Talk:Dark Lord of the Sith/Legends

Why has Kressh been removed? The ending of Fall of the Sith Empire heavily implies that he rules the Sith Empire after Naga Sadow's exile, hence having the title. QuentinGeorge 06:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I re-added him. --Imperialles 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tradition of the title
Wow, that's BS considering Kaan made most of the Sith in the Brotherhood Dark Lord's. Guess the Sourcebook is wrong. *Gasp*
 * Power of the Jedi sourcebook, among other sources, clearly states that the tradition of a sole Dark Lord of the Sith ended with Kaan. QuentinGeorge 05:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Additionally (if any more proof is needed) various sources refer to both Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus as Dark Lord of the Sith. QuentinGeorge 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally Leeland Chee has stated "Kaan was the last Dark Lord of the Sith who ruled alone. QuentinGeorge 05:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is far simpler. Kaan simply ruled alone at first, and made the others Dark Lords only after some time.Gorthuar 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It means that after Kaan, there were two Dark Lords of the Sith–a Master and an Apprentice. Michaeldsuarez 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Locked
Can this be unlocked now? I think it's been long enough. MarcK 04:26, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs to be unlocked, so that Darth Ruin can be added prior to Kaan.

Dubious Entries
A few dubious entries have been added in the last edits. I thought we'd decided that Traya, Sion and Nihilius were never bearers of the title? Additonally, I don't think Carnor Jax or Flint had the title (I can't be sure) because Lumiya seems to have reverted to the pre-Kaan tradition of having only one Dark Lord. Can anyone shed any light on this? QuentinGeorge QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * How can Traya and co. NOT bear the title if they have "Darth?"
 * Bearing the title "Darth" has bugger all to do with being a Dark Lord. Exhibit A: Darth Bandon. QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * As for Flint, he was called "Dark Lord of Belderone" and "Lord Flint" in Marvel Comics, for what it is worth.
 * Dark Lord of Belderone and Lord Flint are quite different to "Dark Lord of the Sith".
 * And why did Darth Andeddu get taken off the list?
 * We don't know a) That he was ever a Dark Lord of the Sith B) When he lived, so for now, let's leave him off. QuentinGeorge 09:56, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isn't Lumiya included on this list? --User:SFH
 * Andeddu has a tomb in the Valley of the Dark Lords. Doesn't that confirm he once held the title? Lieutenant Gerard 16:03, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask again about Flint: Does any canon source call him a DLotS? Since his original comic appearance does not say this. Which puts him in a different position than Carnor Jax, who is indeed named such. Jax' motives for taking the title, or Lumiya's for allowing him to use it, are not relevant in this discussion. Charlii 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Post Galactic Empire

 * The Post Galactic Empire bit is needlessly wordy and convuluted. If we are going to say Lumiya isn't Dark Lord of the Sith, then let's take her out. But let's have none of this fudging, rambling introductory paragraphs with "maybes" and "mights" and the reapparance of the dreaded question mark. QuentinGeorge 02:27, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... What if we aren't sure if she is or if she isn't? "Fudging, rambling introductory paragraphs with "maybes" and "mights" and the reapparance of the dreaded question mark" does the trick. --Master Starkeiller 02:45, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * We know she claimed the title, so we can put her in sans question mark. With just a note saying, "After the Battle of Endor, Lumiya claimed the title "Dark Lady of the Sith"." You don't need anything else. QuentinGeorge 02:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. She definitely took the title, even though she might be no Sith Lord. --Master Starkeiller 00:42, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Tulak Hord
Silly_Dan, according to your last edit, "Tulak Hord was well before Revan, so he goes in the first list". But you put him after Kressh. I know there's the lightsaber issue, but we don't know everything about the Sith Empire and lightsabers yet so he belong in "Others". He could have live 25.000 B.B.Y. along with Ajunta Pal as far as we know... --Master Starkeiller 11:40, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dathka Graush
Why did you put him in the others? It says he lived around 7,000 BBY. Technically, he shouldn't even be on this list, he was never a Dark Lord, merely a high ranking Sith Lord from my understanding.


 * If we include Andeddu because he was buried on Korriban, then we must also include Graussh.


