-mongerer, I state that I don't mean it as an insult. --Master Starkeiller 23:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Starkeiller. Danny, do you have anything to say? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:54, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • I consider that stuff on my user page to be in jest Starkeiller so don't get too bent out of shape over it. I simply have an opinion of how the article should be. I asked an admin to interject and lock it because I thought it was dumb for us to go back and forth like we were. This seemed like the best and most civil course of action for the time being.--DannyBoy7783 02:15, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this "war," whether launched in jest or in bitter earnest, risks pulling others into it as surely as did Archduke Ferdinand getting shot. My name has been mentioned by both sides in this, and sure as there's a sunrise, I feel this argument is about what I've been writing here, and whether others agree or disagree with it. I say that not to puff myself up, but as a fact. And I could have sworn that this was debated and decided once already. Now, weeks later, another debate has to be held? "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"

I'm certainly not doing this for my health, or to fill some void in my life. I have a fiancee, and I've taken up cooking (Starkeiller, do you have any good Greek recipes?) and resumed painting. And I'm not doing this just because "I like to write," but because it benefits the article, and it benefits the character. He's a complex character, and that demands an article of length. I can't simplify my argument any better than that. If you want to explore that attitude in more detail, go to the previous discussion page, and you'll see I defended myself ably and explained why length is called for.

Everything I've written is based entirely on what has been established for the character. If asked, I can usually back it up with the book title and page number. If I don't know something about Star Wars, I'll admit it. And when I had in mind something that may cause comment, I've brought it before the group first. Consider the discussion about adding Palpatine's speeches: anyone can see that I asked people's opinions long before I carried out the idea. I expected it to be deleted if it wasn't liked. But few have seen cause to delete what I've written. Tweak, yes, but not delete. And tweaking makes the article better.

And that's the ultimate point. I do not regard this article as my personal page, but I do care about it, and I want to make it better. It should be as comprehensive as possible, and I've already stated why. Nor am I alone in feeling that this is how "better" should be defined. No one has demonstrated to my satisfaction how the article is improved by being shorter. But some people - a majority, I feel - think that it is improved by being longer. There are any number of articles on the same subject on other sites that are "concise," as I believe Danny sees the term. But why repeat them? Why follow their lead, when we can do better? They can't tell the full story out of space considerations; we can.

I don't have anything else to say this late in the evening, but I'd like to give some shout-outs. Thanks, Starkeiller, for being a friend, as always. Thanks to Thanos. Thanks to SFH and the Darths, both Malus and Culator (one could always use a Sith accountant). Thanks to Jack Nebulax, the respected admiral, who is honest both with himself and with us. And thank you too, DannyBoy, supreme allied commander, for speaking your mind; even though I disagree with your opinion, I respect you for saying it. I like honest people; I deal too often with phonies. And in your camp, thanks to MarcK and Imperialles, for voting what you think.

