Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 1

message: This article is supposed to be under the name Anakin Skywalker. "Vader" was born Anakin, and died Anakin. So change it back! Even as a Sith, there was conflict within. Change it back! Repeat! Change it back! Now! Apologies. I am enraged. NOW!!!!! KFan II 23:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No No No

message: How do we link with the character of Caius Céplus from the movie Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra ? The character a roman general wearing a Darth-Vader-esque helmet and once his army is attacked says (I paraphrase a little) : When the (Roman) empire is attacked, the empire strikes back. It is followed by the keynotes of the the Imperial March.
:My suggestion is that we add a pop culture section to the Star Wars page.  Cbarbry 01:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural reference

message: I'm trying to keep the section headings roughly congruent with the movies, so that the prequel trilogy falls under "Anakin Skywalker" with the subsections correspending to the three films, respectively, and the sequel trilogy falling under "Darth Vader". True, he's also called Darth Vader throughout much of Episode III, but he never renounces the identity of Anakin Skywalker, and every Sith between Darth Maul and Darth Vader still use their original name (Darth Sidious still goes by Palpatine, Darth Tyrannus still goes by Dooku). True, this is because they are hiding the fact that they are Sith, but then again, so is Anakin until the end of Revenge of the Sith. — Phil Welch 14:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: There seems to be a low-intensity edit war over this question. Wikipedia policy is to follow a Neutral Point of View, and Obi-Wan teaches us that "You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Point being, whether you think the injuries from the Force-choking or the strain of childbirth, (or Padme's broken heart, which we may want to blame on Anakin) or all three killed Padme, the neutral thing to do is to simply state the fact (Palpatine told Vader that Vader killed Padme) and set aside the argument over whether or not Vader truly killed Padme. — Phil Welch 14:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's supposed to imply that she "died of a broken heart", so to speak, but this open question of interpretation should be left open. — Phil Welch 21:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Vader kill Padme? 

message: Does that even occur during the movie? I don't think it does but I haven't seen it yet. If it's just some stylized Photoshop rendering, well, it's cool, but it's not exactly encyclopedic. Suggestions? — Phil Welch 18:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustafar picture 

message: Darth Vader was born as Anakin Skywalker and died as Anakin Skywalker. - 68.72.133.233 20:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One can also eaisly argue that, that the persona of Vader and The Persona of Anakin Skywalker where two people sharing the same body, but id rather not get into that right now. Iorek 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be different, but that doesn't mean that they should be in separate articles, and since "Darth Vader" is the most common name, then that's the title of the article. Nohat 04:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Shouldn't he assumes the name in the first paragraph be changed to he is given the name since it's given to him by Darth Sidious in EP III, the current version implies that he chose it for himself. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:35, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
:Sure. Why didn't you change it? :) — Phil Welch 20:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 2 

message: Someone keeps adding Bob Anderson (David Prowse's stunt double for Darth Vader) as an actor who played Vader. Stunt doubles are never credited this way. I've mentioned in "Behind the Scenes" that Bob Anderson was the stunt double in Episodes V and VI, where the information belongs, but stunt doubles do not qualify as actors to have played the role. They are not listed as such in the credits of *any* film that I have *ever* seen, nor on IMDB, nor on Wikipedia.
The information is already present in the article; I'm not removing it. I'm just keeping it in its proper place as dictated by decades of convention. — Phil Welch 04:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: During the shooting on Return of the Jedi there was a interview with David Prowse in which a quote was twisted, making George Lucas think that Prowse had revealed the secret that Vader died in the third movie.  After this Prowse was essentially fired from the film and Bob Anderson took over.  For example, All of the footage of Vader with the Emporer is Anderson not prowse (except for when Palpitine is thrown down the reactor shaft which is prowse throwing a stunt double.  Due to this Prowse has never met Ian McDiarmid.  Although he is not credited, It could be stated that "Anderson was in the costume during a bulk of shooting on Return of the Jedi". Dowew 21:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stunt double Bob Anderson 

message: Take note that Anakin's eyes turned yellow during the moments before he got burned, and his skin started turning pale, though not as severe as Palpatine's.  If you look closely, you will see that Anakin's eyes stayed Sith Yellow during the moments of his enstrandment and his near-immolation.  This should be noted, since we see Anakin's anger reaching its peak.
:But they were yellow before that.  When he's killing everyone on the Sepratist council, his eyes are yellow in the shot before he goes through the door into the room. Dismas 19:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The moment after Anakin loses his limbs and left arm to Obi-Wan... 

