Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive7

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

Needs culling

Waay to long, and disproportionate - there are some sections that are far too lengthy, and some that are far too short. .... 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been discussed before, and the result was keep it as is. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, well, the result was just plain wrong. This is an encyclopedia, not an opportunity for ambitious young writers to re-interpret popular culture in a storybook fashion. Have you even read the whole article, through? .... 12:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It's also not a forum for blowhards to insult other Wookieepedians they don't happen to agree with, as if his/her opinion had more weight then anyone else's. As for the disproportionate-ness, I'll freely acknowledge that, but it's because the article's not finished yet. Have you considered that possibility? Or have you not read the full article? I can assure you that Jack Nebulax has, many times, and anyone who's been here long enough to know what he does every day should know that full well. Consider that before you talk down to him, because he deserves better than that kind of treatment.

I don't get the logic of saying we're "too long" when every other Star Wars resource on the Web - including the official Databank - is far too short, and here we have the opportunity to be all-inclusive and yet there are people who just want to pass that up! If that's a flaw, and I think it is, shouldn't we try to be different from the others, not just like them? In any case, if a significant majority has come out on record liking the way things are done here - and they have, on multiple occasions - then it's not "just plain wrong." They shot down the "too long" argument long ago, and they decided that what we do here is well within the parameters of what this encyclopedia is supposed to provide. You can disagree with my work, if that's what you choose, but you'd best accept that fact.

And anyway, I'm 34. I'm not that young... ;) Erik Pflueger 20px 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, FourDot, I'm siding with Erik and Neb. The article's fine; why's everyone attacking it? Cutch 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is long, yes, but it's a hell of a lot better than a short one. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Size matters not. Look, it's an excellent article, but things like the Canna Omonda section are just plain too long for something as inconsequential as that. .... 23:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • And again, I object. I see nothing wrong with having plenty of information. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Plenty is one thing, but this article - it's overkill. It should be a detailed summary, not a blow-by-blow account. .... 07:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
            • And that's your opinion. Now, in my opinion, there is no such thing as having too much information on an article, or, as you put it, overkill. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I think that this article really is the nirvana every Wookieepedia article should strive towards. Cutch 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Summary? This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not the back of a DVD case. Unless it's redundant or untrue, I don't see how you can have too much information in this setting. Jwebb13HoloNet40px 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Agreed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • God help us and save us. .... 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Thefourdotelipsis, was that post at all necessary? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • Nah, it wasn't. What are you gonna do about it, huh? .... 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                        • You need to stop it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                          • Fine, I'll get right back on topic, since you just can't hack it, Jack. I'm sure that you would ban me in a flash, had you the power (thank god you don't). This article is a great article, I'll give it that, but there are one or two things that need to be cut down. The minor things, that are really irrelevant to Palpatine's story. Because what we have here is an article that tells us everything that he does in every source. Even if it's next to nothing. I'm suprised it doesn't describe how he does a little speech at the start of TIE Fighter. It just need trimming, that's all, and then, we will have an article that all others should strive to. The Canna Omonda section needs to be condensed, for a start. .... 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Make it one section, for a start. Secondly, let's give it a bit more of an encyclopedic tone (I personally won't touch it...it'll either disrupt the prose flow or get reverted) We need to do away with things like Were they Rebels? Possibly. It sticks out like a sore thumb. And whilst it is a fascinating section, it does little to further the biography. It's like a summary for the source of the whole Canna Omonda thing. And a lot of it is speculation, from my point of view. In reality, it should be something like "In such and such ABY, Palpatine had Canna Omonda, Mon Mothma's successor as Senator of Chandrila arrested and executed in private". Obviously, that's not as compelling story wise as what's there, but it's more encyclopedic. Biographies of Albert Einstien in encyclopedias do not speculate, not take the tone of an obsever, they merely chronicle his life, which is what we should be doing here. The Canna Omonda section is but one amongst many that needs trimming. All the groundwork is here, the article just needs fine-tuning. .... 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thefourdotelipsis, I would like to point out that there have been several votes over the past year to trim the article down. They've failed. -- SFH 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, SFH, I already said that. ;) Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There were several attempts to kill Hitler that failed, but he's dead, isn't he? Anyway, I would reccomend finding whoever is the greatest contributer to this article, and get him to "trim" sections like the Canna Omonda section down to just shy of a bare minimum like I suggested. .... 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Round and round we go. As we mentioned earlier, it's Erik. Cutch 01:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, right, sorry. Well, he should just peruse back through the article and trim, and make more...encyclopedic. Because at the moment it reads like an Essay. "Conclusions" is the most telling part. .... 04:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, that means reading the whole darn thing again. Hang on, I'll skim it and give a rough guide of what needs to be condensed.
  1. Outbound Flight. Make it one section, and shorter too.
  2. The assassination attempts on Senator Padmé Amidala is really not needed - I understand that AOTC content is needed, but it's obviously going to be less than TPM and ROTS, as he has far less screen time.
  3. The Seti Ashgad and Bail Organa sections could be put under a generic heading and condensed.
  4. As I have said, the Canna Omonda section needs a severe trimming.
  5. Bevel Lemlisk doesn't really have a huge bearing on the bio.
  6. The reactions to Thrawn's campaign is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Make a slight mention at the intro to the Dark Empire section, and do away with the rest.
  7. Make it more encycopedic. Space Conclusions, and remove little rhetorical questions like Was he lying to himself? Or did he know things that Vader and Skywalker did not?. It reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia summary of a man's life.

