Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 2

message: Shouldn't "Lightsaber Training" and "Swordplay as Darth Vader" go under the "Talents" section?
Kiddre 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber sections 

message: It is too simplistic to say that Anakin swore his allegiance to the Emeperor's teachings because he was "emotionally drained". Also, it is out of character for Anakin, whose entire depicted life has been an emotional rollercoaster, to act solely on that. Anakin is an individual with no social anchors; Fatherless, and forcefully seperated from his mother at birth he has had no real friends or equals. Decisions are often made based on social anchors, on the rewards and punishments of your environment. For Anakin, very few of these would exist. His "master" might berate him but he is an embaressment, he has no parents, no one whose opinion he respects (except for the emperor). That is why he pledged allegiance to the emperor, that and perhaps a self-serving desire to get the powers he thought he had.
:Unfortunately that is unverifiable and original research therefore cannot be included in the article. Sorry. Also, please sign all comments to talk pages using ~~~~. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anakin swearing his allegiance to Palpatine 

message: Almost nothing in this section is supported by anything in the movies or the Expanded Universe; it is merely subjective opinion and dimestore philosophy, both of which are tiring to read, out of place at wikipedia, and needless filler. I would strongly suggest taking it out.
— Kiddre 19:19, 16 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people and I recently edited it, cut out some of the fluff, and then re-expanded upon important parts with more information-- is it objective now? If not, what do you suggest modifying? Please name a specific part. I do agree that the section is a bit on the long side though, and some parts of it need to be cleaned up. Maybe someone could create a new page dedicated to what is known about the Jedi Prophecy, and this section could be moved to that page. -- Solberg 07:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A separate page is a great idea, because that section is still unneccessary and absolutely deadly to read, even with the modifications (no offense to you; there's really nothing you can do to improve something this lousy.) But, whatever you do with it, please take it out of this article. -- Kiddre 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations of the Jedi Prophecy

message: I made this change, but it was reverted, so I'll suggest it here. Right now, the article contains an incredibly major spoiler for the NJO at the end of the "Expanded Universe" spoiler by mentioning "Onimi, the true Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzhan Vong." Since the purpose of the article is to talk about Vader and the identity of the Supreme Overlord is by no means necessary to do so, wouldn't it make more sense to simply say "the Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzahn Vong" and avoid spoiling one of the better twists in the series for any unsuspecting readers reading about a character who lived, in the galaxy, 25 years earlier? I imagine there's quite a few of those users out there, especially with RotS and the Vader book being released. --Dws90 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur—it's an unnecessary detail in this context anyway. Removed. — Phil Welch 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence in The Unifying Force 

message: Just thought you should know. -Silence 09:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I support these changes. The Wookieepedian 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't. I hate them. I'd revert them, but I'd probably accuse myself of starting an edit war if I did that. I'm such an asshole. Wow, 4:30 AM already? The lengthy, heated debates in which I go to ridiculous lengths to defend my revision and we have a dramatic, epic battle over the fate of the universe, or this article at least, will have to wait until I wake up. 'night. -Silence 09:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'night :P The Wookieepedian 09:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I changed this article