message: The battle concludes on the banks of the lava river, where Anakin force-leaps toward Obi-Wan, who defends by severing Anakin's left arm and both of his lower legs. This results in Anakin becoming immobilised on the embankment.
I need to point out that Anakin slides closer to the Lava Shore.
:I don't think that's a particularly necessary detail. Detail is good, minutae is not. He slides down closer, but I don't see how it's important. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the proper place. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I added in that he left with the lightsaber, but the specific timing of when he picked it up is minutae. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess it could be made more clear that Obi-Wan watched. I'll try and edit that. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — Phil Welch 18:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It clearly states that he shook the room with the Force. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Right. — Phil Welch 12:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors found 

message: I think this is getting close to FA status (criteria are available at Wikipedia:What is a featured article). What does everyone else think? I'm really pleased with how everyone has been working on the article and improving it, so I think I'm going to list at Wikipedia:Peer review and see what everyone thinks before submitting it. — Phil Welch 04:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: I think "Immolated" made more sense than "Incinerated" IMO.  Incinerate means when you die because you were immensed to the lava.  Immolate means you die because you were endlessly burned.  I don't think "Incinerated" makes any sense--if any of you have the Star Wars Episode III Motion Picture Soundtrack, one of the tracks is called "The Immolation Scene"--that is, that Anakin Skywalker is nearly immolated NOT nearly incinerated.
:I agree. — Phil Welch 02:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incinerated or Immolated? 

message: The battle ends on the banks of the lava river, where Anakin, overconfident, leaps to strike his former master, only to lose his left arm and both legs to Obi-Wan's blade. Anakin is stranded on the embankment, desparately trying to claw his way up the scree with his remaining arm, as Obi-Wan watches from above.
An overconfident Anakin leaped to strike his former master, but not before Obi-Wan leaped to the slope of the hillside, trying to warn Anakin to stop attacking.  Actually, Anakin ignored Obi-Wan's warning--that's how Obi-Wan managed to cut Anakin's legs and left arm off.  Obi-Wan would not attack unless he actually warns, sometimes violence does not solve things.
:Obi-Wan: I have the high ground!
:Anakin: You underestimate my power!!!
Obi-Wan's warning of having the high ground means that Obi-Wan tried to prevent Anakin from receiving his "Darth Vader Injuries" but Anakin just totally ignored Obi-Wan's warnings.  I think the fact Obi-Wan tried to warn Anakin to stop attacking should be added to this article, knowing that Obi-Wan does not believe in violence.  Obi-Wan didn't cut Anakin's legs and left arm before he warned Anakin.
:We don't need a blow-by-blow account of the duel. — Phil Welch 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not before Obi-Wan warned Anakin 

message: I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but some parts of this Darth Vader article can actually be placed under a Trivia section, which outlines some things you usually don't know (i.e. Anakin's eyes turned yellow just before he got immolated, during his pre-immolation speech with Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin would've been incinerated if Obi-Wan slashed all of Anakin's limbs). — Vesther 0:12 hours CDT, 18 June 2005
:I don't think so. That's not "trivia" per se, just trivial details. — Phil Welch 08:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: Should the "anakin skywalker" and "darth vader" sections be under a unified "History" section header (or "bio" or something along those lines) to make the article a little more readable? --InShaneee 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section Header 

message: I've been looking at the article, and I've noticed that there are two character boxes - one for Vader when he was a Jedi and one when he was in his armor. Should we not have one that fuses the two character boxes together. Please consider it. KFan II 12:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough of the information changes during the transition from Anakin to Vader that having two separate boxes makes sense. The story seems to make a big point of the two being two different sides, two different personas inside the same person, so I think the separation makes sense. — Phil Welch 19:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Character Box! 