 * Andeddu isn't included because he was buried on Korriban, he is included because he was buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords. Dathka Graush, on the other hand, wasn't buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords; he was buried in the Valley of Golg. However, the RPG (or whatever it was) article that created him clearly states that he was a Dark Lord, so he is included as well.Lieutenant Gerard 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Symbol
It is not the symbol of the Sith. Its the symbol thats used for Old Republic Era stories. Is that so difficult to understand? Redemption 20:55, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You are incorrect. In-universe, it IS a symbol of the Sith, or more precisely, the Dark Lord of the Sith. Naga Sadow has it branded on his forehead when he ascends to the rank. See for yourself.
 * Why can't people read the source they are citing? QuentinGeorge 05:13, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Well then. I guess we learn something new everyday. And there was never a source cited. Redemption 05:19, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fairly self-explanatory that for any discussions about the ancient Sith, the primary sources are Golden Age of the Sith and Fall of the Sith Empire. QuentinGeorge 05:30, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Kressh
Would anyone mind if I put Ludo Kressh in the others section and detail how he proclaimed himself Dark Lord? -- SFH 23:02, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we put him back where he was, since, unlike Andeddu, we know when Ludo lived. He was self-proclaimed, yes, but so was Freedon Nadd, so I don't think this should affect Kressh's placement on the list. QuentinGeorge 05:28, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Master Starkeiller 12:03, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ahem...
From what I understand, Seviss Vaa, LaTor and Kaox Krul were Sith Lords, but not Dark Lords of the Sith. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:33, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but they were in Kaan's inner circle and council. Besides, if I remember correctly, Kaan gave the title Dark Lord to most, if not all of the Sith Lords. --Mr. Perfection 16:45, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Are any of these established to have the title? Bane, Githany, Kopecz and Qordis are all explicitly named as such. QuentinGeorge 20:04, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Simus
I'm pretty sure no source has ever named Simus as a Dark Lord. Lieutenant Gerard 22:24, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one disagrees I'm going to remove all references to him as such. Lieutenant Gerard 00:00, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kyp Durron
Can it be really said that Kyp Durron was a Dark Lord of the Sith? I suppose he was something lesser and doesn't really deserve such title yet.
 * He claimed the title, and none were there to oppose him, so yes. He was Dark Lord of the Sith, even for a little while. Jasca Ducato 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First Dark Lord

 * Abel's new article confirms the title did not exist until 7,000 BBY. In other words, it was only when the Dark Jedi conquered the Sith that the title began - the native Sith didn't use it. QuentinGeorge 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacen Solo?
Ah, I don't think he's a Dark Lord yet, we don't even know what Sith order Lumiya is truly under, and besides he's only an apprentice. RushinSundaws 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. Charlii 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Maul and Tyranus?
These two were never given the title of Dark Lord of the Sith. There was only one at a time, and during their time as Sith Lords, Darth Sidious was always the Dark Lord of the Sith. Dooku even refers to Darth Sidious as the Dark Lord of the Sith when speaking to Obi-Wan in Attack of the Clones. So why are these two listed as Dark Lords when they were never given the title?
 * Incorrect. In Bane's order, both members had the title Dark Lord of the Sith - as is explained on this page, if you'd bothered to read it. - QuentinGeorge (at work)
 * No, That guy was correct. There is only ONE Dark Lord at a time. Canonical proof from a canonical source is at the very top of this discussion page.
 * Indeed. They were both Dark Lords, as was Sidious.  The title that belonged to Sidious alone was "Master."  Maul and Tyranus (and Vader), though being apprentices, were still called Dark Lords of the Sith. jSarek 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression Dark Lord of the Sith was the title for the de facto Sith ruler, since it was a title/position many Sith Lords fought and killed each other over, and that the title was passed from Sidious to Darth Vader once Sidious had his hands full with the title of Emperor.
 * Well, that's not correct, and never has been anything more than fanon. Maul, Tyranus and Vader were Dark Lord all in their own right, and simultaneous to Sidious. - QuentinGeorge (at work).
 * Alright, chill with the attitude. So what about the infighting that occured among Sith Lords over the title/position? I'm referring to the first and fourth paragraphs of Kaan's profile, which I don't believe is fanon at all. It's referred to as the Dark Lord of the Sith rather than a Dark Lord of the Sith, thus supporting my original "incorrect" thought that it was a single title.
 * Nevermind, I realized my mistake. I was right up until the point where Kaan changed the system around so that there'd be more than one. I hadn't seen it printed anywhere though that Maul and Tyranus held the title.
 * Yes, as explained in this article, the title was unique until the reign of Kaan, then held by more than one individual at once. It's all there. QuentinGeorge 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off a bit terse, BTW - was not my intention. QuentinGeorge 05:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)actually siith lord and dark lord are different remember

Vergere

 * Vergere was never a DLOTS. QuentinGeorge 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake Sith
Doesn't any Sith after Vader disrupt the films, and indeed the prophecy? I think that there should be some kind of descriptor that labels Vader as the last of the TRUE Sith, whilst Lumiya et al are just wannabes Thefourdotelipsis 03:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

