Forum:CT Archive/We should hold a consensus for Anakin and Vader's articles to be split up again!

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

WHO'S WITH ME!? Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 22:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I don't like it either, but the the community has spoken, and I accept it.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Same with me. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, the results are in. Wookieepedia is something of a democracy, and the voters chose. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What, you want to go against policy? Go ahead. Make my day. .  .  .  .  02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The vote count was roughly even. Consistent policy swayed things to merging them. -Fnlayson 16:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I'm against this existing merge, I would avoid any battles relating to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll try again a year later. -- SFH 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We could go for a two-thirds majority like Congress, but I'll wait. 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we could go for, you know, canon&hellip; You may believe the two to be different, but they are the same person. --Imp 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just leave it. They're merged; end of - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was expected that such a CT thread would pop up, and in fact, I'm all for it because maybe we'll reach consensus this time. Whatever it will be. I just didn't expect such... questionable execution of the resplit thread, if you know what I mean. - Sikon 18:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is junk. We only just had the vote to merge them. .  .  .  .  20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus two weeks ago&mdash;why would there be now? The only thing this CT will accomplish is another "No consensus, merge by default." --Imp 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean Junk Four dot? seperateing the artical is the way to go. they were big enough on there own. and seperation of sucb articals would allso prevent large spoiler issues. with the Anakin/Vader thing if you know what i mean Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fresh from the main page: Warning: This wiki contains spoilers. Read at your own risk.  .  .  .  .  21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who doesn't know Anakin and Vader are the same shouldn't be allowed near a Star Wars website. Next you'll be suggesting we add spoiler tags to the Battle of Yavin article for people who don't know Luke blew up the Death Star. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Watch out for Palpatine being Sidious! .  .  .  .  21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ay dios mio... How about no. No more of this silliness. I'm tired of it. I'm just glad it's settled, even if I did prefer the separate articles to begin with. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not let this man that has stood for 23 years be split in two.
 * If he does, you must realize there isn't enough consensus to protect him from being merged.

Canderous Ordo 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fairly sixk of Fourdot treating everyone like imbeciles. A merge may not happen again, for all we know some people might have been away on holiday. But as it is, lets leave it for now. Jasca Ducato 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fairly sixk of Fourdot treating everyone like imbeciles. Stop giving me ammunition, then. .  .  .  .  22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop giving me ammunition, then. That really doesn't help you, Fourdot. If anything, that actually hurts you. -- SFH 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to please. .  .  .  .  22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some who deserve to be bombarded by sarcasm and condescending remarks. I'm waiting to see if those pricks at ED add him to their Wookieepedia entry. I agree that the article should be left alone.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Add who? .  .  .  .  22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this thread arose from the fact that there seems to be some unhappiness with the result of the last CT, let's start again, shall we?
 * Fourdot, you don't have to act like an arse just because you've got someone who doesn't agree with you. I haven't insulted you once, although i could very easily. So why don't you just stop! Jasca Ducato 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * act like an arse, I haven't insulted you once. Well, you've just done the job for me. You can stop whinging, and we can get back to business. .  .  .  .  03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Lord. Can we have a consensus without fighting, please? Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep them merged

 * 1) Imp 15:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -Solus 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, this is getting stupid. Just leave the guy alone! - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Kuralyov 16:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I didn't vote for the merge, but I won't vote for a split now. If a vote like this is held again, I'm going to either abstain or vote for whatever state the articles are in at the time. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I voted against the merge in the first place. But now I'm tired of this. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) QuentinGeorge 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC) - Let's not touch these ever again.
 * 5) One man, one article. -- Ozzel 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  Yoshi  626  20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7)  Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Lonnyd 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC) - Can't believe I forgot to vote last time.
 * 9) Weak support. --Azizlight 21:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) We only just did this!  .  .  .  .  21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Not if having 14 or 15 votes here would make any difference, but if the community decided that the articles should be merged, you should accept it. We don't ask you to change your opinion; just accept that the majority wants it merged. There is no sense in restarting a dispute only a short time after it was settled. If we were six or seven months ahead of this, the article would have probably gone throught many changes in structure, quantity of info, etc. that might be worthy of a rediscussion. - TopAce 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12)  - breathesgelatin Talk 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Trip 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support. I'm telling you, we should have just waited a year, then tried again. -- SFH 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Not this again.– 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Riffsyphon1024 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Support. Though I was a bit uneasy about the way the last CT ended and am glad to see a fresh one in progress, I still strongly support the merging of these two articles. jSarek 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) You know, I thought this revote was a horrible idea, but I see that we're actually getting a strong consensus this time. Hallelujah! Havac 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Maybe with an overwhelming consensus certain people will just shut up about this and move on with their lives. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Separate them