message: When he killed the Emperor, Anakin Skywalker returned (thus the name "Return of the Jedi"), so when he was dying, he was Anakin again, not Darth Vader. Copperchair 06:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: George Lucas disagrees. Listen to the DVD commentaries. Also read my response on my talk page. — Phil Welch 06:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, only changing the image caption makes it entirely inconsistent with the article text, namely the dialogue. — Phil Welch 06:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We've resolved this issue. What possible reason did you have to add a snarky comment like that? Trust me, getting upset at me doesn't help anything. — Phil Welch 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We already resolved this issue with a compromise. Let it sit. — Phil Welch 13:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dying Anakin image 

message: If you're willing, we can discuss our content disputes in a mature manner here. Or, you could continue to refer to my good-faith edits as "vandalism" and refuse to discuss them. Your call.
As for the image caption, reproduced below was my preferred version, in the context of the article section. I've emphasized certain parts to point them out--these aren't emphasized in the actual article text.
As you can plainly see, both the full name "Sebastian Shaw" and a link to his article are present within very close proximity to the second caption. It's standard practice on Wikipedia not to place the same link twice in the same section, and aesthetically, I think that the link makes more sense in main article text than in a caption.
As for the first name, it's an issue of having a concise caption that doesn't have a line break. Now, if you have some reason you think the caption is better *your* way, I invite you to provide it.
As to the naming issue, I'll give you the opportunity to be the first to talk about it.
— Phil Welch 02:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, although if we were to do that, why don't we link the first Sebastian Shaw image caption instead, like I've done above? — Phil Welch 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We settled that dispute weeks ago. Let it go already. — Phil Welch 01:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption dispute 

message: Pretty silly debate, IMO, but I have the following suggestion: since the debate is over the name of the character, which arguably appeared in a number of films, then why not simply go with the name of the character as referenced in the actual credits? In episodes I, II, and III, the character is listed as Anakin Skywalker. In episodes IV, V, and VI, the character is listed as Darth Vader. There are two characters, or at least two names for the same character. The credits are rather unambiguous. Parker Whittle 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to concur with this third opinion (with the possible exception of the ending sequence of Revenge of the Sith when the suited Darth Vader returns to the screen) and mention this rationale in the notes. — Phil Welch 00:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Copperchair, try reading the third opinion before you try following it. You just violated it and changed it to your preferred version. — Phil Welch 06:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: We can write off the suited Darth Vader as a minor role, perhaps. James Earl Jones isn't credited either. But we can't write off Anakin post-death-of-Windu as a minor role—the intention must have been that the role of Anakin Skywalker *included* the post-Windu scenes. Anyway, between you and me, I'm leaving the suited parts to refer to "Vader" because it's too freaking weird to see the big black armored suit and *not* call him Darth Vader. — Phil Welch 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever. You've given your word that you'll abide by the third opinion, so I'll trust you to do that. — Phil Welch 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, as a sign of good faith I've made a compromise edit. I suggest you leave this ridiculous dispute where it sits. — Phil Welch 02:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I remind you that you've given your word to accept a third opinion when it was given, and to follow this one when Parker provided it. I am going to hold you to it. — Phil Welch 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's entirely academic at this point because you've already agreed to my version (your inability to keep your word regardless), I thought I might add that the track listing for the official soundtrack lists the music for the duel with Obi-Wan as "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan". Obviously, if your interpretation was correct, the title would be "Vader vs. Obi-Wan", but clearly, TPTB think differently. — Phil Welch 04:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, yeah. Not to mention the shooting scripts that I've linked to in the endnotes. And right now I'm finding out about the novelization. — Phil Welch 04:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The novelization refers to him as Anakin, even as late as the point he's inside the suit. It goes into a lengthy diversion about how he feels at that moment that ends with, "This is what it is like to be Anakin Skywalker...forever." I invite anyone to fact-check this if they can get a copy of the novelization. — Phil Welch 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion from [[User:PWhittle|Parker Whittle]]