message: :Another reason for separation is that the current template is overlong; because it incorporates information not just from Darth Vader in the form he was always called by that as, but also as a child, pre-armor adult, etc. I'm much more sympathetic now to the view that Anakin and Vader are essentially the same person, but clarity should take first place in Wikipedia articles: using two separate infoboxes makes each infobox twice as readable by not bombarding our readers with information they aren't looking for (someone comes to the Darth Vader article for Vader as he was in the last three films, not for the child or teen Anakin; sorry, but it's just so, whether the popular mind is right or wrong on this matter).
:By cutting it into two articles, we can tremendously reduce the size of each and thus not clutter up any page with a too-large box. Having information on the home planets he lived on throughout his life is acceptable, but mentioning his previous political and Jedi affiliations will just confuse people new to this article ("wait, the Vader everyone's been talking about, the guy in this picture, is with the good guys? wait... I'm confused..."—such nuances are better covered in the article's text than in an infobox grown over-huge for excessive technical accuracy), and for the "actor" box, shouldn't we credit the actors in the same way they were credited in the movies themselves? In other words, the child and teen Anakin weren't credited as "Darth Vader" for the first two movies, so why act as though they were?
:Of course, having two templates would be a really, really bad idea if we only had one article, and couldn't simply move the "Anakin" template to the Anakin Skywalker article, solving both problems in one blow. :) -Silence 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've updated User:Silence/Darth Vader with some new style changes. The specific text involved, obviously, will be changed in many points for the final version (if there's any support for making the effort to do so, I'll do it), but the general layout and page breakdown is what I'm asking about. -Silence 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, having two infoboxes is cumbersome.  The current infobox can be enhanced (I think, if need be) if both characters' details were included in the same box (not two) with side-by-side pictures and details: Anakin first, Vader after.  If there should be one article (with one infobox), how about something like this ...  If there are no objections, I will replace the current infobox with the one proposed here. E Pluribus Anthony 22:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  Actually: it's no wider (on my screen) that the current one; the picture can also be reduced in size.  I think this will do until the single/dual article dichotomy is resolved.  By the way: while I am interested in this topic, I was compelled to visit and comment by a summary of this 'dispute' in the most recent issue of Wired. :)  Enjoy!  E Pluribus Anthony 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: I've logged out to make this comment, since I was originally inadvertently not logged in when I made this edit creating the essence of the Anakin Skywalker article in its current form - only just discoved this debate being re-opened. (I'm not a major contributor otherwise, so not using this to "hide", but to associate this comment with the minimal version I created).
The edit was not intended to state an opinion on the form the article should take, but to try a minimal pseudo-article implied by this series of edits     following from the partial concensus reached by a relatively small number of people in Talk:Anakin_Skywalker/Archive and Talk:Darth_Vader/Archive_3.
My "2 line version" was intended to make as obvious as possible the current status of the article, and appears to have succeeded in that respect since the number of "enhancements" made to the article in the following 3 months was substantially reduced.
Given articles like Isaac Newton's early life and achievements and Isaac Newton's later life, Early life of George W. Bush, etc. there is certainly precedent for multiple articles to a real biography. The "most common name" for an article that might otherwise be called Early life of Darth Vader is certainly Anakin Skywalker, and conversely the "most common name" for an article that might otherwise be called Later life of Anakin Skywalker or Anakin Skywalker after his fall to the dark side would be Darth Vader.
A "google test" for "Darth Vader" vs. "Anakin Skywalker" gives a slight edge to Darth Vader, but at least as of today, they are about evenly split with between 2.5 and 3 million hits each, each side of the character seems notable in its own right.
I would suggest a more ideal structure would be along the lines as follows:
Darth Vader article:
*Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Darth Vader characteristics (sith/cyborg/etc.)
*Early life as Anakin Skywalker
**pointer to main Anakin Skywalker article.
**summary of involvement in episodes 1-3
*.... additional sections giving details of the later parts of life in service to the empire.
Anakin Skywalker article:
*Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Anakin Skywalker characteristics (jedi/human/etc.)
*...various sections giving details of involvement in episodes 1-3
*Later life as Darth Vader
**pointer to main Darth Vader article.
**Summary of involvement in episodes 4-6, and in particular the end of ROTJ
The above is intended as a symmetric structure - each article can be interpreted as a child article of the other, including a recap of its parent article. While there will certainly be overlap between the two, there is definite value to having non-spoiler info about Anakin Skywalker, and a less confusing single infobox, something that the current structure does not allow. The focus of an article targetted towards people looking for information on Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader is different.
There are other cases of articles where a person is known under more than one distinct identity. For example (after searching around): Deep Throat (Watergate)/W. Mark Felt, Richard Bachman/Stephen King - pairs of articles about the same person which refer to each other but are primarily focussed on different identities of that person. I don't see a compelling reason to insist on all the information on Anakin / Vader being on one article.
--83.151.213.148 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  I think I support you and – definitely – in having two articles.  My attempt at a single infobox presently was more a(n attempt at a) balanced solution given the back-and-forthing or until salient decisions are made.  :)  Perhaps we should put this to a vote, and be guided by the results of that?  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not think it is premature, particularly given this debate and the article history up to this point (e.g., two articles existed previously and were then merged, etc.)  However, I will hold off on a vote until Silence is heard (ha!) or for a couple of days, but will initiate a poll, vote, and or RfC if this is not forthcoming or if other challenges persist.  If a consensus is arrived at or identified, what you or I are amenable to is moot.  Thanks.  E Pluribus Anthony 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to get in the way of a solution, go ahead and do that. I'm actually trying to negotiate a compromise instead of calling a vote. — Phil Welch 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is calling for a vote – when a clear consensus doesn't exist either way regarding this – getting in the way of progress or a solution?  This article (once two) has a long and storied (and one could could say, circuitous) discussion accompanying it.  A vote (or another mechanism to gather greater input) will merely identify or enable a consensus, which is at the cornerstone of Wp.  Actually, such comments are obstructionist: you should  probably be more discriminating in your comments before making them. E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In response – first: discussions have been underway for quite sometime, with no resolution; you saying so, given feedback to the contrary, is insufficient.  Second: there's no clear consensus (but I will wait another day and some) before garnering greater input; a vote or RfC will facilitate that.  Third: this article (or proposed ones) are not your property.  Lastly: if your attitude with me (in so short a time) is indicative of anything throughout, you need to refrain from being pejorative – a vote will not only occur but may be necessary to overcome any impasse.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "soft redirect" has served its time. 