Otherwise, it's fantastic, but those little niggles need to be adressed. .... 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Now I have to disagree. I've looked over those sections, and I think they're fine. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's fine, I don't have the time nor the energy to try and convince you. .... 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, as said above, it's been decided not to make this shorter, so I guess there's no point to this any more. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Believe it or not, Jack, the list above wasn't for your benefit. .... 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • And I know that. Knock it off, Thefourdotelipsis. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • What? I'm posting a legit complaint about this article, intended for the primrary contributors. If you don't like it Jack, fine, but you don't own Wookieepedia. .... 11:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I know damn well I don't own Wookieepedia. It's your atitude toward me that's the problem. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
                • No, I don't think you do. And what attitude? I just listed my problems, and I was going to leave it at that, but "No way, there's no conversation that Jack Nebulax can leave untouched", so you decided to state that you didn't like it. All power to you, but it didn't warrant a post. .... 11:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • That's the atitude shared by the numerous people who hate me. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Hate? No, my dear Grand Admiral, you hardly warrant hate. You're just....eh....it's hard to describe what you are....to use a Star Wars analogy, your epitaph would read "He did what he thought was right" .... 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright you two... Cutch 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose I was a little harsh about 2, 5, and 6, but they really do need condensing, if not removal. And 7 is the biggest niggle of all - it's nice, but in no way shape or form does that style of writing belong in an encyclopedia. .... 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Right now, I don't think anything needs to be removed. As for the Conclusions section, I think it's actually pretty good. Maybe unencyclopedic, but definitely good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe you're right, not removed, but definetly condensed. And as for Conclusions, I sympathise - it's very, very good, but it has no place here, in an encyclopedia. .... 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyone ever feel like things are sometimes taken too seriously around here? Cutch 13:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thefourdot, I have to disagree. I think the Conclusions section deserves to be here. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I have to admit, it is tough to say this, but regardless of whether it's like or not, it really has to go if we want it to be both a FA, and for this site to have "pedia" on the end of it. .... 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I think you're the first so far to actually have a problem with it. Everyone else seems content with it, which is why I think we should keep it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
          • True, and this is a democracy - however, we still style ourselves as an encyclopedia. When I was writing Richard III (1955 film) over at Wikipedia, I learnt the hard way about what's encyclopedic and what's not. Just look at the FA processess I had to go through. I understand that we're not Wikipedia, but we are an encyclopedia, not an archive of essays. .... 23:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Encyclopedia or not, I still say it should remain. In the end, it comes down to the fact that this is a site anyone can edit. By being that, we're not really much of an encyclopedia. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia, and so is this. Anyone can edit, true, but the edits should be in aid of an encyclopedia status, not against it. .... 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, it's just you two posting here, with me popping in every now-and-then…I think that's a pretty strong indication that no one really cares about "culling" the article. Cutch 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't care about who cares, all I care about is people caring for this place's encyclopedia status. Have a care, Cutch. .... 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And actually, you're the only one who wants to remove the Conclusions section, Thefourdot. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • That doesn't worry me one bit, nor does it shake my view. I am trying to defend common sense - what is right, over what is good. .... 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I may be the only person on Earth (or one of the only two or three people) who thinks this article still needs expansion. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Its those little things, that really do make it so much better, it shows detail and to be honest you saying the past discussion is irevlevent is rubbish, just because you weren't a part of it doesn't make it invalid im afraid. And its only your view that is right, and besides I still think there could be even more aded :P Jedi Dude 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. No. Cutch 04:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. If we want to keep calling ourselves an encyclopedia, yes. .... 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I also mentioned in my initial post that the article is disproporiante - I understand that new content will come this way, and that it will always be large, but some sections are just too big, which I've outlined above (we've got two whole sections on bloody Canna Omonda, but...oh, yeah, he went to Bothawui and destroyed a whole town. Just as a footnote, really). Yes, it will need expansion, but in order to stop it spiraling out of control, we need to excercise some trimming on the larger sections. .... 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • 1) I also say not to remove the Conclusions section. 2) Thefourdot, you're the only one who wants to do that. No one else is siding with you on the matter. Therefore, neither of your suggestions will likely happen. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I mean if you really want it then make a vote page on the senate hall, but it won't change anything, were known for this article, and thats a good thing. Jedi Dude 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I might just do that. You may have noticed: I'm not easily discouraged when I think something is right. .... 00:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here we go again…Cutch 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, alright, I've no desire to start up another dogfight with Nebulax. But this issue is not a matter of consensus. It is a matter of what is correct. Encyclopedia articles do not have "conclusions". So either it goes, or the little message on out main page saying "a Star Wars encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and should be replaced by "a repository for Star Wars fans to write essays on their favourite characters." .... 07:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thefourdot, once again, you're the only one who wants this. No one has ever said before you that the Conclusions section of this article ruined our status as an encyclopedia. My point is, no one else cares. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, goody, that means I can delete it. .... 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
          • No. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Why? If you don't care about defending it, don't cry when it's gone. .... 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I am defending it. You're the only one who wants it removed. Therefore, it's not going to be removed. Drop it. I'm not in the mood to argue further with you. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
                • So far, you've not come up with one tangible arguement for keeping it, other than "we like it". .... 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Though I agree with Thefourdotelipsis that the article is waaaay too long, the conclusions section should stay as it is relevant to Palps' history and legacy. Jaina Solo(Goddess Stuff) 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Tell, you what, I'll propose a happy medium - dump "Conclusions" somewhere into the Personality and Traits section, tweak it a little, and I'll leave it alone. But in no way shape or form does it have a place in the summary of his life. .... 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Why not leave it where it is and "tweak it a little"? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Because it is not suitable content for an encyclopedia biography. However, in the end notes, in that variety of sections, it would fit quite well. .... 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm back, folks. I want to apologize to everyone for my week-long absence; I had to go to Pennsylvania to attend the wedding of the person who brought my fiancee and I together (we'll be married in three weeks!), and the house in which we were staying had no computer, let alone an internet connection. I also want to thank Jack Nebulax specifically for standing up and getting my back in my absence. In doing so, he proved what I knew already; he's a friend of the first rank. My thanks also to the rest of you - Cutch, Darth Culator and Jedi Dude - for standing with Jack, and Jaina Solo, just for trying to keep things reasonable.

