Forum:CT Archive/Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader merger

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

As brought up in Forum:I'm going to get killed for this . . ., merging Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader may be desirable; that link has more information. This is the vote on that situation.

Merge Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader

 * 1) Havac 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) QuentinGeorge 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "More encyclopedic" .  .  .  .  02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this would be best. Cyberstrike2000x 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Bub 03:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Ozzel 04:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Few should be shocked by this. jSarek 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) And I think it should all be at Anakin Skywalker, personally &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That would be the best place to put a merged article, as it's the name he reclaimed at the end of his life. (Finally, Jaymach and I agree on an article title!  8) ) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Imp 06:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 09:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Red Head Rider 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Havac and QuentinGeorge Cull Tremayne 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Nobody else has two articles and neither should he. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments not counted as votes

 * Don't be movie purists! 71.37.16.162 03:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader separate
"Hit any key to continue" 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Alex, you've been looking too long at your chemistry homework...)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Adamwankenobi 01:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I was opposed to this the first seventeen times it came up... -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 02:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Polifemo (talk to me) 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep seperate. They are treated that way in the films. -Fnlayson 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Ditto Wswordsmen 3:55: 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) NO! IT'S NOT TRUE! Enochf 05:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) this isn't the same as sidious/palpatine. they're treated seperately in the films, they are, essentially, two different people. Tahiri Veila 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Nope - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Roron Corobb
 * 11) No. They fit so well seperate. True, we merged Palpatine/Sidious, but we shouldn't do this. It's different. Chack Jadson 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) NO! Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Divinity 01:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) After much consideration, no. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) I think this merits an exception. Think of how ludicrously huge and cumbersome a merged article would be.--Valin Kenobi 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Nope. As Yoda said, "The boy you trained, gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader." - JMAS 20:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) *And Yoda was proven wrong by Luke. Havac 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) **And enyclopedias do not look at things in a spiritual fashion. .  .  .  .  23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) This is part of our history and heritage, and should be left that way. - Sikon 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 20)  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) It's been discussed numerous times. No merge, no merge. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) They're separate. Damn, their physical and mental properties are so different....82 AirborneTac-Com

Comments

 * Yes, yes, yes, GOD Yes! This should have been done when we merged Sidious/Palpatine. If the New Essential Guide to Characters can have one Skywalker/Vader entry, so can we. QuentinGeorge 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see the light now. We are an encyclopedia, we shouldn't make exceptions like this. .  .  .  .  02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Databank has separate entries for Anakin and Vader. Adamwankenobi 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "We are not the Databank". And the Databank is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia. .  .  .  .  03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but we're not the New Essential Guide to Characters either. I mentioned the Databank simply to give another example of how official sources have treated the Anakin/Vader issue. Adamwankenobi 03:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The databank also has separate entries for Palpatine and Sidious. -- Ozzel 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but we are an encyclopedia. And encyclopedias don't make distinctions - a person is a person, and gets one article. .  .  .  .  04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ozzel: I know. But the point was that we shouldn't have to be the New Essential Guide to Characters or the Databank. We should make decisions based on consensus, like we did for Palpatine. I was playing Devil's Advocate mentioning the Databank. Adamwankenobi 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could have the article at "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader", or maybe a soft-redirect. .  .  .  .  06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's merge, is it going to be under Anakin Skywalker or Darth Vader? Divinity 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anakin Skywalker, I would think. It's the name he died under. Havac 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really question this "they are treated separately in the films" argument? How are they treated any more "separately" to Darth Sidious/Palpatine? QuentinGeorge 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Obi-Wan and Yoda certainly think that he's changed -- but Luke treats them as one and the same, and he's ultimately proven right. Havac 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been through this more than multiple times. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Who's this "we"? I've always found the arguments unconvincing. The whole point of the saga is that they are the same - that's how Luke is able to redeem him. QuentinGeorge 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, one could view splitting the articles up as fanon. It's still the same person even if he's a Sith cyborg. --Imp 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Anakin Skywalker, I would think. It's the name he died under". Officially, surely he was still known as Darth Vader. Only Luke would refer to him as Anakin at this point. And if you're arguing against separate articles, having the article at the name he was known by before his fall would be just as "bad" - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it would be encyclopedic. He became Anakin Skywalker again when he picked up Palpatine and threw him down the shaft. Therefore, Skywalker it should be. .  .  .  .  22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Darth Vader" was a Sith name and Sith title given to him. By rejecting the Sith, he rejected that name. If he had lived beyond when he did, he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as Vader -- he reclaimed his former name. Havac 02:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's nowhere near completion yet, but have a look at this. .  .  .  .  01:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! That's a long article. 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished intergrating both of the articles yet, but I've done a patch job of putting both of the biographies together. It will be long, but all complaints really fall into insignificance against this - "it's encyclopedic". .  .  .  .  06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that this has been discussed numerous times, I continue my argument from the past attempts: Anakin and Vader were emotionally two different people. Palpatine and Sidious weren't emotionally two different people. Palpatine was Sidious's public face. The same cannot be said of Anakin and Vader. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, we should have two George Lucas articles - one for pre-ROTJ and one for post-ROTJ - clearly two emotionally different people. .  .  .  .  00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL – 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not funny. I'm talking about a major emotion change&mdash;a Galaxy-wide emotional change, if you will. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Encyclopedias don't look at things in an emotional way - cold hard facts is what they present, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't we supposed to be just like a real encyclopedia, only pretending that SW is real for the most part? .  .  .  .  00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not really an encyclopedia, just like the Databank isn't. I know I've said we are in the past, but we're only an encyclopedia in the fact that we have the suffix of "-pedia" in our name. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Emotional change" really isn't a solid basis for judgement. Jacen had a pretty danged huge emotional change after Traitor -- does that warrant a new article? That's far too unstable and subjective to form proper criteria. Havac 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That is something far to intangible to warrant a seperate article. .  .  .  .  01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! Did Jacen change his name and adopt a wholesale change of identity after Traitor? Of course not. Vader changed his name, allegiance, physical appearance, and personality. Palpatine was Sidious all along (well, as far as the movies are concerned.) To Nebulax you listen.Valin Kenobi 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? Lumiya changed her physical appearance, mentality, name, hell, from a certain point of view she changed her allegiance, so by that line of thought, there should be a Shira Brie article. I'll say it again: Encyclopedias present cold hard facts. None of this "Emotional change" junk. Biologically, scientifically, they are the same person, therefore - one article. I'm yet to see an arguement that opposes the merge that's actually viable. .  .  .  .  08:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A change of name? So we need separate articles on Lumpawarrump and Lumpawaroo now? Change of allegiance? So we need Tycho Celchu (Imperial) and Tycho Celchu (Rebel) now? Change of physical appearance? So we need Anakin Skywalker (both arms) and Anakin Skywalker (prosthetic arm) now? Change of personality? So we need Jacen Solo (peacenik) and Jacen Solo (hardass)? Or must it meet two of the above criteria? Three? Or is this all a smokescreen to hide the fact that Vader should just be a special exception? Because if that's what you think, fine, that's what you think. But if you think that something as absurd, unquantifiable, and subjective as "changing" (or God forbid, "being two different people" which Luke Skywalker conclusively disproved) is proper encyclopedic criteria for an article being split, I'm going to say (and pleas don't take this wrong, as I'm not trying to make this personal and I'm not in the least angry, just tired and uninterested in sugarcoating) you're wrong and you don't have a leg to stand on. Ladies and gentlemen, just like a Wookiee living on Endor, it does not make sense. Havac 08:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nail. Hit. On Head. .  .  .  .  08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)