message: IMO I think that retaining the article as being Darth Vader (Have Anakin Skywalker redirect to Darth Vader) is fine, because after watching Revenge of the Sith, I now realize that Darth Vader isn't the villian of the Star Wars franchise after all.  In fact, since Darth Vader, at the end of Episode V, realized that he is indeed the Chosen One, and he made a lot of reckless choices, and starts to regain his sanity from Episode V up until near the end of Return of the Jedi, realizes that he did fail his deeds as Anakin Skywalker before he got immolated at Mustafar.  The 2-Meter Armor serves as the consequences that Vader must live with for the next 23 years of his life.  Vader went insane at the end of Episode III, but then started regaining his sanity near the end of Episode V, then chose to rectify his mistakes and elected to pass away as Anakin Skywalker near the end of Episode VI.  If you watch the films in order, you will see that Darth Vader, believe it or not, is really the filmset's protagonist, even though Vader commits pure atrocities on Episode IV and most of V.  Vader knows that he is the good guy, and he knows what he did bad throughout his pre-armor life (i.e. seek the power to prevent others from dying, pledging to Palpatine's teachings).  Vader overtime knows what he did right, and what he did wrong, so I can no longer consider Vader as a villian, but a protagonist with his fatal flaw being making dark mistakes and his fear of losing his loved ones.  Vader did sell his soul to the devil, but knew that he still believed in God, and knows that his mission as The Chosen One was his true mission, not to remain loyal to the Emperor.  In Episode III-V, Vader did a lot of bad things, and of course, we all now know that the 2-meter armor is the consequence Vader must live with, and IMO the 2-meter armor is basically Vader's punishment/detention for doing all of these bad things at the start of his tenure as Palpatine's apprentice. — Vesther 05:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback; users can agree to disagree, as is the case here.  Given the support and opposition to having just one article, it may very well be prudent to resolve this through a vote where broad input can be collected and a consensus identified (which currently doesn't exist).  As stated above, I will wait a couple of days before doing so.  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 05:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Vesther's point of view 