Now, to business. Because FourDot, unlike anyone else who criticized this article and what I do for it, listed specific examples he felt needed to be changed - and I thank him for putting in the time and effort - I intend to address him on these specific examples. In the order you posed them:

1.) Since 1991, Palpatine's involvement in the loss of Outbound Flight has been the subject of much speculation and debate, which took nearly fifteen years to answer. What Palpatine did from a distance on Coruscant and Roxuli, and what his agent Doriana did on site with Thrawn, has now been explained, and it is legitimate grist for this discussion. His machinations resulted in the deaths of a dozen or more Jedi and how many civilian passengers? For that reason alone, it deserves as much space as any one of his other individual schemes. As of now, it takes up two subsections. The first I intend to leave as is. The second, I concede, could be trimmed some without sacrificing any of its intent or style.

2.) The material relating to the various hits on Amidala were not written by me. I agree with you totally that they need to be rewritten, with a greater focus on what Palpatine did or did not do. The points to focus on are: A.) what was Palpatine's involvement in Amidala's hits, and if he didn't really want her dead, as clearly he didn't, why did he allow Tyranus to contract Fett to do them? In this, a certain amount of speculation will be necessary: he didn't so much want her dead as out of the way when the militarization vote was held, and when emergency powers came up, and the threat of an assassination would do that, force her into hiding. B.) While Anakin was watching Padme, the focus should not be so much on what happened, as how Palpatine learned about it and how those events - like killing a bunch of Tuskens, for example - impacted and played into Palpatine's long-term plans for Anakin. Remember, just because Palps isn't on screen for much of this, don't assume his hand isn't at work in everything in AOTC, just as it is on everything in the saga.

3.) Ashgad's disappearance has been crying out for a full explanation since it was first mentioned in 1997. What I came up with incorporated every disparate fact about it - all canon - and made it make sense from Palpatine's point of view, while covering all the questions that could be raised about why it happened, and about why he was exiled but not just killed. There is little, if anything, that can be cut from it without compromising it beyond help. It is a specific incident and should not be condensed under a generalized theme of "how Palps knocked off his rivals." The Bail Organa part should be left untouched for the same reason: they're both separate incidents that just happened to occur close to each other.