 * 1)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Jasca Ducato 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  Polifemo (talk to me) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Morin  boy15  20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Either way, the issue will remain. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)[[Image:dasymbol.gif|20px]]
 * 7) vader is vader and anakin is one person, they both have different personaties and vader barly has little infomation Groode hdoge 20:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree. -- Ol' Ben My Chambers 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments (continued)
If Vader and Anakin are separated, should we split Revan into Revan, Darth Revan and Revan (redeemed)? How about Grievous and Qymaen jai Sheelal? Cade Skywalker and Cade Skywalker (post-traumatic stress)? --Imp 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Imp. I'm no debatist, but having the same vote every week or so is just silly. Also, just for practical purposes, it would be extremely messy to tear it in two. The article has them so intwined once you got out of the biography, you'd be splitting hairs to see which article gets what, because having them both have the same thing is redundant. But that's just me. -Solus 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. We'd just revert to the previous version. That would replace all the old information. Jasca Ducato 15:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, removing the past two weeks of work just to split up the article is really in Wookieepedia's best interests. --Imp 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really care either way, but this is ridiculous. Having vote after vote for something that's clearly never going to have a consensus is setting a dangerous precedent and is on the road to encouraging edit wars. Kuralyov 16:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of the whining. And the side that wants them split is whining the loudest. Therefore I will vote in favor of keeping them merged from now until the end of time. I'm ashamed to have voted to keep them split in the first place, because it taints me with being associated with the whiners. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These people are worse that OOT Purists. Vocal minority. And we only just had this. I would have at least thought that it should wait a while. But no...some people do not understand the concept of patience. .  .  .  .  22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And some people don't know how to be polite. Thefourdot, stop trying to make enemies already. Let people express their opinions and don't argue with them. I made the same mistake. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And Darth Culator, only two people are really "whining" about it, and going by that, so is everyone who want them to remain merged. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, those who want a split are openly defying policy and a decsision that was made only recently. Ergo, whining. .  .  .  .  23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That vote wasn't a vote for a new policy. It was a vote to merge two articles. And if you thought that that vote or even this one will end it, then you're wrong, Thefourdot. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't. I had hoped that some of you would see sense, and it appears some have, but there will always be debate on this subject. Having two articles was a breach of policy, so the old CT was to revert to policy. But you yourself said that you should wait a few months before starting this up again. You'll forgive me, but this has been less than a month, has it not? .  .  .  .  23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who started it again, Thefourdot. I merely added my opinion in the form of a vote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just end this. We'll probably be voting on this very same issue again in a few months time anyway.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just an observation: The ones who voted to split the article are not the ones resorting to namecalling and/or acting condescending.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't see the absurd hyperbole on the Talk:Anakin Skywalker page then. QuentinGeorge 05:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. However, I was referring to this forum, and not the Anakin Skywalker talk page. I'm well aware of what's going on over there, and I'm keeping an eye on it.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Title" template could also be used to solve the TIE problem. .  .  .  .  23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retitle it "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader"