My best regards, and a happy new year to you all. Erik Pflueger 04:00, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • And just so everyone's informed: I felt that the "remain as is, or be edited down and more concise" poll question was weighted, because one side had a stated objective - "concise" - and the other side didn't, so I added what I feel both sides can agree my goal is, "descriptive," without touching the opposition's point of "conscise." The point is just to make certain the question is neutral, and gives the rationale for both sides equally. I didn't do it with the intent of steering the vote my way, but just to see the vote is steered in no way whatsoever, except what the individual voter feels and thinks. And I'm making sure everyone knows, because I don't work in secret. I don't want anyone to see it unwarned and say "Hey, what gives? He's cheating!" Of course, those who are voting probably know what they're voting about without my help, but I wanted to make sure it was done fairly. I hope everyone's okay with it. Erik Pflueger 05:21, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • The arguments here have clearly been made so this discussion is no longer necessary. Even your last response Erik makes my point. You are not a concise writer and as this is a source of synthesized information it needs to be. I asked for a vote and we have one so I'm going to let it be until the end of the vote.--DannyBoy7783 06:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • As will I. And let us both agree that, whatever the vote decides, we shall all abide by it, and with the same goal as always: to make a good article. Sound fair? Erik Pflueger 06:46, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • If this argument has come up twice already I don't image this vote will silence the issue. I came up with this opinion independent of the previous discussion and I imagine someone else will after me. All we can do then is point them to that and this discussion and let them respond and perhaps have another vote if they request it. As a wiki nothing will ever be set in stone Erik. I am prepared, if I win this vote to edit the entire article down to what I believe conforms to a wiki and an encyclopedia and if I lose the vote I will simply continue to edit it as it fits with the rest. I'm not going to make any agreement with you Erik because my request for a democratic style vote speaks for itself I think. It would be pointless for me to request a vote, go against it and have the article reverted after I made changes, wouldn't it?--DannyBoy7783 08:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, it would. But the point is, this edit war could have been avoided if you had had a discussion instead of reverting each other's edit. DannyBoy, if you didn't like it, why didn't you just post here instead of constantly reverting Starkeiller's edit? And Starkeiller, why didn't you post and tell DannyBoy why you didn't like that? I'd choose a discussion over an edit war any day. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:18, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • I apologize if I'm responsible for this, it's just that I felt hurt every time my work was cut down by Danny. It had taken me a quarter of an hour to write these things and I had put my heart to it, I just couldn't stand by and watch while they were chopped to pieces! But I didn't start the vote. I was hoping we'd discuss. Danny created the vote. I'd prefer it if we hadn't come to this. I did my san-part in the edit war, I explained why, and I'm sorry if in part I caused this. I just can't stand idly while someone hurts my work to such an extent. Little tweaking is something else entirely from calling my work "speculative crap" and cutting it to pieces. --Master Starkeiller 12:32, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • DannyBoy, anything to say? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:36, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, this isn't the outlet for the type of writing he (and Erik) prefer. Starkeiller, don't be so melodramatic. I didn't cut down anything. It was one paragraph. Get over yourself. The edit war was stupid but in the end I asked for it to be locked it wasn't an admin that came by and noticed so that part of this is irrelevant. I asked for a vote because both sides had made their argument though I still believe that Starkeiller/Erik haven't really defended their side yet at all. No progress was being made, hence a vote. I don't see what is wrong with it. This started as another lightsaber discussion but turned into something about the entire article at large. I don't think it is possible to come to an agreement here because the two sides disagree on a fundamental level. A discussion went on all day yesterday but it ended up in the end with no real progress. Therefore, it deserves a vote. Letting the community decide I think is a positive thing not a negative.--DannyBoy7783 14:20, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I made my case, but it's clear we're talking past each other. That's happened before, with others. The difference is your attitude toward Starkeiller and myself. "Get over yourself?" Other people have had issues with the way I write, but not one of them were as abrasive. When Jack and I disagreed, did he bark at me? Did I bark at him? I tried to persuade, thanked him for a fun debate and told him I respected him. I did the same for you, and you responded rudely.