NSW Dark Lord's

 * For the last time - Kaan declared the various Sith warlords as "Dark Lords" long before the Ruusan campaign. Ka'sim is specifically called "Dark Lord" in DB:PoD. There's nothing to indicate this is an error. QuentinGeorge 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a quote!?! Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 07:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's your quote to support your idea that he didn't make them Dark Lords until the Ruusan campaign? QuentinGeorge 08:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My quote was the Kaan article, whcih cleary said that he made them all DLOS araound the time of Ruusan. Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 08:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Kaan article says nothing of the sort. Again, where is your quote? QuentinGeorge 08:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is implied in Jedi vs. Sith when Bane says "*Lord* Kaan? [...] Is everybody a Lord now?" But that intention is clearly retconed in PoD as it repeatedly refers to the members of the Brotherhood as Dark Lords. Charlii 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough then. Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kreia
Was Kreia also a Dark Lord of the Sith before being betrayed by Sion and Nihilus?Darth Shadow3000 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Same with Darth Sion? Micah Giett 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We've generally accepted that she was the leader of the Sith Order, but we have never acctually seen her styled as "Dark Lord of the Sith". -- SFH 18:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kreia and Sion are both Dark Lords of the Sith along with Nihilus. It is clearly explained in the game and I have argued the point to no end and do not care so do do again. Please, people, play the game again and pay better attention. ALL THREE are Dark Lords.--Master Dakari 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"She is one of the Lords of the Sith."

- Atris speaking to the Jedi Exile about Kreia.

"He is one of the Dark Lords..."

- Kreia speaking to the Jedi Exile about Nihilus.


 * I would also like to point out the fact that it makes no sense at all to say Nihilus is a Dark Lord of the Sith, but the very person who was his master and was head of the Trayus Academy is denied the title by the fans, who have no real say in the matter to begin with. She is recognized as a Dark Lord in the game, and so is Sion. It's canon, sorry.--Master Dakari 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Sith Lord" And "Dark Lord of the Sith" is two different things. 2) While it makes no sense that Nihilius was a DLotS if Traya wasn't, that would be conjecture and we only follow canon. This has been debated extensively before, and as long as no new information surfaces the page will remain the way it is. Charlii 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the quotes again. Yes, I understand perfectly well that Dark Lord of the Sith and Sith Lord are two completely different titles. I even have to force others to understand this at times. Atris says one of THE Lords of the Sith, and the Kreia says one of THE Dark Lords. Both of those titles listed have "THE" infront of them, clearly emphasizing that it is a distinct designation. Further emphasis is placed on the fact that in Atris's quote, "lord" is capitalized. This means that they weren't "a" lord of the Sith (merely a Sith Lord), but that they held a position of authority and autonomy from the rest of the body. Kreia's quote give even further backing in that she explicitely states DARK LORDS. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of your average Sith Lord being called by "Dark Lord". And we have just made clear that the two titles are clearly different and distinct from one another. Not to mention that the "s" at the end of Kreia's phrase lends a significant weight to the fact of there being a PLURALITY of Dark Lords (three, in fact) at that moment in time. Regardless of personal feelings on the matter, all three (Traya, Sion and Nihilus) are Dark Lords of the Sith. And if the Wookieepedian majority decides to say otherwise, it DOES NOT change the fact that the Wookieepedian majority is wrong. What has already been established in the game is what is considered canon, not what Wookieepedians decide to say is canon. I am the one who keeps adding Traya and Sion to the list of Dark Lords, and I will continue to do so unless it gets locked. Why? Because they belong there! Prohibiting and denying their addition to the list is to go against what has been clearly established as canon within a canon source. And I, for one, don't like that idea very well.--Master Dakari 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you start moaning, I didn' even bother reading most of your last comment. Because it's wrong. Sion and Kreia were not Dark lords. The NEGC clearly establishes Nihilus as the sole Dark Lord. And if you continue to add Sion and Traya to the list, you will be banned. Canon dictates that Nihilus was Dark Lord at the time, the last Dark lord before Nihilus was Malak. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I've already told you what the source is, it's up to you to check it yourself."
 * I would state that it is entirely possible for Nihilus to be DLOTS even if Traya was not. It is conceivable that an apprentice would ascend to a higher rank than his master, especially considering that he and Sion stripped Traya of her power.  However, for a definitive answer, I recommend this question be taken to a higher authority.  Micah Giett 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already told you what the source is, it's up to you to check it yourself. Nihilus was the only DLOS, as per the The New Essential Chronology. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 08:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of them was named DLotS in the NEC, Nihilus title came from Evil Never Dies.. Charlii 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was told it was the NEC by someone else. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

- Jasca Ducato

"My mistake, I was told it was the NEC by someone else."

