Talk:Palpatine/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 29 November 2005 and 24 August 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Palpatine/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Dmoon1 14:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Just to let you know, I filed down the 'Palpatine as a Writer' section by limiting the description of the books to one summary sentence each, and shortened a paragraph in the 'Rule of Two' section. I did not delete any sections or paragraphs, but merely shortened them to cut down on the article's length.
--Kiddre 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done. Bcarlson33 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: "Palpatine and the Rule of Two" could be put into the "Rule of Two" article, and it would cut down this article's length. "Palpatine as a Ruler," meanwhile, could be put into the "Galactic Empire" article. How does that sound? Let's compromise, here. --Kiddre 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the rule of two move, but I think we should leave something of as a Ruler in Palpatine proper; we could add a see also template to that small section so it would point to a section in Galactic Empire. We'd probably want to confuse the as a Ruler section with whatever sections exist on the Empire's philosophy and ideological practices. --maru  (talk) contribs 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule of Two and Palpatine as a Ruler

message: I might suggest creating separate articles for some of the information included in this article, or including said information in other pre-existing articles. For example, separate articles could be created for "Palpatine as a writer" or "Palpatine as a ruler." As is, these sections merely repeat or expand upon what's already been said; is it really necessary to say more than "he wrote three books which were taught in universities" or "the Empire thrived on bureaucracy"? 80 kilobytes is absurd. --Kiddre 19:24 11 March 2006 (UTC) 
:I don't think it is absurd. And as to why sections are not broken off into separate articles, go read the Palpatine as a Ruler AFD discussion. --maru  (talk) contribs 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles 

message: While he certainly lacks empathy, he does not fit other criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder; he is not impulsive or shallow, nor does he exhibit random, violent aggression. Palpatine is EVIL, not to mention ABSOLUTELY INSANE!!! --Anon
:don't forget crazy!!!! --Starwarsnerd 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The violence Palpatine commits is only what is necissarry for him to stay in power. He never destroyed innocent civilians. He attempted to crush the rebels, true, but the rebel alliance were terrorists and criminals. Insanity? Please. He's machiavellian and maniupulative, but he's not insane. He's obviously very competant. Besides, evil is a ficitonal concept. -Alex 12.220.157.93 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps we should be asking not after Palpatine's mental state, but yours... --maru  (talk) contribs 07:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps User:12.220.157.93 is merely looking at it from the point of view of Palpatine. The Wookieepedian 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That and perhaps the viewpoints of those that support the Palpatinist movement. Personally I wouldn't say he was insane either. Pure evil, yes. Inhuman, yes; but you cannot deny that he was an extremely competant individual with a clear vision. --Exor 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine's mental state 

message: Since Lucas designed it to be a spoiler, as per Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, I moved the first mention of the name "Darth Sidious" in this article to the paragraph after the spoiler tag. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All very well, but the "Position" of "Dark Lord of the Sith", infobox picture and 1st paragraph description of him as "the foremost villain, in the fictional Star Wars universe" seem somewhat spoiler-ish for someone looking for info on the esteemed senator from episode 1... --Stoive 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First mention of the name of "Darth Sidious" 

message: Comparing him to George W. Bush and Tom DeLay is a delicate issue, and Lucas stated that he didn't use them for influances on the character. JONJONAUG 20:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Palpatine be compared to modern politicans in the article 

message: ... "Master, who am I?"  What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Darth_Vader#RfC.2Fpoll:_Darth_Vader.2FAnakin_Skywalker_.E2.80.93_one_article_or_two_articles.3F|'''RfC/poll''' – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?]]