You may still win, because the strength of an argument isn't dependent on attitude, but ideas. But you're acting no better than you think 'Keiller was. You're asking that this be done democratically, but you're trying to take charge of the page and ignoring the results of a unofficial but democratic vote, just because you don't agree with the result. And throwing barbs, besides. I'll be fine regardless of how the vote goes. But you need to be nice; you risk being a sore winner, and a poor loser. Erik Pflueger 15:19, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • And I'll admit it: I'm losing my cool. So I'll take a breath and calm down. Yes, letting the community decide on this is a good thing. And yes, this issue is probably never going to be decided permanently; the nature of the Wiki format precludes that. But Danny could stand to be civil toward his opponents. Jack Nebulax certainly was when we sparred, and I tried to be to him. We're all a family here, and we have to work together after all this is over, and that can't be done with sore feelings and grudges. A respectful debate position costs Dan nothing, and works wonders. Erik Pflueger 15:45, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that I made such an impact... And DannyBoy, you could be kinder to Starkeiller and Erik. Just think, someone might come around and be both your enemies. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:01, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • And I wasn't being melodramatic... Perhaps you should try writing something you felt proud of only to have it called "speculative crap" and chopped down to a paragraph. --Master Starkeiller 16:36, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • "I'm glad that I made such an impact..." Jack, all it took was a good attitude. And class. And you have both. I just re-read our debate. You snipped once, and I snipped back once. And that's it. Otherwise, we were gentlemen. And that's how it's done. You're a friend, and that I'll say concisely. Erik Pflueger 16:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. You're a friend as well, Erik. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:26, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Perhaps the back patting could be left to user pages? Erik and Starkeiller, and don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not interested in being your friends. I could have been much more rude. And jack, you have an entire discussion thread at your user page about being nicer to tohers so that's sort of calling the kettle black, no? In my opinion you two have completely missed the fundamental objective of a wiki. I'm not talking past anyone. I have made my argument and supported it. I don't see how you have countered my points nor proved that your stance is the correct one. Starkeiller said he writes like that for the reader but like I said this isn't the place for it. If someone wants lengthy writing in a style that is more enjoyable to read they can go pick up the books the wiki gathers information from. The point of the page is to synthesize the information. I'm not saying the article should be short for the sake of being short. I'm saying it should be shorter so visitors can more readily get to the information about Palpatine. There is a lot of unnecessary writing on the page that can simply be edited out and be more direct and to the point. Perhaps I'm just not understanding your side of this so if you believe you can counter that argument please clearly do so.--DannyBoy7783 18:48, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the article as it is. I thought we'd already been through this. Besides, remember that this was a featured article, which should be an indicator of its high quality. KEJ 19:23, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • DannyBoy, if you tried a little bit of that "back patting" yourself, perhaps this wouldn't have come to this. But how could you since you call it "back patting"? Okay, you're not here to make friends, but I (and I hope every other Wookiepedian with me) demand that you are POLITE. No, you couldn't have been more rude. You just can't be rude. You HAVE to be polite, it is required of you. Even if you're talking to the worst kind of scum, that scum has the right to demand that you are courteous. Take a look around you. All the others are getting along just fine. We may not be here to make friends, but we are here as CIVILIZED BEINGS! Know that you have offended me with your stance toward me and the others, and call me meldodramatic if you will, but please be polite. I don't want to counter any arguements or anything as long as you call my work "crap", mutual admiration and frienship "back patting", and describe me as a scumbag in your user page... --Master Starkeiller 20:15, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • DannyBoy, that "discussion" was posted by someone because I wasn't being "nice" to people. What that person failed to understand was that I only did what I did because the people didn't listen. So, stop acting like you're the greatest, because you're not. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:20, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • And I am acting the same way for the same reason so either stop lecturing me and make a relevant response or leave the comments on my user page. This isn't the place for it.--DannyBoy7783 20:33, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • How's this: I've made up my mind. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • DannyBoy, I explained you: You CAN'T act like this. You offend me. You owe me, Jack, and EVERY Wookiepedian an apology. --Master Starkeiller 20:39, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are out of line. Instead of discussing this like a civilized person, you make it seem like you think you're the best. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:43, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not even involved in this conflict and I find DannyBoy7783's attitude offensive. —Darth Culator (talk) 20:52, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • See? And don't say to post it on your talk page, because this is the discussion for the vote, and where you started it. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:53, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dear Riffsyphon. Earlier, you wrote in your vote: "for more description, but never reduce the size of an article to make room for more" Is it possible for you to elaborate on that? I'm afraid I had some trouble following it. Please clarify for me, if it's not too much trouble, and my best regards. Erik Pflueger 21:19, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • My two cents: The point of this wiki is to add every single scrap of known Star Wars info, no matter how large or how insignifigant. I find this prose makes it more interesting to read, and if it makes the article 75k large, so what? At least we have a quality article. StarNeptune 21:30, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • oops, I guess it's over 130kb large. Still, I don't think it matters. It's good enough as it is, but there's always room for more. StarNeptune 21:30, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with the request for an explanation Riffysyphon. Also, I sincerely apologize to the entire wookieepedia community (happy starkeiller and nebulax? you could be a little less touchy and just deal with it (like an adult?)). *ahem* anyway....StarNeptune, I'm not advocating the removal of "scraps" just the filler in between the scraps. It makes it harder to get to the information and defeats the purpose of a wiki.--DannyBoy7783 21:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, that's a mighty left-handed apology, isn't it? Erik Pflueger 21:42, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Indeed it is. Telling someone to apologize defeats the purpose of the apology. If/when I'm ready to apologize I will. Can we please keep this on topic.--DannyBoy7783 21:43, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • So basically, you're saying that you're not sorry for your heavy-handed behavior, which a lot of people are regarding as such, and you won't make the slightest concession that they may have a point. You don't care if others are offended, as long as you say what you like. Very mature. I respect you for having your opinion, and for fighting for it, but not when you fight below the belt. Erik Pflueger 21:50, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm simply stating that we should not remove information for the sake of rewriting the article. The article looks great right now and how we could actually add to it is hard to tell, but if there is new information, it should be added in one way or another, and the size of the article shouldn't matter, but it should not be reduced. The wiki's purpose is to provide the most detail on any one subject anywhere on the net. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:52, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • To be honest, no I don't care. I don't know anything about any of you and nor do any of you know anything about me. So none of us are really in a position to lecture anyone here. If you insist on pushing this issue about my character, which has nothing to do with this article or discussion I have my own discussion page under my user page. You are welcome to stop by and leave something and I will respond. I'm not being heavy handed Erik, I'm defining the point of a wiki. It's not heavy handed to say this isn't the place for flowery prose. I have yet to see a valid argument for why it is better to have it that counters my argument.--DannyBoy7783 21:55, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, Riffsyphon, is it possible you may be voting for the wrong thing? Because change as DannyBoy seems to define it leans strongly towards mass reductions in the name of being concise. I can understand if you don't like the prose, and that's really what at issue here. But what you want and what Danny wants don't seem to be the same thing. Apologies if I'm reading you wrong, but that's what I seem to be reading. Erik Pflueger 21:57, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's what I seem to be reading too. Plus, oh, Danny managed to offend me for what, the hundredth time? Wow, that's gotta be some kind of record! --Master Starkeiller 22:01, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Erik, you beat me to it! I was just about to say the same thing. I don't have a problem with the writing, let me make that clear, I just have a problem with it here--DannyBoy7783 22:00, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • This bickering is pointless! KEJ 22:09, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just going to say that a good portion of what Jack says I find a bit harsh or offensive but I ignore it and look past it for the content of what he's saying I don't whine about it to him because it won't change anything (see him discussion page). There is a lesson to be learned here my friends.--DannyBoy7783 22:11, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Danny, if you'll permit me, I'd like to paste here a fragment of the discussion from last time, which I had with Nebulax (sorry, Jack, if I'm dredging up old history, but hopefully it's for a good cause). Lengthy, yes, but it explains my point of view so that I don't have to repeat myself. Jack said to me:

I just think it would be a lot easier to explain that Palpatine's early life is unknown. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:42, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

And in response, I answered:

I would be willing to concede that point, Jack, if I honestly felt that removing the bits under discussion would make it easier to explain. I've read almost any kind of reading material under the sun, and there have been only rare occasions for me when too many words made the point of a passage confusing. Anne Rice's work comes to mind, and even that's changed with her new Christ the Lord novel. In all other cases - especially, in my opinion, Thomas Harris - description enriches my reading experience, it doesn't hinder it. This article is the history of a character, a very pivotal one in the Star Wars universe, and the core word in the word history surely must be the word story. And no story that I have ever read, Jack, has benefited from being a bare-bones read. It has to be more engaging than that, or it is diminished. Only bad government pamphlets are written that way.

You've written that you think it would be "a lot easier" to explain that Palpatine's early life is unknown. I understand your point well enough, I think. My question is, easier for whom? For me? For Starkeiller, or Angel Blue, or SFH, or Carsonley? They've not indicated that it would be easier for them; in fact, they seem to be OK with it back in. I don't even think it would make things easier for you, Jack, since you appear to have understood what was written easily enough. Are you sure you don't mean that what I wrote, as you see it, doesn't seem relevant to the subject of Palpatine's early life? That there's the historians, and then there's young Palpatine, and they don't have anything to do with each other? That too is a good point to make, Jack, if that's it, but I feel I've defended myself well on that point as well. As I've written above, I feel the efforts of historians to uncover that mysterious period is relevant. If there is a fact they discover about the period, that says something about the character, but if he's hidden that fact, that too says something about him. It indirectly - but clearly - states what it was Palpatine felt important enough to hide. It also says something about the kind of impact he has had on galactic events: a terrible but temendous one.

Thinking that I have at least produced a decent counter-argument to the points of brevity or relevance, I have little to fall back on, save the thought that you feel that easier is equated with economy of words. The shorter the read, the easier it is to understand. But, with all due respect, I just don't - and can't - agree with that. It guts the points I was trying to make, points that many other readers seem to get just fine. You've said that you have no objection to what's there, that you don't say what I wrote had to go, just that it should be shortened. But I read your example paragraph, which you wrote for Angel Blue, most carefully. When you shortened it, nearly everything I wrote was gone. It was dead, lifeless. Again, I won't support shortness for shortness' sake, and I will work hard to maintain the integrity of this page - and, yes, of my work. Nothing I have seen shows me that the article would be at all improved by the deletions. Just . . . shorter.