- Jasca Ducato

Hahaha. No offense, but that's just great! *roflmao* --Master Dakari 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) "To be united by hatred is a fragile alliance at best."
 * I don't see why. All i said was that it's up to you to check it yourself, I never said that i had read it. I'm going on other peoples words. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, there were no other Dark Lords while the Sith Triumvirate was ruling. Also, look at this quote:

- Kreia

This could mean that Kreia looked upon the group as a single entity, bound by hatred, so the title "Dark Lord of the Sith" could not necessarily mean only one person. They then broke and became nothings. I think while they ruled together they were DLOTS's.  Darth Anxor  Sith Order  22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Xendor
Xendor as possibly the Dark Underlord is not fanon. Abel Pena tossed the idea out there in his history of the Sith article. Thanos6 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Him "tossing the idea about" doesn't make it canon. DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the theory exist IU is canon, if it's worth mentioning on this page is another question. Charlii 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not IU though. DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What isn't? Charlii 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Abel Pena's ideas. not unless they're actually printed in a source, or verbally confirmed as canon. DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in an article. It's canon. QuentinGeorge 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence Quentin, but what you said made no sense. Are you saying Xendor was a DLOS, or he wasn't. Because last i checked, canonically, he wasn't. DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It states in Abel's Evil Never Dies articles that the Dark Underlord was believed (note:believed) to be the spirit of Xendor returned from Chaos. That much is 100% canon QuentinGeorge 10:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK then. I just hope people don't start saying he definately is Xednor. DarthAbeonisSig2.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one Dark Lord at a time
Source for the knowlege that there is only one Dark Lord and then a Sith Lord to serve and learn under him.

Excerpts from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction Page 240.

''"If all are equal, then none is strong..." '' Translation: There cannot be more than one Dark Lord at a time, there must be one to hold the title of true Sith Master, and the other (A regular Sith Lord) to crave it.

"If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle." I.E. The mantle of Dark Lord.

"...In the end however, there could only be one true Sith Master(Dark Lord). And to serve this Master, there could only be one true appentice." (Of conventional Sith Lord status).

And now, the final and most compelling source for reason there is only ONE Dark Lord. From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction. Page 236

"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord. The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side. If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle. The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be."

Revelation? That was the Rule of Two. If POD was good for anything, It was to help cement that concept, so there could be no misunderstanding or denying the fact that has been presented before you.


 * Yeah, that would work if it weren't for multiple inconsistencies that POD has already produced. Then there is the fact that your inserting your own interpretations in. -- SFH 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Those interpretations were for idiots like you, so I could help you understand the sentences without having to use your small brain. Anyway, there is only one Dark Lord at a time, and for the genius in the post down below, I'll remind you that Kaan made most of the Sith in the Brotherhood Dark Lords, so it didn't end with him, for stupidly obvious reasons. There is only one Dark Lord at a time. If you can't understand this obvious fact, I suggest you completely re-learn your knowledge of the Sith, and quit posting here since your screwing this article up.
 * Heh, the fact that you're being so hostile about this is all the funnier because you're wrong. Dark Side Sourcebook states Maul is a Dark Lord of the Sith. Canon > your flawed interpretations. - Lord Hydronium 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And about every source pre-99 claims that Vader is a Dark Lord as well. .  .  .  .  00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you sound even funnier than me then, because your wrong. And Im not being hostile, If I was, you wouldn't be gabbling at me like a dumb nerd. The Dark Side sourcebook states that Darth Maul is somehow a Dark Lord, even though he was defeated by a Padawan out of luck. But Darth Bane: Path Of Destruction, which is ALSO a CANON source states there is only one at a time, which means Maul isn't one. So Canon> Your flawed intelligence.

Vader May have been a Dark Lord during the Empire era because Sidious had tossed out his status as a Sith in favor of just being an Emperor, but who knows. Not you guys though, thats for sure. Learn your stuff.
 * Try and remain civil, furious anon. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I said this on your talk page, and I'll say it here: Telling people they are idiots for following canon and rejecting your original research is a sure fire way to get banned. -- SFH 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Thank you for your patience. Remember, Im following Canon too though.
 * Vader May have been a Dark Lord during the Empire era because Sidious had tossed out his status as a Sith in favor of just being an Emperor, but who knows. Oh, yeah, I totally buy that. "Hmm. I think I'm in the mood for some Sith practice today." Uhuh. 60.230.44.199 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Im following Canon too though." No, you aren't. As explained on Talk:Darth Maul, when your quotes are put in context they say the opposite of what you claim. And that's beside the point, as even if it were in context, what you claim those quotes say is only your interpretation of them. Canon is unambiguously clear that Maul was a Dark Lord at the same time as Sidious.  Unambiguous canon beats iffy interpretation every day. - Lord Hydronium 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