message: As far as i concern, there is no solid proof provided by licensed material which stated the form of Sidious' combat style. His style is merely "Fans expectation / estimation". And althought it looks like Ataru when dueling with Yoda, and resonable for him to master Form VII due to Maul, where can you find any proof about Sidious mastering Form V !!?? Darth Kevinmhk 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source exactly say Yoda master all style? I have already remove that sentence from Yoda's article days ago! Darth Kevinmhk 04:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good question. It doesn't fall into any canon guidelines I know of, but then Gillard was in charge of choreography so he would be the one who'd know. --maru  (talk) contribs 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Nick Gillard statement seems to me as if it should be taken with a grain of salt. Although Palpatine is supposed to be a master swordsman, Gillard seems to be exaggerating somewhat there. The Wookieepedian 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what reason would he have to exaggerate per se? It's not like he's a marketing strategist attempting to build up hype for a slightly less than popular character. Considering he choreographed all of the lightsaber duels, I wouldn't disregard it completely until further evidence disproves it. --Exor 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose that Nick Gillard would be overly proud of his training of the actors, and/or it was a figure of speech. The Wookieepedian 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's sort of stretching it. Following that train of thought, Nick would have reason to say every character is a master of all forms of combat. Additionally, why would he pick Palpatine over say, Mace Windu? Personally I can't see any reasoning behind that. Nevertheless, I can't seem to decipher how that statement could be a figure of speech either. --Exor 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was also quoted saying that pre-Jedi Purge, Jedi had studied all forms of fighting. I saw this on a documentary of the special features of my Region 2 Episode 1 disk. The characters in particular that he was referring to (Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan) certainly haven't mastered all forms of fighting. Deskana (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably exaggeration or a figure of speech.  I don't see how anyone can be a master of every weapon.  What are the chances of anyone even having encountered "every weapon?"  To some extent you can generalize from past experience on how to use a new weapon, but there's only so much you can extend this experience.  Definitely to be taken with a grain of salt as Wookiepedian said.  Certainly Nick could not mean "master" in the sense that Yoda is a master of Form IV. --Solberg 10:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Lightsaber Combat Style 

message: I disagree with the notion that the article is too long.  I was actually greatly impressed by its level of detail and focus.  While it's sometimes useful to have a rule of thumb on advisable length for an article, every individual article will have a different appropriate size.  This one seems fine to me.  --Kasreyn 00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: First of all, I really hated to do this.  The analysis of Palpatine from the viewpoint of Greek tragedy was very well-written and I enjoyed it a great deal.  I personally agree with many of the conclusions reached.
The problem is, the section was clearly, and entirely, original research.  It's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia to publish original works.  That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.  We can only make clear inferences from the matter being discussed, and even that should be kept to a minimum.  As a rule of thumb, if it isn't considered common household knowledge, it must be sourced.
24.127.170.39, please don't think I disliked your contribution.  It's simply not right for an encyclopedia.  Please, get your work published - somewhere else, that is - and then I'll be the first to support quoting your work as a source of analysis.  Thanks.  -Kasreyn 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material by 24.127.170.39 

message: "I am the federal government." - DeLay was responding to a government employee who tried to prevent him from smoking on government property. As reported in the New York Times [2003 June 13] --Thanos6 08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for DeLay quote 

message: I suggest changing the picture at the top of the article to :Image:Sidsaber.jpg as it looks much nicer and shows Sidious wielding his lightsaber and which section of starwars.com was the :Image:DSidious2.jpg image taken from? Please let us know. 
:I disagree. The Sith picture is too much of an immediant spoiler. If someone clicked random article and ended up at the Palpatine article they may not want it spoiled for them. But the Sidsaber picture immediantly gives away the spoilers without giving the user a chance to leave the page. I know it doesn't seem likely but we need to refrain from super immediant spoilers. (Is super immediant a term?) --Jedi6-(need help?) 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as well. The picture of Palpatine shrouded by his cloak is much better, and a bit more telling of the character (hiding in the shadows). The lightsaber-wielding one is a bit uncharacteristic for him. Plus, as Jedi6 pointed out, it's a major spoiler, and a super-immediant one to boot (it's a term now!). --EVula 16:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I've just stumbled upon this page by accident, but I'll add my two cents, for what it's worth. I concur with the above contributors. The hooded picture is "classical" Palpatine and more traditional for the character, rather than the lightsaber one. Perhaps as a compromise, though, the lightsaber image could be included elsewhere in the article? Cheers. --SteveO 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Photo shots, it is suggested that the Palpatine article has too many pictures as it is. Sidsaber.jpg is a promotional-type picture; it has little to no relevance to the article that surpasses those of existing photos. That said, if it were displayed a bit smaller, I'd have no problem with it replacing the second picture under the Lightsabers heading. --EVula 18:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Am I the only one who thinks we should go with the shot of Palpatine in the Senate? --maru  (talk) contribs 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palpatine1.jpg? Nah, not a big fan of it as the infobox picture. Even a different Senator/Chancellor pic wouldn't sum up the character as well as the current one. --EVula 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine head picture 