4.) Canna Omonda's terrible fate is supposed to speak for many others, since it is clear that Palpatine acted against many other Senators much as he did with Omonda. She, unfortunately, is the only one we have specific and detailed facts on, thanks to the Star Wars Adventure Journals. The intended effect is to show what happens to dissidents in the New Order at its height, and it says a lot about both Palpatine and the machine he created. I am willing, however, to concede that the description regarding the Fete Week celebrations could be cut down significantly and the part about Omonda's execution would still work. It would reduce it by two, perhaps three paragraphs and reduce the topic from two subsections to just one. That, I think should satisfy you regarding that issue.

5.) Bevel Lemelisk's story, again, says something about Palpatine's character, his vindictiveness, his cruelty, and that he could indulge in such traits practically on a whim. This is life in Palpatine's Empire. In fact, Lemelisk will probably have to be mentioned again, as the development of Death Star II - which began here in this subsection - progresses, and Palpatine's plans for it, his great climactic scheme in ROTJ, come closer to pass. I could trim a word here or there, but what would be the point? It will have to be expanded on anyway.

6.) I could cut a sentence or two out of the Thrawn subsection, but it is vital that it be kept in in general. The purpose of this material, as developed by Michael Allen Horne for the Dark Empire Sourcebook, is to reconcile two parts of the Expanded Universe that happen right next to each other on the timeline but are radically different from each other. If Thrawn is fighting and winning, and Palpatine is alive and well in the Deep Core and massing his own forces, why didn't Thrawn know? Why didn't Palps tell him? Why didn't they team up and knock that stupid New Republic out? The Thrawn books and the Dark Empire comics were written independently of each other - scrutiny of the EU was looser then - and as a result, this discrepancy has to be explained. To answer all the questions that discrepancy raises requires more than "a slight mention." I can do away with some words, some sentences, but that is all I'm prepared to give.

7.) Now I'll take a different tack: Yes, the Conclusions section could work just as well after the appendices as it does after the article proper. I wrote it to sum up all the fundamental points of the article, to put a bow on it, so to speak. It could still do so where you propose to move it. I would personally prefer it stay in the spot I chose for it, but yes, I suppose I could live with moving it south a tinge. If the majority agrees to do so, I will move it without protest. I could even see where it could benefit from a tweak, as you call it. Regardless of the need to move it, I will look into trimming it some. Sound good?

And now, some general comments. FourDot, I listened to your criticisms carefully, and, I hope, provided an explanation for my thinking and, in some areas, conceded some of your points. I've heard your opinion; now I want you to hear mine. Jack is correct: the only person raising this issue is you. Jedi Solo has stepped in strictly in the name of maintaining order, but I don't think that implies agreement with you. Despite that, I looked through every section you mentioned, seriously considered what you had to say, and offered ways to meet you in the middle. I hope you understand the importance of that. But understand this: I can't and won't meet you halfway on the fundamental disagreement we have. I believe what I have done is proper for this format, and you don't.

I'll explain my fundamental philosophy again: Wookieepedia may very well be the one place where all Star Wars information can be brought together without regard for file size restrictions. If people want brevity, there are any one of a hundred sites to go to, including the official site's Database. I've been there; it's just not enough. Why stay beholden to the belief that encyclopedia articles have to be brief? Just because they were brief in their original bookbound incarnations? There, one had to consider the expense of paper, of binding, of pricing a set so high it couldn't be sold. This is the internet age, and those rules and considerations no longer apply, not to the Wiki format. Somebody has to provide an alternative to that approach, and if not us, then who? We gather all the information that is out there, make sure it is all canon, and if it is contradictory, we acknowledge and account for it. That's all. That's not writing fan essays, it's not overkill; it's being responsible. It's offering a choice. It's appreciating the rich continuity that has been developed for this universe over thirty years. To degrade this as fan-indulgence is to degrade all that.

And finally, remember that, as you acknowledged, information is still coming in. This article, and this entire Wiki, will only get bigger, not smaller. That's just the nature of the Beast. I will continue to do what I do here. Those that have disagreed with that approach in the past have raised their contrary opinion, as is their right, asked for a vote, as is their right, and been defeated in numerous successive legitimate votes. Even people who disagreed with the approach have changed their minds after careful consideration and without any prompting or pressure from me or anyone else. I have made concessions to you, including the one that most bothered you, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge, and I will keep my promise and execute those consessions over the coming week. I am happy to do so, since I would rather make you happy than not. I'll even lose some of the rhetorical questions you didn't like. But my fundamental approach will remain the same.