So that's it, in a nutshell. I do what I do in the name of quality for the page. What I do doesn't bore the reader; it entertains the reader. Yes, one gets prose in individual books, but the information for Palpatine is scattered across hundreds of them. If he's to go to one source, does it have to be a snooze? Does what I do really, genuinely make it harder for people? I'm not convinced that it does.

You also think I have vomit of the keyboard. Do you believe I'm not the most ruthless editor of my work? Trust me, I cut without remorse, because I don't believe in flooding the reader with words and letters, despite what you seem to think. It's really the Goldilocks approach: not too much, not too little. It's just right. And not just to my eye. Erik Pflueger 22:12, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I was just about to ask you to explain your side better but you caused an edit conflict and beat me to ti again (you rascal!) You make a good argument but I believe I do as well so I figure at this point it is best for the community to decide who they agree with and then go with that.--DannyBoy7783 22:17, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Danny, that's a civilized comment. Just pointing out what I meant about not being so rude. You just showed respect to your fellow Wookiepedian in civilized discussion. Keep it up! --Master Starkeiller 22:26, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A splendid notion, Danny! Erik Pflueger 22:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

      • Starkeiller, your yahoo profile says you are 16. I'm 21. I really don't need you pointing that out for me. Thanks though.--DannyBoy7783 22:29, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • In light of your recent comment, it seems I do... Oh, and I'll be seventeen next week. --Master Starkeiller 22:37, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

And I'll be 34 in a month. And, 'Keiller, I can see you were just trying to show Danny he was on the right track, as it were, but I can also see how Danny could take it as having his nose rubbed in doo-doo (thanks for the recipes, though. Greatly appreciated!) Now, I have to go help my fiancee Yvette with errands. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Erik Pflueger 22:40, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • DannyBoy, I'd just like to apologize for what I had said earlier. No hard feelings, right? Admiral J. Nebulax 22:42, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course not Jack. I have learned, as Starkeiller will one day that getting bent out of shape over people on the internet is truly a waste of time. Thanks for asking though.--DannyBoy7783 22:50, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • "...as Starkeiller will one day..." Don't start this up now. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:52, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, why don't you explain to me why I shouldn't? --Master Starkeiller 22:55, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Who was that directed at, Starkeiller? Admiral J. Nebulax 22:58, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Danny. Why is getting bent out of shape over people on the internet truly a waste of time? That's what I meant. --Master Starkeiller 23:01, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • Because a lot of people are rude (even worse than me if you can believe it! ;) ) and you won't change them. It's easier to just let everything slide off your back. Less stressful for you because the person being rude 9 out of 10 times won't care what you think.--DannyBoy7783 23:16, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, there are two categories: Humans and vandals. You're too polite to be a vandal (and you're not here just to harm this site). I let everything slide off my back with vandals. Not with humans though. --Master Starkeiller 23:19, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • Danny, just don't be rude to Starkeiller. He is a great Wookieepedian, even if you might not think it. But let's no have this discussion here. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the most unencylopedic article on this site. It doesn't even pretend to be neutral, and its language is extraneous to the extreme. Kuralyov 00:11, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • While I have to say that some parts are unencyclopedic, the majority is what it should be, at least in my opinion. Some things need to be shortened, but nothing too big. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:16, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the kind words, Jack. And this is the best article on this site, perfectly neutral, and its language being extraneous is good, not bad. --Master Starkeiller 06:13, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • I would just as soon not use the opposition's terms. I won't be calling the way we do things "extraneous." It's enough for me to say that it strengthens the article, it doesn't weaken it. Erik Pflueger 13:24, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, English is not my mother language. --Master Starkeiller 13:30, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Maybe not, but you use it well anyway! Erik Pflueger 14:30, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • I think I do use it well enough to be excused for one misstep. Right? I didn't know that "extraneous" had a negative meaning. --Master Starkeiller 19:17, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • On it's own, it actually doesn't. I'm just thinking in terms of the argument. What I mean is, it's not wise to use the opposition's words to describe your side; if you do, you're letting them define the terms of the debate, and you're not showing anyone why they should agree with you, as opposed to them. For instance, I don't even accept their premise: when they call it "extraneous," I call it a vital and necessary part of the article. If you think what was written has a right to be there, then it's not "extraneous." Or, as someone once said, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ;) A little advice from Kenobi-Man! Best regards! Erik Pflueger 19:49, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • It seems that the vote is pretty much over, wouldn't you say? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:56, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • To be honest, I don't know. Doesn't Riffsyphon or an admin have to declare it over? Erik Pflueger 21:06, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • I don't think so. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:10, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                        • Well, whatever the outcome of the vote is going to be, I'm pretty sure no one can proceed until someone in charge calls the vote done and - more importantly - unlocks the article page. Yes, you'd think that after two full days, everyone that wanted to vote would have done so, but that ain't necessarily so. Some people could be away on vacation, at work, what have you. I'd sure like to have this upset behind us, but it's not in my hands to decide that. So let's just keep going on, and when it's over, I'm sure we'll be informed. Erik Pflueger 21:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I have pretty much lost interest in this now. Not because my side is losing the vote (which you guys can be declared the winner if you want) but because I realized I don't really care about Palpatine as a character. I still know I'm right because I have backed up my argument but as far as the edit war is concerned I'm done. It just doesn't seem worth it to fight over this in regards to this page. I'm not going to be the one constantly editing this article and I don't want to fight with the people who do should I have won. I'm not giving up because I think I'm wrong I just want that to be clear and I really think Erik and Strakeiller should take my opinion of this into account. (Also, Starkeiller, you are only asking for it to be over with because your side is winning. If you and I were tied or I was ahead you would ask for more time. That previous lightsaber vote was there for like 2 weeks and you still cired foul when it was done) Anyway, if an admin can unlock the page please that would be great. I'll stick to watching the Boba Fett article instead. I like him a lot more. :) --DannyBoy7783 22:05, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I would never want you to think that I'm not taking your opinion into account, Dan. In fact, regardless of what happens, I do intend to thoroughly examine my work and see what can be cut out without affecting the style and flow of the work. If I can still say what I want to say in four words rather than six, I'll do that. Does that mean I would cut things down radically? If the need is there, yes, but if it isn't, I won't. That's me being honest. And I'll be keeping you in mind with whatever else I add in the future.