message: The biographical sections of the "Biography" section of this present article, along with certain details specifically referring to Anakin Skywalker as he appears, should be forked to an article titled Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. Anakin Skywalker will become a hard redirect to the new article. The new article will be a "child" of this article and will refer back to this article. This article will retain almost all of its cohesive properties—i.e. it will continue to tell the complete story of Anakin Skywalker from birth, through the fall, to his redemption and death. But it will do so in a summary way, moving more specific details to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels.
The infobox on this article will refer to Darth Vader alone—an Anakin Skywalker infobox will be forked to the new article. Additionally, the lead section to this article will again include a spoiler warning and will only mention the name "Anakin Skywalker" below that warning—in other words, the lead section will be substantially similar to earlier versions and substantially different from the version Anthony and I are trying to work out.
My main concerns are (a) the cohesiveness of this article in telling the complete story of Anakin Skywalker, (b) providing the ability for the rest of Wikipedia to refer selectively either to prequel-Anakin or original-trilogy-Vader, (c) having articles of appropriate size.
As for Silence's desire to have more plot details included in the biographical sections, I must say that I personally agree with him. The long and detailed bio sections we had previously were largely due to my involvement. While others outside this particular dispute want to minimize the amount of plot summary, I would be perfectly amenable to, post-fork, returning back to the level of detail in our plot summary as we had previously. In fact, if we do it that way and nominate for FA, we are bound to get a definitive answer on how to do this.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Vesther seem to like the idea of keeping the article together. In response to that concern, which I share, I suggest that my proposal maintains the cohesiveness of this article while forking certain details to a more focused article. There are numerous links to Anakin Skywalker which will be redirected to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels that only want to refer to him in the prequels.
As for my proposed title, my primary concerns are to neutrally make the point that the forked article isn't a half and half split of this one so much as it is a child article filled with enough cohesive details to stand on its own as an article. If you want to put it at Anakin Skywalker, I could be convinced, but that may lead to certain confusions.
Furthermore, this way we'll have two featured articles instead of just one. What fun!
I'm willing to accept any comment on this proposal as well as any opposing proposals. — Phil Welch 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philwelch's proposal

message: * I appreciate this effort (and see that it was proposed earlier), but I agree with prior assetions that this proposal is an unbalanced and confusing way to treat the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader dichotomy.  For balance: should we redirect Darth Vader to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars sequels?  If not (or even if so), there's no reason to obfuscate two unique and major characterisations (e.g., different actors, different sagas, different eras) in the proposed manner.  Users will instinctively search for Darth Vader or Anakin Skywalker (a spade is a spade), and there's no reason to belabour this through unnecessary redirects.  In addition, as indicated above, there are also almost as many online references to the latter as to the former (in addition to the wealth of information for each).  Moreover, the official website sees fit to have an article each for A. Skywalker and Darth Vader.  If done properly, cohesion between two articles can be maintained and giving th AS article a cryptic name wouldn't serve any purpose. In summary: this proposal is insufficient – while advocating for a child article, the proponent's separation isn't equal.  Or (to extend the current metaphor): this isn't a fork, it's a dull knife. E Pluribus Anthony 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Philwelch's proposal

message: **Darth Vader article:
***Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Darth Vader characteristics (sith/cyborg/etc.)
***Brief summary of early life as Anakin Skywalker
****pointer to main Anakin Skywalker article.
****summary of involvement in episodes 1-3
***.... additional sections giving details of the later parts of life in service to the empire.
**Anakin Skywalker article:
***Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Anakin Skywalker characteristics (jedi/human/etc.)
***...various sections giving details of involvement in episodes 1-3
***Brief summary of later life as Darth Vader
****pointer to main Darth Vader article.
****Summary of involvement in episodes 4-6, and in particular the end of ROTJ
:E Pluribus Anthony 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While that's true you have to keep the context in mind—Obi-Wan and Yoda have a plan, and that plan is for Luke Skywalker to kill Darth Vader. Keep in mind that in Episode III, Obi-Wan begs Yoda that he not have to face Anakin. Yoda responds by telling Obi-Wan this interpretation of events—so Obi-Wan can bring himself to kill Anakin. It doesn't work, as we know, but Yoda and Obi-Wan spend the next 19 years convincing themselves this is how it is so they can basically get Luke to kill Vader without hesitation. (A big reason they stop him from facing Vader until he's ready is that it's only by losing to Vader that Luke ever hears the revelation.) Finally, after Luke turns around and confronts Obi-Wan and Yoda about this, Yoda simply notes, "Your father he is", while Obi-Wan talks about "a certain point of view". But in this context, I really see Obi-Wan's attitude as just a rationalization. After all, Luke's faith that the good in his father hasn't been destroyed completely is ultimately how Luke is able to resist the dark side and how Anakin is able to find redemption. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  As the initial characterisation of Darth Vader by Obi-Wan is something which occurred in the initial saga (eps IV and V above), I feel this should be dealt with (if split) largely in the Darth Vader article.  I would note only germane elements in the Anakin article (like the substantial history of events before the original saga ... the tragic friendship between the two in the prequels) where they possibly contradict interpretations and characterisations in the original saga. E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The above aside, I'm still leaning toward EPA's proposal :) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. The Wookieepedian 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  And remember, it really isn't my proposal: I rehashed it from another user above (who added it with an anon IP). :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ["anon IP"] Actually far from anonymous - it's a static IP used only by 1 person, and therefore traceable to a real identity - compared with the 'anon' pseudonym I would otherwise edit under if I were logged in... just sticking to using this ID for editing this page in order to maintain continuity - understandable that "EPA" is easier to type when referring to the suggestions though ;-) --83.151.213.148 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you; it is, indeed, difficult to refer to users through numbers – Borg drones notwithstanding  – (hence me using et al. above) and the user who suggested the idea, et al. should really get a username to reduce ambiguity or potential skepticism about contributions.  Thanks for the input! :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EPA's (et al.) proposal