message: About the results of the Mustafar duel, Kenobi actually won the duel because he jumped into the black sand and into the higher ground, putting Vader at a massive disadvantage.  Kenobi told Vader to give up since Vader has no chance of catching up, therefore, Kenobi actually told Vader to admit defeat and stop the violence.  Kenobi didn't maime Vader--it was Vader who did it himself--morally.  Remember Sith believes in Violence and Jedi does not.  Kenobi tried to tell Vader to return back to the Light Side as Anakin and to stand up for what he had done.  Vader, though, showed hatred of the Jedi and his words provoked violence alone, it wasn't the fact that Kenobi ignited his lightsaber saying that he had to do whatever he must, it was Anakin's/Vader's words that provoked the violence.  If Vader just listened to Kenobi and just admit defeat, then he wouldn't have been maimed and charred at Mustafar.  Instead, Vader ignored Kenobi and just tried to strike at Kenobi, getting maimed and charred through the process.  The real reason why Vader got maimed, charred, and transformed into his fearsome appearance in A New Hope was not because of Obi-Wan gaining the high ground and did a deft defensive flash to severly immobilize Vader, it was the weight of Vader's words and Vader's refusal to concede that got Vader maimed and charred. — Vesther 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair interpretation, but I've been avoiding letting interpretation seep into the article for reasons of NPOV and keeping out original research. Nonetheless, it was Obi-Wan who moved his blade across Anakin's legs, so from a purely factual basis (not an interpretive/moral/metaphorical basis), the article is still correct. — Phil Welch 19:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, if Jedi do not believe in violence, why did they serve as Generals in the Clone Wars? Why do we see them consistently (albeit justifiably) engaging in acts of physical force? Why do they carry lightsabers? You may say that the Jedi do not believe in unprovoked or unjustified violence, but they are more than willing to engage in violence when it is morally legitimate, in both "self-defense" and "just war" situations. — Phil Welch 19:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenobi clinched the duel non-violently

message: I  just learned that Anakin was voiced by Matt Lucas, Lucas' son for the Revenge of the Sith game, and want to add it.
:If you can find a source, sure, I'll be sure to add it when it's unprotected unless someone else gets to it first. — Phil Welch 06:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice Talent

message: ...it's pretty much gone. Is this vandalism, or was it taken off for some reason? There's a single line of text. That's it.
Woah. Nevermind. I typed in the name, properly capitalizing it..."Darth Vader" yielded an article with one sentence on it, saying that he was the villain in star wars. Then, I typed "darth vader", without capitalizing, and I got the complete article.
:That wasn't what it was. It was just momentary vandalism that was quickly reverted. Here's to RC Patrol. — Phil Welch 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this article? 

message: Has a consensus been reached on whether to refer to the character as Anakin or Darth Vader in this article? Copperchair recently switched everything from "Anakin" to "Darth Vader" and deleted the reference note at the bottom of the page that seems to specify that the character should be referred to as "Anakin" up through Episode III; his edit was marked with this note: "Fixed article to be consistent on the Anakin/Vader matter." However, I see no discussion and cannot find a place where a consensus was reached. Am I just blind and missing something here? (Possibly this is due to Copperchair's erasing of his talk page, I don't know.) – Mipadi 20:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is some lines above, under "Naming dispute". Copperchair 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason I brought up the point was that the footnote seemed to make a good point: I think the character should be named according to the script, which specifies his name as "Anakin" up through Episode III, not "Darth Vader". It seems to make sense that he would be called "Anakin" up through Episode III. – Mipadi 17:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
But YOU didn't want a third opinion to begin with. Also, attacking me only rests you credibility. And I am also a perfectionist, and I will do whatever I think is correct. And you have not followed you agreement regarding the Episode VI images captions, so don't come telling me how I have to keep my word. You have no authority whatsoever on that matter. Even the script you linked here refers to him as Anakin at that point. Finally, I proposed to end the edit war by keeping my word if you keep yours, but you refused, so the edit war will continue. Copperchair 06:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I never opposed asking for a third opinion, I believe I said that it was your prerogative to ask for one. I have never attacked you, only told the truth: you have acted in continually bad faith, making agreements and breaking them at the same time. If you point out to me where I have broken any agreements I have made I will rectify my error. — Phil Welch 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Assholery" is a characterization of behavior and not you as a person. "Don't be a dick" is the title of a Meta article that I believe applies to your behavior. Finally, how have I violated any regarding the spirits image? I've taken the effort to produce direct quotes and diff links regarding your behavior and I think it's only fair I request the same from you. — Phil Welch 04:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: When? And when have I ever agreed not to remove that link? Provide diffs, please. — Phil Welch 05:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, it's useless to negotiate with someone who refuses to keep his word, Copperchair. Had you done as I requested and keep your word on the agreements you've already made for a 72-hour period, I would have considered your offer. But given your repeated refusal to show any good faith at all, I'm not going to waste time making more agreements for you to break. — Phil Welch 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anakin vs. Darth Vader 