You may not know this, but I do think there's a point when I or someone else can go too far, get too wordy. For instance - and it may surprise everyone to hear this - I think Starkeiller may have used an adjective or two too many. But as he said before, English isn't his mother language. It's high-quality work, in my opinion, but it could stand to be trimmed slightly to improve the flow. That's different from what you think about it, Dan, but that's my opinion. I was perfectly content to let the lightsaber article be debated between the two of you, but when it drew me in, I had to speak.

What made this worse that it should have been is the emotions involved. Without wishing to be too hard on you, you must admit that your attitude was too aggressive, and Starkeiller must admit that he acted too defensively in response. As I've said before, I've done just as bad, if not worse, in my time, so it's not some quality particular to anyone here. It just happened. You've changed your attitude for the better, and we're all glad for you. Starkeiller is sore, with good reason, but he'll cool off and change his attitude too. Everyone will be happy again.

Aside from that, I wish you well in your work on the Fett page. I know you'll do very well there, and good luck to you. Erik Pflueger 22:38, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • As Starkeiller is known to say "I was only acting in the best interest of the article." Thanks Erik, stop by the Fett article sometime. It could always be longer ;) --DannyBoy7783 23:03, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • DannyBoy, I still don't see why you still have a grudge against Starkeiller. He could very well be an ally in the future. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:44, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • That wasn't a grudge remark. That's what he has said and that was my intent here as well.--DannyBoy7783 00:00, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean that last one. It just seems that you still have one. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:04, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • This isn't the place for this discussion, try here: User talk:DannyBoy7783--DannyBoy7783 00:06, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Never mind. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:07, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • I guess if we keep picking at it, Jack, it'll never heal. And, Starkeiller, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings, either. I tried to give you constructive criticism, rather than de-structive. I know if you'd gotten that the first time, instead of having the word "crap" thrown at you, we might have avoided a lot of hurt. And that just shows that there is - or ought to be - a code of conduct here. But it may be all for the better. Eyes on the prize, gang: the article! Erik Pflueger 00:37, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • (Also, Starkeiller, you are only asking for it to be over with because your side is winning. If you and I were tied or I was ahead you would ask for more time. That previous lightsaber vote was there for like 2 weeks and you still cired foul when it was done)... Now that makes me agree with Jack about the grudge. Please don't make such comments. That's just a mean thing to say. Let's make peace and let us start by avoiding such comments. I think I haven't made any mean comments lately, and if I did I will apologize, but let's just stop this, okay? Plus, I don't think I've been too defensive of the prose in responce to the "attack" against it. I think I believe everything I said except for when I heard the word "crap". That really makes me angry, so my answer to someone that called what I consider good work "crap" doesn't have to reflect my true view 'cause I was just really really angry. Yes, when I heard "crap", I did act too defensively, but only then. --Master Starkeiller 10:06, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Don't worry, my friend. It's done now. Let's turn our mind to other concerns, like where am I supposed to get all the ingredients for your authentic Cretan recipes? I'm in Florida! ;) Thanks again, by the way. Erik Pflueger 15:28, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • "It's done now". I hope so. I'm already sick of this, well... arguement. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:52, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • Keep hope alive, Jack. :) Erik Pflueger 20:58, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • I plan to, buddy. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:01, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • It'snot a grudge Starkeiller. I just call it like I see it....and that is how I see it.--DannyBoy7783 22:30, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • Well, as you can see, it seemed more like a grudge, which is why we took it for one. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:28, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • ok...--DannyBoy7783 01:00, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It just seemed like you thought you were, well... better than him. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:01, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter. Let's make peace now (yeah, it isn't a war, it's a discussion, but it got heated) and start by avoiding mean comments. --Master Starkeiller 12:03, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • Is it really done now? If it is, let's unlock the page, there's an update that needs to be made. --Master Starkeiller 13:25, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Split?