message: *OK, an even split. I have some concerns with the apparent redundancy here, but this plan could work, and does solve the problem (and I concede there is a problem) in titling the articles. In this situation we would have two cohesive articles covering the whole of the story—not just one—but with different emphases. Finally, this will definitely land us in double-featured-article land. I'm not signing off just yet but I'm very likely to agree with this. — Phil Welch 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on EPA's proposal

message: When reading through this I was in agreement with those who thought that the two articles should be split, and my thoughts on how this should be done were somewhere along the lines of what EPA is proposing. I am personally suprised that, in the argument for the split, no one has yet to go and quote the origional trilogy (if someone did, and I missed it somewhere, my appologies). In Episode IV, Obi-Wan talks as though Darth Vader is an enterly different person from Anakin Skywalker "He betrayed and murdered your father". It isn't until near the end of episode V that it is actually revealed that the two are one and the same. In episode VI, Obi-Wan still talks somewhat as though Darth Vader is a seperate person, by saying "the good man who was your father was destroyed". If the origional trilogy talks as though the two are individual, that should be enough support in favor of the two splitting.Dr. B 03:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While that's true you have to keep the context in mind—Obi-Wan and Yoda have a plan, and that plan is for Luke Skywalker to kill Darth Vader. Keep in mind that in Episode III, Obi-Wan begs Yoda that he not have to face Anakin. Yoda responds by telling Obi-Wan this interpretation of events—so Obi-Wan can bring himself to kill Anakin. It doesn't work, as we know, but Yoda and Obi-Wan spend the next 19 years convincing themselves this is how it is so they can basically get Luke to kill Vader without hesitation. (A big reason they stop him from facing Vader until he's ready is that it's only by losing to Vader that Luke ever hears the revelation.) Finally, after Luke turns around and confronts Obi-Wan and Yoda about this, Yoda simply notes, "Your father he is", while Obi-Wan talks about "a certain point of view". But in this context, I really see Obi-Wan's attitude as just a rationalization. After all, Luke's faith that the good in his father hasn't been destroyed completely is ultimately how Luke is able to resist the dark side and how Anakin is able to find redemption. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  As the initial characterisation of Darth Vader by Obi-Wan is something which occurred in the initial saga (eps IV and V above), I feel this should be dealt with (if split) largely in the Darth Vader article.  I would note only germane elements in the Anakin article (like the substantial history of events before the original saga ... the tragic friendship between the two in the prequels) where they possibly contradict interpretations and characterisations in the original saga. E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The above aside, I'm still leaning toward EPA's proposal :) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. The Wookieepedian 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  And remember, it really isn't my proposal: I rehashed it from another user above (who added it with an anon IP). :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ["anon IP"] Actually far from anonymous - it's a static IP used only by 1 person, and therefore traceable to a real identity - compared with the 'anon' pseudonym I would otherwise edit under if I were logged in... just sticking to using this ID for editing this page in order to maintain continuity - understandable that "EPA" is easier to type when referring to the suggestions though ;-) --83.151.213.148 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you; it is, indeed, difficult to refer to users through numbers – Borg drones notwithstanding  – (hence me using et al. above) and the user who suggested the idea, et al. should really get a username to reduce ambiguity or potential skepticism about contributions.  Thanks for the input! :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Comments on EPA's proposal