As I proposed last night, what about retitling it to at least show the significance of the two aspects of the character (and I seem to remember reading somewhere that split Anakin/Vader images were being debated as well). Fourdot, you seemed more lenient towards this idea, barring your dislike of making any exceptions to the rules -but there are exceptions to every rule, and rules once made can be broken. Rather than having what should be at best a 'spirited discussion' dissolve into adolescent name-calling (regardless of the ages we really are), I'd like to put forth this idea as an attempt to soothe some of the ire over the situation.Tocneppil 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, it could pacify some of the vocal minority that has an aversion to policy and proper execution. On the other hand, "slash" article titles may begin to pop up all over the place, such as "Palpatine/Darth Sidious", and "Dooku/Darth Tyrannus". So I'm neutral on this issue. .  .  .  .  03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from, but I'd like to point out all this hue and cry is surrounding Anakin/Vader at this point. I don't think we would start a 'slippery slope' over dual titles for characters with this exception, and if that did occur, then perhaps it could be left to the discretion of the Administrators.Tocneppil 04:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But my problem is that if you make one exception, you always have to be prepared to make several more. People would see "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader", and then think that that was suitable. Then we would have propositions for the Palpatine and Dooku examples I mentioned before. And, to be honest, we can't say no to that without "them" citing "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader" as an exception. And all we can say is "Well...we made an exception...because...we just had to." It's not going to gel well. .  .  .  .  04:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but if we word it so that it reads as to why "Anakin/Vader" is the exception (something similar to how I mentioned last night that "Anakin/Vader" were distinct aspects of the character as opposed to say, "Sidious/Palpatine" being aliases) and place that up front, then readers could see that as a logical decision and not an arbitrary one.Tocneppil 04:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True enough. I still don't like it, and I still think that it's a dangerous call, but I'm not going to oppose it. .  .  .  .  04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm against it. It goes against our established policy. Kuralyov 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was only proposing it as an alternative to the increasing heat surrounding the desire to see the article split. I don't mind debating with Fourdot, Jack, et al. but I don't like it when it degenerates to the level of unclever insults. Normally I just shake my head, preferring 'not to get involved', but Jack is trying to make an effort at change in his attitude, and I think that Fourdot seems to know what he is talking about in regards to consistant encyclopedic formatting, and I'd hate to see him go the way of the likes of Ugluk and others who came to this site out of a love for the STAR WARS franchise. I know debate is important, and that arguments happen, but I wanted to point out what I thought was a viable third alternative. Yes its an exception, but perhaps its a necessary one?Tocneppil 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely opposed to this idea. It's ridiculous. QuentinGeorge 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it would only make Darth Vader a subpage of Anakin Skywalker. -- Ozzel 05:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, titling it "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader" shows more parity between both identities than titling the article "Anakin Skywalker(Darth Vader)". Having pics of both Anakin and Vader side-by-side in the image box would also aid in showing the equality of each aspect of the character.Tocneppil 06:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He means made a subpage by the software. A slash in an article title tells the Wiki software that the page is a subpage of whatever comes before the slash (a problem we're also having with various TIEs right now, like the TIE/ln starfighter). jSarek 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thank you for that information. . . I supposed the same goes for \ as well, eh?Tocneppil 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having never used a backslash in an article title, I really can't say, though I would suspect the software does use them for something. jSarek 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, how about "Anakin Skywalker - Darth Vader" then?Tocneppil 07:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Grammatically wrong. --Imp 12:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could keep the article at "Anakin Skywalker", but use the title template to make the title appear as "Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader)". We could even do this for the other Darths too. Not saying it's a great idea, but just a suggestion. --Azizlight 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