message: As I indicated in my edits, I have done some text cleanup. It is irritating to spend an hour fixing numerous grammar, spelling and usage mistakes and have someone revert them without apparently looking through the edits first. If you are concerned about a series of edits, discuss them on the article's talk page, or discuss them on my talk page. Reverting them on the grounds of "there are a lot of edits" is inconsiderate and inefficient. --Bcarlson33 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. I reverted because you removed a lot of stuff, and apparently cluelessly. (For instance, you removed a note on Palpatine's office, but not the citation that backed it up! Which at the least is sloppy, and can mislead a reader into thinking that the previous sentence is reference by that work (when it is not)). And you also reverted my good changes in addition is "inconsiderate". --maru   (talk)  contribs 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, your "apparently cluelessly" insult is not only unwarranted -  I did not insult you and don't appreciate your attitude - but it's also in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Assume good faith.  Second, what I removed was hyperbole, sloppy writing, and information not relevant to this article. I pointed that out with each edit. If you had a specific concern with a specific edit, you could have changed that edit or discussed them on the talk page. You chose the least constructive course of action, and then defended that choice with childish insults and apparently greater concern that your contributions be protected than for the article to be improved. I am happy to discuss any of my changes with you, but I expect that you act in a mature and respectful way. --Bcarlson33 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that the very first two objections I raise you ignore completely. --maru   (talk)  contribs 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are not listening. If you had a problem with that edit, you could have easily fixed it without reverting several dozen other needed edits to this over-long and convoluted article. You chose to handle that issue in a disrespectful way. You continue to show disrespect and attitude when it is not called for. If you wish to have your ideas and issues respected, you will be expected to show respect to your colleagues. --Bcarlson33 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I bother discussing your edits with you, when the first two changes I take issue with, you won't even defend, but instead choose to attack me?  And I can't revert merely a few, because you saw fit to make such a long series of individually minor edits, which make seeing what you did difficult and tedious. --maru   (talk)  contribs 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits were done so as to justify each change- something, incidentally, you complained about in your first entry in this discussion. You can't complain that you don't understand my edits and then complain that the edits should be reverted because they're documented extensively. You chose not to revert "merely a few" edits. Heck, had you asked me to fix the edit in question instead of calling me names, I would have done it myself. You will find that showing respect and civility to your colleagues will go a lot further than saying you won't "bother" to discuss changes with them. If you want your ideas respected, learn to show respect. --Bcarlson33 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text cleanup 

message: How is that a screenshot? --Cvene64 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsabre image 

message: I don't want to enter an argument or incite an argument about whether or not Palpatine actually beat Yoda, I would simply like to know if Sidious, in ROTS displayed some small degree of fear when Yoda hurled him across the room and then blocked his apparent attempted escape?
:What is the point?  Even if an agreement was reached on the topic, there's no way we could include it in the article, being original research.  -Kasreyn 09:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Unless you can point out a mention of such fear in official material (most likely it would be in a novelization) that we missed, it must stay out. --maru   (talk)  contribs 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear 

message: What do you think of taking out the "Palpatine as a writer" section and, in its place, mentioning the book titles (with links) in the "Senator Palpatine" section? That way, it cuts down on the article's length, and people can still read about the books if they want to. --Treybien 16:32 13 April 2006 (2006)
:Not much. He wrote all his life; notice that the three books cited, he began on Byss after his ressurection. Incidentally, is your username from the French phrase? --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Writer' section 

message: :Could I be allowed to keep the changes I have placed on the Darth Sidious article? I am very proud of my work and I wish to keep my improvements to Wikipedia on the site. I have become very annoyed with repeated attempts to block me from editing the site. Gort, klaatu barada nikto. Away put your weapon, I mean you no harm!
::I replied on your talk page. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of [[Darth Sidious]] article 

message: I have delisted this from good articles because it seems to mix its sources. Incidents are described from different works (books, movies) without saying what works the incidents occur in. The result is something that reads way too much like it's trying to be a biography of a real person and not a fictional character. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DelistedGA