message: Hello!  Based on the above, I think there's general (though not unanimous) agreement to split this one article about DV into two: one focusing on the younger Anakin Skywalker and another focusing on the transformed Darth Vader.  Great!
Given this, an RfC may be unnecessary.  As also noted above, however, I propose the following RfC (or something like it) to validate this decision or to guide our actions otherwise:
-----
Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two articles?
*There is a wealth of information about Darth Vader (renowned from the original Star Wars trilogy of movies) and his younger self, Anakin Skywalker (recounted in the recent prequel trilogy).  Given the dichotomy of this very important film character – spanning two sagas and eras – and ongoing discussion in Wp about the single article (AS redirects to DV), do you think the current article is sufficient or should it be split into two: one each for DV and AS?
**I think that the article should remain in one piece.  Whether the current version is adequate or not, I cannot say. DrKC9N 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed RfC!?

message: *(if so, cite whether this should be at Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker, or another name and embolden your choice)
#It is a literary precedent that we will discuss a character as if he were real--how else can we speak of his "life," or his "personality," or even of his "existence"? More linking and sub-linking will eventually turn Wikipedia into a series of one-line (exaggeration alert) articles that link to the next one-line article, requiring a new click to read the next part of one encyclopedic entry. Modifying it to better display two "phases" of Anakin's life is my solution.  Also, the novel and common sense make it very clear that a person is still the same individual, whether or not he changes appearance, political status, creed/religion, or ethical orientation.  Darth Vader still cares for Padme and eventually learns to love his son and turn back from the Dark Side.  If those in support of two articles would be fair, they would really support three articles: one for Anakin, one for Vader, and then one for Anakin again.  Obviously this does not make sense, as he did not change into another person only to change back.  (As a side note, this is apparently the intent of George Lucas, as well, who replaced Sebastian Shaw (actor) with Hayden Christensen at the end of RotJ in an effort to unify the character.) DrKC9N 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''ONE article'''''

message: *(one each for Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker; if your position differs, indicate and embolden your choice)
#The Wookieepedian 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''TWO articles'''''

message: *(abstentions, other options, etc.)
#Comment-you decide it. But I only wait for the finale of this endless discussion to finally push Darth Vader (or Anakin Skywalker, how it's gonna be?) into the FAC. (although I found nice the way it is now. the only problem is... 44 kb.).igordebraga * 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, that's exactly what I suggested we do with my very first edits to the Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker articles, waaay back on November 27th, which started this whoooole debate: Anakin, Darth. And now, it's taken us months of impassioned, heated, contentious, fracturing back-and-forth debate to come... all the way back to square one. The simplest and most obvious solution to this mess really is the best one, it turns out. Hopefully soon the article can finally be split so work can really begin on these two worthy encyclopedia topics for the first time. -Silence 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''OTHER'''''

message: Happy new year!  Thanks to everyone for your participation during and after the RfC/poll, which has garnered significant input and discussion.  As promised, below is a summary: as of the vote closing (end of day 31 December 2005), 48 Wikipedians have indicated the following:
*21 (44%) support 1 article, of whom:
:*9 (19%) support it as is, at Darth Vader
:*9 (19%) support having it at Anakin Skywalker
:*3 (6%) support either title, a hybrid one, or undefined
*26 (54%) support 2 articles, one each for DV and AS
*1 (2%) has abstained
This year (since the poll end), the margins have not changed appreciably.
The two-article option has garnered an absolute majority; moreover, a consensus does not support the status quo if you also consider that a number of the one-article supporters prefer the title to be Anakin Skywalker instead.
So, you might ask if it's still appropriate to split the article since the two-article option did not garner a supermajority.  Well, I sought a neutral assessment from a Wp bureaucrat, who is entrusted to administrate things like Wp administrator votes.  Based on his assessment of the vote results (emphasis retained):
:...having two separate articles is the answer. It has an absolute majority of the votes. Deference is given to the status quo in these cases, but the alternative (one merged article) is evenly divided as to what the one article would be named. Since no other alternative got more than a quarter of the votes, we are not dealing with a supermajority issue...
(We then proceeded to talk about Spaceballs and Vader's helmet, but that's another story ...)
So, based on everything above, the two-article option has prevailed: one each for Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker.
====Next steps====
As for how to go about doing the split, Silence created two discrete articles earlier:
*User:Silence/Anakin_Skywalker
*User:Silence/Darth_Vader
To start, these (or similar) articles should be edited, consistent with the DV/AS proposal cited, retrofitting them with anything updated in the current article.  Once this is done, over say the next week, we can then replace the content/articles in both locales.
Again, thanks to all of you for your input, patience, and continued co-operation!  E Pluribus Anthony 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''RfC/poll: conclusion'''