message: Anakin is the "son" of the Force, thus, he is gifted with a brilliant mind (just as the gods of ancient mythology). During his service to Watto, he learned vital technical and mechanical skills. While the Force may aid him in the construction of devices and machines, it is notewothy that Anakin is an engineering prodigy without the powers. -- User:24.253.120.206
:Yeah. I tried to leave it unstated in the article whether all his talents were due to the Force, other than specifically quoting Obi-Wan about his piloting skills. I think it works best to put it that way. — Phil Welch 00:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Darth Vader's Intellect

message: There is a debate on whether "I Need Him!!!" or "NOOO!!!" warranted Anakin to simultaneously ignite his lightsaber and carve off Mace Windu's offenses.  I don't think that "I Need Him" warranted Anakin to ignite his lightsaber and cut Windu's offenses off.  My views is that Anakin didn't say that "he needs Palpatine" for a reason, but he tries to convince Windu to have Palpatine stand trial.  Don't you guys think that Anakin was supposed to shout out "Nooo!!!" as he tries to cut off Windu's offenses to defend Palpatine?
I don't think "I need him!" warranted Anakin to defend Palpatine, I think Anakin wanted Palpatine to stand trial, but Windu chose to ignore Anakin's request, so that's why Anakin sliced Windu's hand off.  I think it should be "NOOO!!!" instead of "I need him!" that caused Anakin to slice Windu's hand off. — Vesther 03:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try writing more clearly, that made absolutely no sense. — Phil Welch 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I Need Him! or Nooo!!!"? 

message: If you haven't noticed I'm trying to keep the sections so that they correspond to the films, with "Anakin Skywalker" covering the prequels and "Darth Vader" covering the original trilogy. Also the use of numbering in listing the actors is amateurish, the publicity shot is a better picture, and Ben Burtt was the special effects supervisor—not in any universe would he be credited with playing the role. — Phil Welch 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section divisions 

message: The official site has updated the databank entry for Darth Vader. I suggest you take a look at it. Copperchair 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar", "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight", and it was only after Mustafar that "He abandoned his former identity". Alright. Thanks for pointing that out. The databank follows the practice we established for the article—namely, to use both names throughout most of Revenge of the Sith. It appears Copperchair's favorite source seems to agree with our consensus. — Phil Welch 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're forgetting "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight," and also "When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete." Copperchair, it's a completely moot point anyway. We made an agreement, and you promised not to break it. I am going to hold you to it. Don't waste our time on this yet again. — Phil Welch 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: They would have changed that part if it was wrong, Copperchair. We decided to go by the scripts, and as far as we know that's what happened. As long as you keep your word, I have no further complaints. — Phil Welch 23:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You go ahead and do that then. — Phil Welch 04:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anakin Skywlker/Darth Vader at the end of Episode III discussion update 