Here's an idea which I don't necessarily endorse: What about splitting the long-form biography into a separate article, and putting a short version under Palpatine with a link to the full version? The full appearances list has already been split off, after all. The main problem that I can see is that the two biographies might end up disagreeing on some points and/or attract twice as many edit wars. Thoughts? — Silly Dan 01:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Not only that, but having two biographies confuses people. If I were a stranger, I'd wonder why one wasn't enough (although, he does have two lives...). I appreciate, however, that you want to make everyone happy. So do we. I just don't know if that's possible. That's the nature of democratic systems: if the majority is happy, I suppose that has to suffice. Erik Pflueger 02:13, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, the nature of un-democratic systems is that the majority is unhappy, and the happy minority is really small. ;) Erik Pflueger 02:53, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • What about a really boiled down timeline type of thing? Short blurbs and such in a bullet format type of set up?--DannyBoy7783 04:53, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it would be confusing that way. Better be straightforward. --Master Starkeiller 12:03, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see what is confusing about that at all. For someone who needs specific information on him it makes it easier to track down what specific section will have it. Just because you find it confusing doesn't mean it necessarily is.--DannyBoy7783 15:27, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I just... disagree. Let's not start another vote now, please, not another one... --Master Starkeiller 15:43, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • What is your problem with voting? As long as it doesn't end up locking the article I think they are fine. You get more people weighing in on the issue than by just a discussion.--DannyBoy7783 15:53, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • They are fine, but not if we have to vote all the time and for virtually everything! --Master Starkeiller 15:55, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • You make it sound like it is a laborious task Starkeiller. You put your name under one side or the other and wait a few days. Not that difficult.--DannyBoy7783 15:59, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • Look, after we're done with this vote and the article's unlocked we'll discuss it first and then vote if we don't reach an agreement. A vote is a last resort. --Master Starkeiller 16:05, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • I thought you'd lost interest, that you didn't care enough about the character, Dan. In any case, if someone needs specific information they can always go to the article's contents list, click on the clearly-titled section link dealing with the point they need to research, go straight to that section, and track the needed info down just that simply. And each section title has the chronological years already put in. So I really see no need for a "simpler" article or "boiled-down" timeline. Such a thing already exists in the contents list. The last vote did lock the article, and it still remains locked today. I would not have the group bogged down in endless votes for the most trivial issues, a mirror image of the Senate that Palpatine was able to immobilize. A discussion on this issue will serve our needs well enough, but to distract people from the legitimate business of this site with one vote after another is not democratic. It's bureaucratic, and that's not us. Erik Pflueger 16:33, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • Let's not split it. It would only make it confusing. It is fine the way it is. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:59, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • Erik, I can still have an opinion on the subject at hand even if I don't care about Palpatine. Someone should ask an admin to unlock the article...--DannyBoy7783 06:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • Hear, hear. Erik Pflueger 14:50, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                        • I have politely asked Riffsyphon to unlock the page, in light of the fact that after five days, active voting seems to have ceased. In fact, there isn't even much activity on this discussion page! Enough indicator for me that the issue, divisive as it was, has played itself out. Erik Pflueger 20:52, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)