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.starwars.com/episodeii/bts/profile/f20020124/
** In Palpatine on Sat Jun  3 22:05:17 2006, 404 Not Found
** In Palpatine on Tue Jun 13 22:38:48 2006, 404 Not Found
----maru   (talk)  contribs 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: In the novel Outbound Flight, it was said that Palpatine was taking over the galaxy to prepare for the invasion of a distant enemy (i.e. the Yuuzhan Vong).  This may have been a trick, of course, but it does give an interesting spin on Palpatine's motives.  Should this be mentioned some place in the article? Dustin 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy vey... I definitely think that verifiable bits like that should be in there, but I have no clue where it should go. The Palpatine article is already bursting at the seams... EVula 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outbound Flight 

message: I added cleanup-fiction-as-fact a few days ago, and it was removed after a few changes were made. These were steps in the right direction, but by no means were enough to fix the problem. The article is still mainly written from an in-universe perspective. As an example, note the titles added to the beginning. Going to the "Biography", this probably needs to be nearly entirely rewritten or at least highly rearranged. For one thing, it is a Plot Synopsis, not a biography. This should be brief, and not be the bulk of the article. We also need much more information on out-of-universe issues, such as influence and influences, popularity, and so on. See WP:WAF for more information about this.
Apart from content issues like these, we also need to deal with the tone. Adding things like "In (film/novel/etc), Palpatine ..." doesn't fix this. We need to consistently use an out-of-universe tone. Again, WP:WAF has a very good explanation of this. Having birth and death dates, titles, and so on are all examples of this that need to be changed. They make the article seem like it is from an encyclopedia in the Star Wars universe. But it isn't - it's in Wikipedia. --Philosophus T 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Dmoon1 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Needless to say, I disagree. And good luck getting information on fan reaction that doesn't get slapped with a  or removed as cruft. --maru   (talk)  contribs 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out-right removal of information would be bad, obviously, but s can always be answered with actual sources, which is what we should be shooting for anyway. EVula 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read WP:WAF, you will see that following it will require significant removal of material. --Philosophus T 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, WAF is only a guideline. Secondly, nowhere does it say that an article must be only "out of universe"; you seem to think that information must be either in or out-of-universe and anything that is the former must be deleted. Indeed, WAF is really recommending in and out-of-universe information to both be included in an article. For example: "Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu." --maru   (talk)  contribs 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I think that there should be no in-universe tone. In-universe tone is the main problem in Star Wars articles. Articles obviously have to have in-universe information. They just shouldn't entirely exclude out-of-universe information, and shouldn't duplicate, at length, in-universe information that is already elsewhere. Why do we need detailed plot summaries of the films here when there are already summaries for each film elsewhere? We should have much shorter summaries here, and links to the main articles. --Philosophus T 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We may need to partially duplicate content because the movie article (justifiably, and probably rightly) may not treat the subject in sufficient detail as regards a particular character or scene. For example, the Jabba article goes into more detail on Jabba's place in the plot than do the ANH or the ROTJ articles. You can sort of think of it as summary style, except in reverse to what you're proposing. --maru   (talk)  contribs 00:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction-as-fact problems and Birth/Death. 