message: I really hope there's not some stupid edit war brewing over this, but I see that Copperchair has reverted this edit several times, and I really, really just want to ask: um, why does such a small word choice even matter? – Mipadi 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kenobi and a dying Yoda" flows better, even though it's not chronologically accurate. But there's no representation or expectation that it would be, either. — Phil Welch 07:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "where both Kenobi and a dying Yoda" vs. "where both a dying Yoda and Kenobi" 

message: Does Anakin really belong in this category? He married Padme and that might be considered marrying into the Naberrie family, but usually we see it as the woman marrying into the man's family and not the other way around. If there's something definite about the way this is seen in the Star Wars universe, I'd like to see it. — Phil Welch 07:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the way it is in the real world is quite the double standard, so I would think that the Star Wars world, as advanced as they seem in all aspects, would see it both ways. As far as in-universe aspects go, I'm quite surprised that they would still expect women to take the last name of the person they marry. But of course, since those stories were written by earthly humans, it's not all that surprising. Let's leave it at that, as there's really no established custom as far as "marrying into" in Star Wars fiction yet.The Wookieepedian 08:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Star Wars Naberrie family 

message: This is directed towards Copperchair and The Wookieepedian, who keep reverting Hayden's episode VI appearance in the infobox. Regardless of which version of the film you consider the "true" version, all versions of the movie need to be acknowledged to avoid POV. I've place a footnote to clarify which version of ROTJ Hayden appears in. Hopefully this is a satisfactory solution for both of you. --Poiuyt Man talk 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, Copperchair cannot accept any type of compromise. For him, all Star Wars articles must be based only on the '97 Speial Editions. I was not trying to promote my version as he was. He was attempting to remove information from other versions. I left everything in from the other versions. If I acted like him, I would have removed the fact that Sebastian Shaw originally played him. Yep, that's how silly Copperchair's actions are, when looked at from a different point of view! Even when I have given him this comparison, he merely avoids it, and continues reverting. And the guy claims he studied law! The Wookieepedian 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And so is the fact that Shaw played him. Should we remove that from the info box as well? The Wookieepedian 07:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, the whole infobox is redundant, as all the information within it is mirrored in prose within the article. The infobox is meant to summarize various crucial details, and the footnote is used to prevent bloating the infobox by inserting the entire explanation into it. --Poiuyt Man talk 09:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But face reality; Hayden played him in the DVD of ROTJ. That is a FACT. End credits or not, Hayden played him in the DVD. That doesn't seem too hard to understand, unless YOU HAPPEN TO REFUSE TO BECUASE YOU ARE A 97' PURIST. The Wookieepedian 07:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't. End credits can be in error. In all cases, despite end credits, if an actor was in a movie, THEN AN ACTOR WAS IN A MOVIE. People make mistakes in credits, you know. For instance, with ROTS, Aiden Barton portrayed Luke and Leia, but they were left out of the credits. Did they play Luke and Leia? Yes. Also take the 2004 DVD. In that case, the editors apparently forgot to change or add the credits. The Wookieepedian 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Then who are you to say that Lucas purposely didn't include Hayden in the credits? Regardless of whether or not he is credited, he is in the movie. The infobox box field is labeled "Portrayer", which includes all actors that have portrayed the character. It is not labeled "Actors credited". --Poiuyt Man talk 09:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Copperchair will say anything just to reduce the information from the 2004 versions in articles. The Wookieepedian 09:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I was referring to excuses. The Wookieepedian 09:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the petty reverting. 

