Talk:Palpatine/Archive1

Fused with Darth Sidious. Please don't revert. I put a lot of work into it. If you want to edit, go ahead. It needs editing, though please don't destory the concept. KFan II 21:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think these two articles should be kept separate. Please wait until you have other people's opinions on this proposal. – Aidje talk 22:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed; these should be seperate articles. If they must be combined, I recommend keeping them under Palpatine, not his Darth pseudonym. JSarek
 * Keep these separate per Aidje's reasons. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha!
Hello. I believe this page has to be mass edited due to the template on the page. I have found that my article - the one that fuses Palpatine and Sidious - is the only option. Sorry! KFan II 23:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. Its gonna be called "Darth Sidious", no hard feelings there.
 * You cannot do that without consensus on an issue this large. You have already been outvoted KFan. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Was it you, KFan, that anonymously changed this entire article into a redirect even after that same edit had previously been reverted by a sysop? If so, that was very foolish of you, and I have a feeling you're not winning any friends. As Riff said, you've already been outvoted. It doesn't do you any good to act like we're not here or like we can't do anything. – Aidje talk 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, cleanup never means merge&mdash;there's a different tag for that. – Aidje talk 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why was this merged?
Unless there was a new vote that I missed, KFan's edit needs to be changed. I'm especially miffed personally, as I spent quite some time overhauling the Palpatine page, whereas the Sidious page deserves a We're Doomed! tag. Of course, that's not much justification itself, but I add it to remind KFan of people he's annoying. --GenkiNeko 14:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the Sidious page deserves a doom tag because of stylistic and relevance issues. As for the separation, I am personally for the concept of two pages. The democratic process (which we're at least attempting here) should not be subverted simply because one user dissents. We've had this talk for a while now. More people that have contributed to talk appear to want them separate, yet the individual articles are continuously destroyed. It's abuse of editorial power. I could go onto wikipedia right now and delete the article on, say, Constantinople[], alleging that is now Istanbul. But common courtesy and respect for the concept of Wikipedia as a valid project prohibits me from doing so without first nominating Constantinople for deletion and suggesting a merge, after which a vote follows and I can only proceed if the vote indicates that merging is what people (read: Not Just Me) want. If it does not, I should respect the arguments of people that disagree with me and acknowledge, perhaps, that there are good reasons for keeping Constantinople and Istanbul apart (though they are the same city, they are defined by different historical periods). That these articles keep being merged is abuse of power and completely violates the premise I've set, which is, I believe, somewhat indicative of the will of many wikipedians. Murphy 14:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

A Final Vote on Combination
Refer to Talk:Darth Sidious to read the info on the final vote to end this dispute over combination of articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles of Address
The discussion from Darth Sidious/TAlk continues here. "His Imperial Majesty Emperor Palpatine I" is just outrageous! The Emperor was never shown to style himself in any of these manners, so there is no reason for us to use them. --SparqMan 21:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the clone-troopers in ROTS refer to him as "Your Majesty". It occurs in the Mustafar rescue scene.--Eion 21:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they called him "Your Majesty", but not "Your Imperial Majesty Emperor Palpatine I". I'm with Sparqman on this one.  At the very least it is rediculous to add the "I" after his title since there was never a Palpatine II. SeanR 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the situation, such an extensive (but far more accurate) title would seem out of place. Additionally, they had already spent a great deal of time with him on the flight over. When referring to an Emperor the first time, you should do so as, "Your Imperial Majesty", but in further instances, it is normally acceptable to refer to him as "Your Majesty." This is perfectly acceptable conjecture. I too believe that "the first" should not be listed as part of his title, both because there was never a second emperor, and also because Palpatine intended to rule for all eternity (As stated in DE.)--Eion 23:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "His Imperial Majest Emperor Palpatine I" is any less ridiculous than any other title that Palpatine did not explicitly style himself with. I could care less what seems conjecturally logical based on stylings of our own government leaders or what other canonical, source-supported titles may be. --SparqMan 23:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We're just going to have to disagree on this one. Palpatine has never shown a genuine relectance with grandious titles (Why should he, he's a Sith). He's called "Your Majesty", He's and Emperor, "Your Majesty" is a short referal for "Your Imperial Majesty." It makes perfect sense to me, given the situation, that a clone-trooper would not use the full title, but makes no sense for Palpatine not to have the use of the title. GL could have given him any style he pleased, but he chose "Your Majesty" for the film, so I think the artist's intent is very clearly shown there.--Eion 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * However, I'm sure someone, somewhere, can find some quotation from a book of the EU that refers to Emperor Palptaine as an "Imperial Majesty," and if there isn't out there yet, I'm sure it'll spring up in the post ROTS enviroment.--Eion 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Then the only required reference should be his last, as in Wikipedia. So, the start of the article should integrate the styling, as in, "His Majesty the Emperor Palpatine, (84 BBY - 4 ABY, spirit destroyed 11 ABY), also known as Darth Sidious, played a central role in the Galactic Civil War as the founder and leader of the Galactic Empire." --SparqMan 00:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not problem with this. The other styles have little oficiality, though they are resonable, they are far less so than his Imperial style. Others may wish to weigh in, however.--Eion 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to "His Imperial Majesty" as a title, but I strongly object to putting the "I" or "The First" after his name. --SeanR 00:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)