 * It might be an idea to create a "dual-photo" infobox like they use on some Memory Alpha articles.

Like here. QuentinGeorge 07:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC) How about this then? I hard-coded it with the info in so we can see what it looks like, but it shouldn't be hard to change the template. We'd have to make the second photo and caption optional though, obviously. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually a pretty good idea, independent of how this CT goes. jSarek 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. It would allow us to keep a single article, yet the infobox can have "Anakin" (ie, young, Ep3 Anakin) and the iconic "Darth Vader", helmeted cyborg. QuentinGeorge 07:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It can also give us "Luke Skywalker, Farmboy," and "Luke Skywalker, Jedi"; "Boba Fett, Preteen Clone" and "Boba Fett, Badass Armored Guy"; and "Obi Wan Kenobi, Ewan McGregor" and "Obi-Wan Kenobi, Alec Guinness." Could go a long way toward alleviating some of the nastier infobox pic wars. jSarek 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it, especially if I don't have to suffer through as many infobox pic wars.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it.Tocneppil 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, can someone familiar with the infobox coding create a test one for us? Go for the Jedi one, so we can see the Darth Vader example working. :) QuentinGeorge 08:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice, it's got my vote. Though I can imagine people going nuts with it and trying to add one to every article, which might become a bad thing. --Azizlight 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible to put two images in the image field, lining them up next to each other? --Imp 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What, side by side? They'd have to be pretty small to fit them both in a 250px infobox. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 125px. ;) --Imp 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It'd work easy though, without modifying the source. See below right for an example. But it looks rubbish if the pictures are different heights. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There, I've made the template so that it accepts the second image and caption as parameters. It's still living as a subpage if anyone wants to mess around with it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First option is better. QuentinGeorge 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eww, not a fan of the stacked images. I do like the first option, but I too am worried about it being used on every article. Where would we draw the line? -- Ozzel 20:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it'd have to be the first one. I guess we'd have to limit it to where there are very clear differences between the two pictures but both are equally associated with the character like Ewan's Obi-Wan and Alec's Obi-Wan or normal looking Senator Palpatine and evil, wrinkly Emperor Palpatine. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...I like it (first option). .  .  .  .  20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First option. However, the current Anakin image and the former Darth Vader main image would have to be used. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way: I meant putting the two images side-by-side, not stacked on top of eachother. --Imp 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we have to use the former pics? These two are at the same rough size, in terms of content and framing, so they're (almost) the perfect antithesis. .  .  .  .  21:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fourdot, don't take his bait. Keep it at the Anakin talk page. --Imp 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "...as you wish, milord. Carry on." .  .  .  .  21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that Jack was simply stating a preference for full-body shots over simple head-shots -they allow the viewer to see all of the character's costume, and the poses can bring a certain drama and 'flair' to the character that is lost with head-shots.Tocneppil 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know he was&mdash;but this CT is not the place for that discussion. Focus on the issue at hand, don't drag conflicts from elsewhere into this discussion. --Imp 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I didn't realise that a conflict would arise.Tocneppil 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Knowing Fourdot and Nebulax, I'd say a conflict would most definitely arise&mdash;headshots versus full-body shots is an argument they are heavily involved in. But I digress. Would it be possible to see an infobox with the two images side-by-side? =) --Imp 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And actually look good? Probably not. -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Though I can imagine people going nuts with it and trying to add one to every article, which might become a bad thing." Why would it be a bad thing? Currently, a number of articles are having problems with too many floating images causing the article to format oddly at certain resolutions, and/or arguments about which infobox picture is best. Given that this would alleviate both problems, I think we could stand to have this being the standard (where applicable, of course). Anyway, I'm in favor of the first option, not the second, unless the second can be greatly improved upon somehow. jSarek 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In favor of option one, although I'd like to see what it would look like with both pictures stacked on the top instead of one hanging off the bottom like that. Havac 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like this? .  .  .  .  00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost. It should preserve the "Anakin Skywalker" name beneath Anakin's pic and the "Darth Vader" label beneath that, I think, to distinguish the two pics. Havac 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this, then? It might actually work better, cause they could share the same caption if there was no name change between the pictures by just filling in the first and leaving the second blank. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two infoboxes
...screw up the hide button, because it was coded with the assumption that only one infobox will be used in any article. Two photos in one infobox do make sense, though. - Sikon 09:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that can be fixed though, and the hide button worked fine on the one with the second picture at the bottom. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, didn't read properly. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that having two infoboxes will do anything to placate detractors. Nor will it serve the article well. .  .  .  .  10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker

 * 1) .  .  .  .  09:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) He did die as Anakin Skywalker. Jasca Ducato 11:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) jSarek 11:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  Yoshi  626  12:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) -Solus 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two picture infobox format
Okay, it looks like there's concensus for adding a second image to the infobox rather than having two infoboxes so I thought we'd get a proper vote going on whether to add the second image to the top or the bottom before we go and change the template. Just to remind everyone of the options:

Option 1

 * 1) KEJ 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. jSarek 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is

 * 1) I know this is probably a losing battle for me, but oh, well. -Solus 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Sikon 15:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Imp 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Ugly...bad. Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments
The dual image infobox is a good idea. It works well on the ST wiki. Regardless which option will be chosen here, you do of course realize that this type of infobox should also be used in other similar articles, such as Palpatine. Perhaps, the dual image infobox should be made the standard for characters whose appearance has changed drastically for whatever reasons - like Greivous and Lumiya. KEJ 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm not alone! -Solus 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, he thinks it's a good idea; you're voting against. Am I missing something? jSarek 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)