message: As for how to go about doing the split, Silence created two discrete articles earlier:
*User:Silence/Anakin_Skywalker
*User:Silence/Darth_Vader
To start, these (or similar) articles should be edited, consistent with the DV/AS proposal cited, retrofitting them with anything updated in the current article.  Once this is done, over say the next week, we can then replace the content/articles in both locales.
Again, thanks to all of you for your input, patience, and continued co-operation!  E Pluribus Anthony 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps

message: Wouldn't it be easier and less of a debate if the article was enitled "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader"?  That way, if people were searching and entered either "Anakin Skywalker" or "Darth Vader", they'd come upon the article, but it's be less confusion with the new title since they are the same person.
Jedi Striker 7:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Thanks for your question.  While a possibility, a unified title as you suggest (with a slash) is atypical in Wp.  As well, for those who are unfamiliar with the saga, such a title may constitute a spoiler.  If you have an intention to vote (for a single article or other?), I'd suggest moving your suggestion to the appropriate section above.  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It would most definitely be a spoiler.  That's why a soft redirect would be necessary (if one article), or an unnamed link after a spoiler alert (if split). DrKC9N 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Same name, same article?

message: The current WP article on this topic is found at midi-clorians (sic) at the insistence of a user with an early edition of the novelization of The Phantom Menace where the word is supposedly spelled that way. Requesting input in the discussion over what is actually the canonical spelling. Thank you. Rcharman 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midi-clorians vs. midi-chlorians (spelling discussion) 

message: What is the source of this section?
According to Star Wars: Labyrinth of Evil, it clearly implies Anakin Skywalker has NEVER studied Form III Soresu at all. I don't believe there is source that confirm / imply Anakin Skywalker has mastered Soresu. Combining the Sith Novel, Insider, and EP2 Visual Dictionary, Anakin has only mastered Shien (Sith Novel), Djem So (Sith Novel), Ataru acrobatic (EP2 VD + Sith Novel).
I suggest we remove the section if no proof can be provided about Anakin mastering Soresu.
Darth Kevinmhk 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alert: The "Lightsaber Training" section 

message: Anakin Skywalker is not the main character of the entire series. He is the main character of the prequels. The originals were quite deliberately made to focus on Luke's journey. While Anakin's redemption is a featured storyline in Return of the Jedi, it is not the focus of that trilogy on the whole. The original trilogy was never made as "Anakin redemption story," it was made as "Luke's journey to Jedi Knighthood." Try as they might, the prequels can't change the focus of three films that have already been made. Referring to him as the "central character" is therefore not accurate, it's just towing the Lucasfilm party line.
:We seriously need to address this issue.  The entry has changed from the central of IV, V and VI to the central of I, II and II, to the central of the entire series.  To be honest, I really think it is more appropriate to say Anakin is the central character of Episodes I-III.  However, Vader is not really the central character of Episodes IV-VI.  Luke is the central character of IV-VI and the prequels really do nothing to change that.  This is particularly true for Episode IV where Vader is little more then the bad guy.  It wasn't until the end of Episode V when we learn that Vader is Luke's father, that Vader becomes a bit more then just a bad guy.  Even then, the story is still focused on the journey of Luke and not Anakin/Vader.  
:You could maybe say he was "a" central character of Episodes IV-VI, but he is not "the" central character.  If we ignore the prequels all together then there is little argument that Luke is the center of the story from the original trilogy.  The story follows Luke and pretty much everything that happens in the movies is centered around Luke.  I do not know how we successfully resolve this issue, but if it has to be decided by a vote then sobeit.  -Thebdj 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are my feelings on the matter as well. :) The Wookieepedian 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the central character 

message: Wait a second...I'm confused.  I just reverted because the article Anakin Skywalker redirected to Darth Vader.  But eventually this should be just the Darth Vader page, and Anakin Skywalker should be its own, as well (as per RfC above).  Did I just catch it in the middle of the transition?  If so, apologies... DrKC9N 04:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Masterv88 