You have said: You may have noticed: I'm not easily discouraged when I think something is right. Please remember that others feel the exact same way, and will fight just as hard for the other side. You can be certain that I will, because I really do believe that this approach is right. I believe in myself, my work, and the ideals of this Wookieepedia. If I don't defend those ideals, what value do they really have? If you respect my opinion as I have tried to show respect to yours, please understand that.

I look forward to talking with you again. Best wishes, and God bless. Erik Pflueger 20px 07:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all Erik, thank you. Thank you for making your case in a coherent fashion, and backing up your points with exposition, and a proper explanation, instead of falling back on a purely subjective and childlike "I like it, and others do too." I am willing to concede on many, if not most of your points.

1) I agree with you, Outbound Flight has been the source of much anticipation in the EU since Zahn's superb Thrawn trilogy. I remember myself thinking "What the hell is an Outbound Flight?" But levels of anticpation should not have a bearing on an encyclopedia article - it should be indifferent. Though Palpatine's involvement with Outbound Flight is major, it's bearing on the overall flow of his story is minor in comparison to, say, Imperialisation. I still believe that both sections could be put under a single heading and trimmed, if ever so slightly, but if you feel strongly about it, I will concede the point.

2) Yes, I thought that the AOTC section stuck out like a sore thumb. And I understand that Palpatine still had a major impact on those events, though it is less than say, his TPM influence.

3) Once again, anticpation should not have a bearing on encyclopedia entries, but I'm happy to have two seperate sections if you really think the article needs it. But they still do need trimming.

4) Thank you. That was a major problem.

5) Lemlisk, I will concede, however, I'll adress one of the problems you raised later.

6) I am fully aware of the Thrawn Trilogy vs Dark Empire battle that occured during the early 90's....in fact, the problems with that are apparent even now. The New Republic saves itself from Thrawn, only to come close to being wiped out by a clone of Palpatine the next year? Han and Leia are having another child? But anyway, I understand that the discrepancy needs to be adressed, but once again, trimming is needed.

7) Thank you for seeing things my way.

As for the rhetorical questions, their removal is an absolute must. They have no tangible place in an encyclopedia article, and in fact, those were the most telling signs towards the overall "essay" tone of the article. But with their removal, and a subsequent "tweaking" to the sentences surrounding them, I'm sure that this article will be in tip-top condition.

And I will say this - though this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, when an article gets to this size, it eventually becomes someone's. The prose is so embedded, that any new contributions by an alien user stick out like a sore thumb. A case in point would be the Empire at War content. From that, I can assume that you, Erik, have not played Empire at War, because it covers a pretty damn significant event (Palpatine wipes out a whole city on Bothawui by himself), and yet it is little more than a footnote in this article. I can again assume (I may be wrong) that you have never played TIE Fighter, which depicts Palpatine being kidnapped by Zaarin. It also features him expressing keen intrest in both Vader and Thrawn's campaigns post 3 ABY. And yet the mention of it in this article is miniscule in comparison to, as I have mentioned, Canna Omonda.

That leads to a disproportionate article, and ultimately, leaves the onus on the primrary contributor to do, well, all of the editing. It also leaves the onus on that contributor to keep up to date with all of the sources possible, and update accordingly. This is potentially damaging to Wookiepedia, both in the sense that anyone can edit, and in the sense that it is supposed to be accessible to all types of fans. I fear that this article panders to only the most die-hard, adult fans, and that a casual or young fan would find it near impossible to read. Another example of this problem is Zsinj. You can't just read a select section, because the article is already so deep in the prose, that you are immediately lost. As I mentioned to Jack, I learnt all of this the hard way when I was writing Richard III (1955 film) on Wikipedia - just look at the FA processes I had to go through, and that article was just a stub when I came across it.

As I have mentioned before, it's a fantastic article, but these problems are all that stand in the way of it being the best article on Wookiepedia. And, quite frankly, I find the arguement of it's going to have to be expanded anyway to be complete rubbish. If we take that attitude, the article will spiral out of control. The reason that I am advocating this culling is so that when we have to expand for new content, we will have a good platform to expand on, but we won't end up writing something that will rival an unabridged Bible for length. I completely agree - we should not be bound by the limitations of a print encyclopedia, but we should also exercise moderation where it's due. And it's due here. .... 23:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

      • Ladies and gentlebeings, FourDot has asked me the following in regards to what he names "The Great Palpatine Debate": Are we still going on that? Or do you consider it officialy closed? I'm still good to talk, but if you think it's settled, that's fine. Well, I must first say that when one considers the ferocity of some debates about this very subject, this one wasn't that great. It was good, but not "great."