message: This anonymous user has made a number of good edits and a number of ones that I personally disagree with, so I think this would be a good place to discuss them. Below are the differences that seem to be cropping up (add others if you wish):
My "The iconic villain has appeared throughout pop culture" vs. 67's "Considered one of the most iconic villains in movie history has become a staple of pop culture "—despite the bad grammar in 67's version that we would presumably want to fix, I think a rough consensus to my version is visible above. If 67 wants to try and persuade us in the relevant section above why his version is better he's free to, but this one seems settled for the time being.
"Mark Hamill noted in a 1983 interview, "Bob Anderson was the man who actually did Vader’s fighting. It was always supposed to be a secret, but I finally told George I didn’t think it was fair any more. Bob worked so bloody hard that he deserves some recognition. It’s ridiculous to preserve the myth that it’s all done by one man."". He wants it removed. Why?
"It is interesting to note that "Vader" is the Dutch word for "father" and that the German word for "father" (Vater) is similar. Thus, it may be tempting to read the character name "Darth Vader" as "Dark Father," a word-play that may well be the root of the Sith title. However, judging by the origin of the other Sith names, Vader may also possibly be a derivative of the word "invader." It is worth noting that in the original scripts for Star Wars, the name "Darth Vader" was given to a normal Imperial general. The title "Darth" may also come from "Dark Lord of the Sith." In the French translation of the movies, his name is translated as "Dark Vador", which means nothing in French." He wants it removed. Why?
If there are any other disputes feel free to bring them up. — Phil Welch 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 67.171.237.88 

message: Wookiee, if you want to go ahead and argue for some of your recent changes to the article (some of which I've reverted, some of which I've kept and altered a bit) feel free to. I'm letting you provide opening arguments this time :) — Phil Welch 18:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary change I wanted to make was to move the EU section directly below the sections on "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader," as it is, of course, a direct continuation and expansion of the story in the first two sections. Yeah, it's not as notable, but it brings the story parts of the page together, before bringing in non-story details, such as appearance and things. The Wookieepedian 23:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, glad to see you reworked the opening wording. I made the initial change becuase it seems this article lean more toward the classic idea of Vader as a pure villain, and didn't seem to touch as much on, or make it a blatant point that he was the tragic hero, and main focus of the series. The Wookieepedian 07:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I understand that there is a HUGE difference in impact and familiarity between the films and the EU. My complaint, however, is that the sections on "appearance," "talents," etc. separate the "story" aspects of the character's life, familiarity or not. It makes it look as though that, rather than looking at it as part of his complete life, makes it into a more minor detail, while some of the events in the EU clearly are major (for example: Luke's first battle with him in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, his involvement in Shadows of the Empire, the hunting down of the rebels responsible for the first death star's destruction in the holiday special). It's really an issue of order and completeness that I have with it. I think it's important, however, to distinguish what is in the films, and what isn't. For instance, typically, edotors will not distinguish what's part of the films, but will the EU, as it in in the Vader article. I think we can move up the EU section on Vader and elsewhere, if a disticion is made, so that readers themselves will be able to make a clear distiction, and can skip over EU material that they may not find too interesting. So, if we make clear disticions, it would work well for the people of both worlds: the fanboys, who want to see the films and EU lumped together, and everyone else, who may not be as interested, and will want to see the difference so that they can skip over it (for an example of an article that does make such a clear distinction, see Obi-Wan Kenobi). Now, I do think that it would be very fanboyish to not separate the two, and merely name the events, and not distinguish films and EU (Cough, Star Wars Wiki, Cough). The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Wookieepedian 

message: Aside from the bizarre "let's not mention Hayden's appearance in ROTJ" thing (which I didn't bother reverting Copperchair on), the three main things Copperchair changed in his latest uncivilly-summarized edit are as follows:
# In the summary, "In later films, his redemption, as well as his initial fall from grace, are explored in greater depth." is changed to "In the third film released in the series we see his redemption, and in later films his initial fall from grace is explored in greater depth." I personally think the former version is far better-phrased within the context of a summary section.
# "Vader gets a lock on Luke's X-wing, noting that "the Force is strong with this one."" is changed to "Vader gets a lock on Luke's X-wing, noting that "The Force is strong with this one."" The former is capitalized correctly—even when quoting a complete sentence within a sentence, my understanding is that the quote does not begin with a capital letter.
# "That night, Luke burns his father's Sith armor (and whatever remains inside) in the manner of a Jedi's funeral." is changed to "That night, Vader's body disappears as he becomes one with the Force. Luke burns his father's Sith armor in the manner of a Jedi's funeral.". A lot of editors other than Copperchair have been making a wide variety of edits stating either that Anakin didn't disappear and Luke burned his body, or that Anakin did disappear and Luke burned his armor. It isn't shown in the film, and the way I have it stated here is more neutral. That said, a better addressing of this issue may be in order.
I hope this is informative. — Phil Welch 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted his removal of the Hayden appearance, AGAIN. The Wookieepedian 07:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, he continues that with several articles, just as always. The Wookieepedian 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Copperchair 