message: How old was Anakin when he was made a Jedi Knight? Deskana (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Around 22, I believe. The Wookieepedian 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: I just wrote a new lede to this article above the Spoilers warning tag.  It includes information that I considered to be general knowledge of popular culture that has totally permeated society, that Vader is a character in the star wars films and is known as an iconic villian figure.
I feel that is the connection between Vader and Anakin that could be considered a plot spoiler, even though most people know this connection anyway.  Because the Anakin-Vader connection is a plot spoiler, whereas everyone knows Vader as the character in teh dark suit, I'd like people working on this page to consider having only a picture of Vader in the suit at the top of the page, and have pictures of Hayden Christensen appear later, well below the plot spoiler tag.
:It's true. I had the pleasure of watching all six episodes last summer here in Korea with a girl who didn't know anything about the movie, from one to six. Watched one and two, the next week Episode 3 came out and then after that we watched the old ones. The verdict from her? Anakin's awesome, Obi-wan is too perfect and Anakin's better, Episode 4 is terrible because Darth Vader has no depth at all, Luke's not half as good as Anakin was, the guy who played Anakin at the end where he dies doesn't look like him at all, and only the spirit Jedi Anakin at the end was good because she wasn't expecting that. Had it been Sebastian Shaw I think she would have been disappointed. I'm one of the ones that favours this being split into two articles though. If it has to be one it should be Anakin Skywalker. He was born as Anakin and died as him, so why not? Mithridates 06:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Lede Without Spoilers 

message: Even if we're not going with two articles this one should be called Anakin Skywalker. He was Anakin before turning into Darth Vader, was Anakin as well after his redemption, and some people argue as well that he was Anakin the whole time. Note that pages on wrestlers for example redirect to their real names as they only appear as wrestlers for a number of years; same thing for any other dual identity. If so then Darth Vader should be a soft redirect because lots of people still don't know. Especially in Asia it's hard to find someone that knows they're the same person. Mithridates 11:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry: the RfC/poll provided a clear course of action – two articles.  Getting around to doing the split properly is taking longer than anticipated, but it will happen soon enough.  Stay tuned! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And by the way... 

message: Pics are rather dark, at least on my monitor. Perhspa they could be lightened a bit. --Shadow Puppet 22:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are too many photos. Perhaps we should have only one or two images from each film? The Wookieepedian 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I axed many photos (3 total) and do not think the edits will hold.  There are WAY too many pictures in the article still.  I think we need to remember that the use of these copyrighted images needs to be limited to those times where it adds to the article.  We originally had 4 pictures from the last like 30 minutes of Episode III and a picture of Vader in his "dome" which really had nothing to do with the article.  I also think the Transformation section might be TOO Big making the sections after look almost too small. -Thebdj 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: On Panacea (medicine) it claims that Vader's suit has bacta in it. Is this canonical? JoshuaZ 06:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darth Vader on Bacta 

message: Those of you who remember seeing the 1995 film "The Indian In The Cupboard" may remember that upon discoverying that he can animate plastic figures with his new cupboard, the eager young boy crams the cupboard full of the nearest toys he can find - among them, Darth Vader, who breifly spars with a T. Rex before taking notice of the boy. Since the story treats the characters brought to life as actual persons suddenly ripped from their place in space and time, as opposed to merely being "Frankensteined" on the spot, does this merit serious examination as to whether or not the event was canon?
If nothing else, it would make a worthwhile trivia entry. The actor playing Vader in this case was Tom Bewley.
:LOL! Yes, I remember that, and... uh... no... that's not canon. But it would make a good trivia entry! :) The Wookieepedian 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To which I must say no.  We need to avoid Trivia sections like the plague.  We have managed to get the DV article to a Good Article and I really think introducing trivia sections leads to nothing but fancruft and lots of rv'ing because you get unreferenced and unverifiable "trivia".  It is sort of interesting to know, but in the end it is not worth much of a reference.  If you get hell-bent on adding a reference somewhere.  May I suggest a VERY SMALL mention in the Cultural Figure section. -Thebdj 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance in "Indian In The Cupboard" Film