Let me start by saying that I think we all need to give FourDot a significant amount of credit. Early on in this discussion, his attitude to some, especially to my best friend here, Jack Nebulax, was not the best. To be blunt, he was rude and snippy. He has since, however, turned around by 180 degrees and exhibited with me and mine a great attitude, as good as I have any right to expect from a fellow Wookieepedian. He did not argue; he discussed. He did not shout; he reasoned. He matured a lot in a short time. In his dealings with me, he has been in every way a model Wookieepedian.

Just to tie up a few loose ends, FourDot, you are correct: I have not played either TIE Fighter or Empire at War, though I have the strategy guide for the former. The reason is that video games are a touchy thing in terms of continuity. Sometimes they fit in nicely, and other times (in fact, more often than not) they outright contradict long-established continuity. It may be a prejudice from a decade in the past, when these games were playing a lot more fast and loose with the canon than they may be doing now. Hell, the sheer mechanics of a video game can play havoc with continuity. In the X-Wing games, Luke doesn't make the killer shot into the Death Star; some yutz named Keyan Farlander does, or something like that. In the Shadows of the Empire game, Vader doesn't blow away Xizor's skyhook; Dash Rendar does, and by the way, Rendar dies in the books but lives in the game. Confusing, isnt it? The last thing I expected after Exar Kun was defeated in the comics is for Knights of the Old Republic to tell me the Sith came back right away with Darth Revan. And if that game can't outright tell me what gender the Exile is, can I trust it on anything else?

I often have to wait until events or characters from a game are referenced in some other media form, like a book or comic, to accept them as canon. When the comics confirmed that Rendar lived, I relaxed. When Farlander was brought into the NJO books and became a celebrated hero, I laid off him. When KOTOR became a comic and began establishing connections to the TOTJ comics that made more sense, I accepted it. Get me? And anyway, didn't they decide the Exile was a chick? Or am I wrong? And as people began referencing Palpatine's kidnapping by Zaarin in other material, that's long since become canon and it WILL be discussed in more detail than now. Bank on it.

In any case, just because I don't put video game references in doesn't mean that references to games Palps is featured in can't be added into the article. Someone can always put Empire at War info in, with as much detail as they want; in fact, the more the better. If they need to be smoothed over to match the style of the rest of the article, we'll do a little tweaking. If they're under-represented when set against other parts of the article, one has to remember that this is still a work in progress, and it will take time to get it all. Count on the fact that when we're all done, everyone's favorite bit will be added in and represented fairly. Someone will put it in even if I don't.

Which leads me to the next argument: Yes, it is true that this article is probably more for the die-hards than for the casual reader. Well, truth to tell, that's partially by design. It goes back to something I said before: other sites and sources, including the official Database, the Essential Guides, and so on, are brief, at least in part because they are intended to inform casual readers. Also, page count and file size are concerns in those cases. As I said, someone has to provide an alternative, and in part I mean to say that someone must provide sustenance for the experienced fans who already have more than a layman's knowledge of the subject, who have read all the basic accounts and remain unsatisfied. We need more than just basic nutrition; we need meat and potatoes.

Not everyone is serving said dishes on the 'Pedia, which means that a small number end up becoming an article's caretakers. I really have no argument against something you said that was so good it bordered on poetry: Though this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, when an article gets to this size, it eventually becomes someone's. I don't consider myself the primary contributor here, and if someone is, it's Jack, who cleans up after all of us. I may, perhaps, be the primary content contributor, so by your reasoning, I guess it does fall on me to do the heavy work. If that's so - and I really don't like tooting my horn in such fashion - then trust that I'd never come start something this big if I wasn't prepared to finish it. It's taken a full year for me to get this far, and it may take another, or two more, for me to finish everything (at some point it will be finished, since the character's dead twice over). I'm here for the long haul. I stayed here through courting the woman who will be my wife in three weeks, getting her through two serious surgeries, moving in together and dealing with all the arrangements of a wedding, and managing my own business at the same time. I stayed here through all that; I'll be here through thick and thin.

But what will this look like when we're done? While I do want the article to be long and detailed, I don't want an unabridged Bible any more than you do. An abridged one will do just fine; what I don't want is the Cliff's Notes version. I am certain that it will be long, but that is just a measure of how complex this character is. He may be in the top five - if not on the top - as one of the most complex characters in the entire saga. How can his story be told in brief? I see clearly the direction this article can take, but I have no right to expect you or anyone else to take me on trust. That's why you took up the stand in the first place: you saw an article where some parts were big, and some were small - some of those dealing with subjects far more important than the ones that were big. You couldn't know that we're still in the middle of all this, and to you, something looks off. And you have a point: in the middle of this by whose estimate? Mine? The answer to all this may be that we should see to it that all the parts grow equally at the same time, not let some parts grow disproportionately to other parts. We can do that.

