Talk:Anakin Skywalker/Legends

Archives: 1 2 3

More pic removal
I believe that several sections of the Anakin article are rather image-heavy. Now, for continuity's sake, at least one image per section/subsection etc. is just fine, but some of these sections have waaaay too many images. If others are in agreement, then may I suggest some images to be removed? If they are approved, I don't mind doing the moving/adjusting work myself, I don't mind at all, it's just that I'm not particularly keen on going overboard image-wise. -Solus 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've been saying this for some time. A good rule of thumb: No more than 2 pics should be appear on a "screen" at a time. QuentinGeorge 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a pretty good rule. Never thought of that. Um, do any object to me showing the pics I think need to be removed? -Solus 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to the removal of pictures. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't. There such thing as image overkill - the images should serve the article, not vice-versa. .  .  .  .  03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, why do you object? Remember, this is an article. Text is the main focus of it. Pictures are merely used to support that text. If they distract from the article itself, they should be removed. QuentinGeorge 03:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, if you want to see all of the pictures, you can look in the gallery. One image I think can go is Image:Ansion.jpg as you can hardly even see him in it.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ax it. .  .  .  .  04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All right. I'm sorry, Jack, but I am going to put up several pictures I think can be removed. We can discuss them here.

I know I'm being harsh here, but that's what discussion's for, right? -Solus 12:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I objected is because there's no rule that says only a certain amount of pictures can be put in a single section. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with taking out 3, 4, and 7.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 16:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know there's no limit to how many images you can insert per section. It, in all honesty, would be a silly rule. But for aesthetics' sake, some of the pics should be removed. It just doesn't look good when there are too many images. Do any have any objections to taking out images 3, 4, and 7? -Solus 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 19:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm, for 7, I would prefer replacement - surely there's a good image of Vader in the SOTME graphic novel? .  .  .  .  20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So I don't count as an objection? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4dot: I don't have the SOTME comic, so I wouldn't know. Nebulax: Of course your objection counts. I just don't know what you object to, specifically. What do you object to and why? Specifically, which images do you not want removed? I am not being facetious or sarcastic, I promise. I've read a lot of Talk pages and I respect you and your opinions. The only thing is you have not told us why you, personally, do not want certain images removed. -Solus 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think any images should be removed because they contribute to the article. They put the text into visual intereptations. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Seeing things that way, I understand why images 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 should not be removed: they give insight to the article that helps give the reader a visual and thus support the article. That makes sense. However, Image 3 is referenced in the article in the picture below it: in Image 3 it shows Anakin fighting Dooku using Form IV. In the next article image it shows Anakin who has won against Dooku using Form IV. Same fight, two different 'angles' (if you will) of it, right next to each other. It is redundant. My reason for getting rid of Image 3 instead of the other one is because the other one shows Anakin's mastery of Form VI because he is standing over Dooku's corpse: it shows the same thing as Image 3, except in greater detail. Image 9 is not in the Bio, but in physical appearance, and a Kentucky-fried Anakin is shown in the next image, in the same section. Also, grilled Ani is already shown in Duel on Mustafar and Aftermath. What I would do is get rid of crispy Anakin and move up the other burned-up Anakin, making it more spaced out and less cluttered. My reason for axing Image 8, is, not so much to get rid of it, but unless I move the 'Vader Redemption' pic up, which would not match the text, it does not fit in the section and looks sloppy. My reason for getting rid of Image 10 is, though it is one of my favorite pics, it crowds the Appearances section. The Infinities Vader looked better there, and Image 10 fits nowhere else. These are my reasons. I hope you understand why. Thank you for giving me a chance to see it from your point of view, I hope you can understand mine. -Solus 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyborg&mdash;infobox mention?
Okay, cyborg isn't a species. But after the Duel on Mustafar, Vader was, as Obi-Wan said, half man and half machine. Considering this, I believe it should be mentioned in the "Species" field of the infobox as it had been for a long time (without any issues, might I add, until now). Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Alright... here goes: "He is a borg who died last night. You know the term, I'm sure&hellip;. Half Human&hellip; half mechanical droid."
 * I can totally see where you're coming from. I just think that the fact that he's a cyborg doesn't change the fact that he's still Human. It's not like his brain was mechanized. --Imp 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it does still say that he's human. I always liked the fact that the infobox would tell you from the get-go they they're a cyborg. .  .  .  .  21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But how will you define cyborg? At what degree of mechanization do we add (cyborg) to someone's infobox? --Imp 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Imp, as Thefourdot said, Human is still there, and cyborg would be in paratheses. No one ever said that he wasn't Human. As for defining cyborg: When a being has a mechanical part in place of regular flesh. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So Luke Skywalker is a cyborg, then? --Imp 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. .  .  .  .  21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Oh well, I'll let it slide for now. On the large-scale cyborgs (not Luke). --Imp 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then let's here your definition of cyborg. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't just make concessions like "large scale" you either have to have it or you don't. .  .  .  .  21:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we don't have it. Cyborg is not a species. As long as it's mentioned in the article (preferably in the opening paragraphs) it's fine. Consensus, anyone? - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As said, cyborg is not a species, but it deserves to be mentioned in the infobox. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's two definitions of "cyborg", per the cyborg article. One referring to any person with a mechanized part, and the other referring to individuals who are "half-organic half-droid". I suppose I disagree with the first definition, and would like to see specific proof for it. =) --Imp 21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see proof against it. At what point do you say "Oh no, he's more this than that. This is this. This is not something else. This is this." It's going to get violent, so let's try and sort this out quick-sharpish. .  .  .  .  21:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

- "Pera"

From Marvel Star Wars 7: New Planets, New Perils. --Imp 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And at what point do we say that this is half a man, or this is 51% so it's not a cyborg. I'm sorry, it's too intangible for us to be able to keep it in check. .  .  .  .  22:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When it's evident that the individual in question relies on mechanized parts for multiple body functions. --Imp 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Anakin could use the Force to hover around...it's still not enough. .  .  .  .  22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I looked it up on the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the definition for cyborg there is simply "a bionic human". It doesn't say something like "to be a cyborg, you must be half man and half robot". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And just for fun, Marvel is S-Canon. .  .  .  .  00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, cyborg's where I wanted to be, so my goal of this topic has been achieved. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, people regularly use the term "half" very imprecisely, sometimes even as a synonym of "partly." jSarek 04:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Marvel is C-canon. 2) OOU definitions don't count. So far, you two haven't been able to cough up any IU proof. --Imp 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What the Hell? (Darth Vader's regency)
I'm a bit concerned by the archiving of current discussions. Actually, I'm very concerned. Anyway, Jack, we'll continue the Vader as Regent debate here. . .  .  .  06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)