message: I added a cite needed earlier because the article claimed that Palpatine, in this dubious "original script" was to tell Anakin that he had used that Sith technique to "create life", and created Anakin.  Someone gave a citation, but that citation isn't very good.  
It's just a blog, and it doesn't present any solid info either, referring to some "official star wars magazine", saying that it was to happen in the opera scene.  But Palpatine hadn't revealed himself to be a Sith yet in the opera scene; that didn't come until much later, so that really doesn't jive.
Anyone got a more solid source for this information?  Cheers --DarthBinky 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "some" magazine; there's only one SW magazine: Star Wars Insider. Too bad that blog didn't cite a date though. --maru   (talk)  contribs 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I figured, but the blog didn't actually mention the name, just called it the "official magazine of Star Wars", which sounded a little sketchy to me.  I'm going to put the citation needed back in there until something more solid than an (as yet) unverifiable blog post can be given.  Cheers --DarthBinky 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine, Anakin and "the original script" 

message: Many people have worked hard to prevent revelation of the Palpatine is Darth Sidious plot spoiler, without appropriate forwarning.  For this reason, there has long been a seperate Darth Sidious page with a soft redirect to Palpatine.
But, the current picture on this Palpatine page is obviously the Emperor/Darth Sidious from the original triology.  Could someone please put up a picture of Palpatine from BEFORE the plot twist is revealed... Yes, most people know the plot twist, but its the right thing to do for those who don't.Ivymike21 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palpatine/Sidious Plot Spoiler

message: I've made several changes in some words of this article because there is someone who is re-editing what I had previously wrote by saying that the emperor feigh sorrow, feigh this and that. If I check this article again and see this words again, I will block you from editing. DarthPlagueis, Friday, August 18, 2006; 16:43p.m.
:You are not a sysop; therefore, you can't block people. That aside, there's a major rewrite coming that's going to model this article after how it should be rewritten (per the star wars featured articles and fictional guidelines), which will be completely different than anything both sides have written here. — Deckiller 20:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Underminding this Character's Role 

message: I added the "Unreferenced" tag to this section because it makes many statements about Lucas using X, Y, and Z for his influences, and that Palpatine comes from a mix of X and Y words and so forth.  Claims like that should be footnoted/referenced.  Cheers --DarthBinky 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical References" 

message: Maxkelley2003 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia! You will be able to edit this page once your account is at least four days old and you have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020 

message: Kmax12649 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020 

message: Kmax12649 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020 

message: Kmax12649 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020 

message: Please be aware that there is an editor who has abused multiple accounts to change the name of the subject of this article to "Sidious" from Palpatine. The original account was User:Maxikelley62063, but they have also edited as User:Kmax12649, User:Maxkelley550, and User:Maxkelley2003. If you see this person return with another account changing "Palpatine" to "Sidious", please revert on the spot and ping me in case I didn't see it, and I'll block on the spot. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Something about the antagonist using multiple personas to wreak havoc seems somehow appropriate here. --EEMIV (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet changing the name to "Sidious" 

message: I threw a Critical reaction section header into this addition by User:Rosvel92. However, at passing glance, this seems like disproportionate coverage of folks' angst about Rise of Skywalker. The word fan also appears almost 20 times, which is an orange flag that maybe this isn't all so much critical response to Palpatine so much critical summation of fans' response to Palpatine. But, in light of the breadth of content in which the character appears, all these paragraphs are just overkill attempts to be exhaustive rather than merely compelling. We also don't need 4, 5, 6+ refs for individual assertions. I'm just a casual observer of this page, but it might be worth considering reverting the addition and revising it in draft space. --EEMIV (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Rosvel92 has been notorious for inserting excessive and unnecessary paragraphs about fan opinions into Star Wars-related articles, and has been reverted on a number of occasions by more than one editor/admin. Most of the information on fan responses to Rise of Skywalker in this article they had also attempted to use in the Plot hole and List of retroactive continuities articles, if not more. If any of the included information is actually warranted, then it should amount to little more than a few sentences of prose at most. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Like I said, just a casual observer. I don't mind seeing that wall of text removed from the Holocron. --EEMIV (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section header, but needs a trim 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Darth Sideous and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Darth Sideous until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Darth Sideous" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: in the phrase "Initially credited as the Emperor in the orignal trilogy films", the word 'original' is spelled wrong. also i don't want to create an account lmao 2A02:C7E:321A:1000:185E:8BA9:C564:8A4A (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks!  Jip Orlando (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  insignificant typo