message: I don't understand why the biography is in the present tense. Shouldn't it be in the past (as well as the minor villians page) with the exception of the image captions?- JustPhil 20:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Present tense is apparently standard on Wikipedia for fictional events. — Phil Welch 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense

message: Now possessing the ROTS DVD, I watched the Immolation Scene very closely.  I think everybody agrees that Anakin's eyes turn yellow before he gets toasted up, but before his immolation, isn't Obi-Wan supposed to be in a state of grief?  Like Obi-Wan knew that Anakin broke his mission as the Chosen One?  Obi-Wan, after maiming and immobilizing Anakin, started to be in a state of grief since Anakin apparently joined the Sith instead of destroying the Sith. — Vesther 21:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits by Vesther 

message: How is Jon Hart's version more accurate? Please explain, Jon Hart, how the previous version was inaccurate. — Phil Welch 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Lumiya and Flint did succeed Vader? Because after Bane it's a good idea to list both extant Sith? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous box said "apprentice to Darth Sidious". Sidious was *the* Dark Lord of the Sith and presumably has his own succession series. Also, Vader was Sidious's last apprentice. So the previous version was completely accurate, and far less confusing/misleading. — Phil Welch 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "completely accurate"- what about Flint and Lumiya? They were not mentioned in the previous infobox. AS well, I do not see any confusion here- "under" seems clear to me. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 00:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flint and Lumiya were not apprentices of Darth Sidious, that's why they weren't mentioned. The confusion is because Darth Sidious is listed as a previous Dark Lord of the Sith under Darth Sidious. He was his own apprentice? What? — Phil Welch 01:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making succession box more accurate 

message: Shouldn't the information on his involvement with the clone wars (the part on the animated series) go under the expanded universe section? The Wookieepedian 00:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Go ahead and move it. — Phil Welch 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Clones Wars 

message: Phil, I've read your conversations with Copperchair. But, why must you strickly follow the shooting script? He is clearly designated Darth Vader halfway trogh ROTS. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he is culturally synonomous with the suit does it? The Wookieepedian 00:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of it. You'll notice that during the ROTS sections we do use the name "Vader" sometimes. For instance, "In order to increase Lord Vader's power with the dark side...". The agreement seems to be: dialogue should be quoted from the shooting script as much as possible, but exposition can use either name depending on flow, redundancy, and which aspect we want to discuss. This will lead us to use "Anakin" a lot simply because "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan" is more the concept of that sequence than "Vader vs. Obi-Wan". — Phil Welch 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In some sections, however, it is factually incorrect to use "Anakin" (ex. the caption of him with the yellow eyes). I think "Vader" should be used as much as possible, while using "Anakin" when discussing his former self in the film, prior to being declared "Lord Vader." For instance, "Anakin's lightsaber," or "Anakin's wife." The Wookieepedian 00:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Darth Vader is the better known name—that trumps other considerations. Check the talk archives. There is PLENTY of precedent for this. — Phil Welch 00:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anakin or Vader? 

message: My God! This article is getting really full. Whenever I tried to edit or add information to this page nowadays, sometimes it just doesn't work. It also says that this article is already 54 kilobytes long, meaning that it has already exceeded its page limit. Shouldn't we do something about it before anything goes wrong? --Anon.
:There is no limit. That is merely the suggested size. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: Who thinks Anakin was created by Palpatine's so called master and why?
Does anyone have ideas on my question?
:Didn't you already ask this? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe in the Novelisation, Sidious says that Plagieus was his master... until he killed him. Emmanovi 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anakins Birth