I also can't expect you to trust me when I say that I will exercise the moderation, the restraint, you have asked for. But I can trust that you will have looked over some of the changes I made over the last few days according to what we talked about, and you'll probably conclude - I hope - that I mean what I say, that I keep my promises.

And now, on to a personal note: I took the liberty of going to the Richard III page you worked on. It's excellent work. It's somehow appropriate that you turn your attention from Richard to Palpatine; there are quite a few character traits they share. I haven't seen the Olivier version myself, though I understand Criterion has it on DVD when I get curious. I have seen the Ian McKellen version, but something about it fell flat to me. The version I most love, ironically, is as much about the play as it is an adaption of it. It's real hard to find (it's not on DVD, and the VHS is expensive because it was never mass-released), but try to find Al Pacino's film Looking for Richard. He's triumphant in it.

So after all that vomiting of the keyboard, let me sum up. We've had our disagreement. I drew my line, and made the concessions I felt comfortable making. You accepted them, offered concessions of your own. The rest, we agreed to disagree on, and peaceably. In the absence of further complaints, I consider the matter closed. Best regards, and God bless! Erik Pflueger 20px 02:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I thank you for your time and your patience with my complaints. I am a sook, and I'm often riled if I don't get my way, but that's just my character, and I can't hope to change that. But you've subdued me, and I'm going to let this rest...when Conclusions is moved. But you've said that you would do that, and I trust you. I agree with you on the videogame front - they seem to be getting better canon-wise (except for the Battle of Wayland in Empire at War...disgusting), but I'm not sure that I agree with you on the more...exclusive tone that you wish for Wookiepedia. However, as I've said before, I'll concede the point, and leave the article be.

But I am puzzled - if this article is still a work in progress, in the sense that it does not yet contain informaion from currently published works, why is there a little star in the top right hand corner? I understand that you have a private life, unlike some of us (oh, and congratulations on that front), but this is the point I was trying to get across in the earlier post - an article so gargantuan is almost impervious to outside edits. As you said, others can come and offer the information, for you to glaze over, but the time between the input and the glaze presents us with, well, an article that resembles the Frankenstein monster, made up of lots of different little prose styles. I suppose that's why I made my initial, albiet terse comments. I had spent a day, on and off reading the article, and little parts of it gave me headaches. The parts that were obviously not written by you, Erik. And that's what the problem was.

Oh, and about the Richard III thing...I'm glad you like it. It gave me a few grey hairs, even at my young age, but I'm particularly proud of it. I did it probably because I'm a huge fan of Laurence Olivier than anything else, so the Palpatine link was purely coincidental. And I have been looking for...Looking for Richard, but it's not all that accessible here in Australia.

I appreciate your efforts, and I just want to apologise to any who I offended over the course of the past...2 weeks. Erik...Jack...and anyone else. Time to put this to rest. "Good night, and good luck". .... 02:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You need to go to eBay, FourDot. There are several copies of Looking for Richard available. Most of the DVD copies are Region 2. Some computers are region free, I'm told. There's at least one VHS-PAL version, perhaps more. All of them are cheap. With luck, you'll find what you need. I don't know if you've already seen it, or want to see it, but in addition to being a spectacular exploration of Shakespeare - almost a love letter - it's one of Pacino's best projects, if only because he invested so much in it, and when Pacino gives a role his all, you just know you're in for a treat. Erik Pflueger 20px 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Throne of the Sith, this post is enough to warrant its own archive. Let me just say that I've always thought this article was well written, but FourDot has some good points. Anyway, Erik, it warmed my heart the other day to hear my latest greatest most headache-causing project compared to Palpatine, although it's still only half as long. As a matter of fact, if this is over, I may just make a special archive for this- "Look here if you ever want to cut Palpatine down." Sorry I wasn't here to help moderate everyone, I try to keep the peace in an unofficial manner. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll take your advice to heart Erik. I'm very curious to see it. And Ataru...you should probably be keeping the peace in an official manner, judging by the way you conduct yourself.... .... 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • True, Ataru compliments me for my diplomacy, but I think he's much better at it than I am. He'd make a fine moderator, don't you think? Erik Pflueger 20px 03:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Yup, I've thought that for a while now. Got admin written all over him. .... 04:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I gotta back up FourDot on the rhetorical question thing (I counted 35 of them), particularly regarding passages like: "As if the Emperor, who had eyes everywhere, did not already know what had really happened! Did Lemelisk take him for an idiot? He would soon rue his words." Maybe that would work in a novel or essay, but in doesn't fit at all in an encyclopedia. And I agree "Conclusions" needs to go, too.- Lord Hydronium 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah...people coming to the debate too late. But yes, the rhetorical questions' removal really is a must, and the same applpies to Beliert Valance. .... 07:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, diplomacy is all well, and good, but I'm just going to come right out and say it: I think this article is a mess. It is practically impossible to find information on a specific area without wading through mounds of text. Take the section "Darth Plagueis" (picked at random as I was scrolling down); look at the first paragraph in particular. Get rid of all the circumlocution, and what does it say? "We don't know anything about his early life." And a bit on how Sidious was the true identity and Palpatine the mask. A paragraph to say that; if that's any indication of an average, this article could be about 60% shorter. The second paragraph: no problems here, except for the "they missed him when they had the best chance to save themselves", which again, reads more like a novel than an encyclopedia. Now the third paragraph: in basic form, it says "Maybe X was the case. Or maybe Y was the case. Or maybe Z." Which says absolutely nothing. Then the last paragraph; again, fine in principle, but containing more cases of excessive verbiage like "the name he chose would endure through history; henceforth, Palpatine would be known, now and forevermore, as Darth Sidious". Again, am I reading an encylopedia of facts or the prologue of a new Darth Sidious novel?

Tone would be the other major issue. The rhetorical questions I mentioned are part of that, particularly that bit on Lemilisk (that would be "As if the Emperor, who had eyes everywhere, did not already know what had really happened! Did Lemelisk take him for an idiot? He would soon rue his words."); other examples of what I would call unencyclopedic tone: "'Do I make myself clear? - Ars Dangor' He had indeed." "Yes, Valorum was much wiser now. Chains, indeed." "Indeed, Chandrila had given him only traitors. First Mothma, then Omonda. They'd had their chance." etc. This would be fine in a novel, but this isn't a novel, it's an article of facts.

I'm not going to go through a whole list of issues I have with this, as my comments above sum up the major ones, but a few smaller ones in particular:

Section headings like "Death Star rising". Poetic, maybe. At all descriptive or belonging in an encyclopedia, no.

Excessive detail. Yes, there is such a thing, like a play-by-play account of the ROTJ finale. Not even a play by play in broad strokes, but seven paragraphs' to describe the events from Luke throwing away his saber to Palpatine dying. Let's see, what actually happens in that time? Luke throws away his saber, gives his nice line, Palpatine shocks him, Vader goes to his side, Palpatine threatens to kill him, Vader decides to save his son, picks up Palpatine, and chucks him, whereupon he falls. In seven paragraphs. And while my summary there was admittedly a list of bullet points, most of those should take no more than a sentence to cover.

Scattered NPOV violations like "diabolical genius".

Honestly, the Behind the Scenes is the most readable part; here it's actually telling me things. If I want behind the scenes information on Palpatine, I can find it easily and simply. It's a presentation of facts, not facts concealed within twice as much filler, which, I'm sorry to say, is the impression I'm left with by the rest of the article.

A final note: this isn't intended to insult Eric; it's criticism of the article itself. I think the article is a complete mess (and I say it that way because I don't think it serves anyone's purposes if I soften what I think with a false impression of not wanting to rock the boat), but that doesn't mean I think ill of Eric himself. - Lord Hydronium 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • And you are 100% correct Hydronium. I don't think that we are going to get consensus, but consensus has nothing at all to do with this type of problem. Instant action is needed. Erik has made quite an effort adressing my problems, but as I have constantly said - this is a brilliant essay, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Erik, looks like this isn't going to be put to rest just yet. .... 11:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't piped up before when all of this was going down, but I do agree with Fourdot and Hydronium; the former has hit the nail on the head when he stated "this is a brilliant essay, but it's not an encyclopedia article." While Eric is right that we're not bound by the size restraints of the print medium, we *are* bound by the size restraints of readability; as brevity is the soul of wit, so too is it the soul of informative prose. Additionally, certain stylistic conventions that are acceptable - indeed, wonderful - in an essay don't belong in an encyclopedia article. For example, the extended actor metaphor in "The fall of Chancellor Valorum" is truly inspired, but sadly inappropriate. I would love to see Eric create a website (or find a pre-existing website host) where he could put his brilliant prose to work in a proper venue; I think it would be more valuable and well-received then a website by any other Wookieepedian. However, that doesn't change the fact that encyclopedic writing should be, not to put too fine a point on it, dry. It should relay the facts clearly and concisely, with a minimum of embellishing flourishes of language. jSarek 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • For the sake of everyone trying to view this page, I'm starting a new entry for this topic so another archive can be done. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)