~  So its not static... The sith do what they feel like doing. Just because someone (like Bane) decides there should be only two sith (one a "Dark Lord") doesnt mean that sith later or preceeding are going to listen. It's not like they get some magical aura that distinguishes them as such... they SAY that they are a Lord and who is anyone else to argue... it seems like a fairly ridiculous argument when talking about creatures that make their own rules and change the rules as they see fit... not that my view matters this late in the game -- Tzachariah Krosz 4/23/2009

I do not understand
Hallo, why traya and sion are not here. In their own articles, there is written, that they were amd also in the game it is said, that they both wer DLoTS. thanks for explanation and sorry about my english. but it is not logic. 1) i do not know what exactly triumvirat means in english, but in czech it means the union of three independent leaders with same athorities and more important, with same ranks (for example the first triumvirat was sometime around 60 BC in rome, the union of cessar pompeius and crassus) 2) i do not see any reason, why the dark lord would listen only sith lords. Logically he should command there. And the title DLOTS is the title for the leader of the sith order and the leaders were all of them, werent they? I dont know, may be i am wrong but i thing it is all right.--ScorpiO 06:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sion and Traya were not DLOS. Never were, never will be. If their articles say they are, they're wrong and will likely be reverted within minutes. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Despite the fact that ScorpiO will sting you with his dreams of power and wealth, he sounds about correct. .  .  .  .  06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's a little complicated. So i'll explain clearly, as it may not make sense in the first place.
 * In English, Triumvirate is "a government of three officers or magistrates functioning jointly". This doesn't mean the have to be of the same rank, although it is usually the case.
 * The New Essential Guide to Characters clearly states that Nihilus, and only Nihilus was a Dark Lord of the Sith, and so that it was we must say. It may be stupid, and it may be unrealistic, but it's canon.
 * The Sith Triumvirate, while the dominate Sith power at the time, was not the Sith Order. It could quite easily be run by a normal Sith Lord (Darth Traya), and then, when she was betrayed by Nihilus, he took over, claiming the title of Dark Lord.
 * So while I agree with you that Kreia and Sion should be named DLOS, they were infact, not. The most likely scenario was that after Nihilus and Sion betrayed Traya, Nihilus claimed the title. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 08:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, i´ve got it. thanks for explanation. --ScorpiO 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt the New Essential Guide to Characters says anything of the sort, since it does not include any characters from the KOTOR games - not surprising, since it was published three years before the game's release. QuentinGeorge 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's from "Evil Never Dies" (this is the second time I'm correcting Jasca Ducato on this :P ) Charlii 10:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thanks again Charlii. I keep forgeting that. DarthAb.gif Sith Council Sith Campaign 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about Dathka Graush? in his own article, there is nothing about dark lord, and if he was sith ruler slained by Pall and the other Dark Jedi, he couldnt be dark lord either. and of course, in his article is mentioned in behind scene, that Pall was most likely the first dark lord. sorry that i still ask something but i want to know everything about sith --ScorpiO 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Graush is not fully explored. In the only source about him he is described as a "Sith Dark Lord" which could mean "Dark Lord of the Sith", but not necessarily. Charlii 10:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sirak

 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sirak dead by the time Kaan "graduates" the trainees from the academy to the rank of Dark Lord? QuentinGeorge 06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tahiri
Ok, this discussion concerns several articles, so maybe it should be brought up somewhere else, but anyway: Should Tahiri be considered a Dark Lord of the Sith? I say no, since Caedus wasn't until he made his sacrifice. The Rule of Two idea that both the master and the apprentice are "equal" Dark Lords seem to have been removed by Lumiya, so until she is called DL in some source I say we remove every notion of her being one from this page, her page, Jacen's page and the succession boxes on Darth Krayt and Lumiya. Thoughts? Charlii 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus?
I do not think Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus are Dark Lords, although they are called Lord Maul and Lord Tyranus by Sids.Tom,SoresuMaster88 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think, canon (the Dark Side Sourcebook and the official Star Wars Databank, among many, many other sources) has established that they are both Dark Lords, so discussing it is pointless. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy now... We really can't say that is allright... After all there are TONS of books which speak AGAINST eachother, even in Star Wars... (pluss I REALLY hope stuoide Maul wassent a Dark Lord) --Thrawn Du Gard 00:28, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Darth Phobos?
Is there any source saying she actually was a *Dark Lord* and not a "regular" Sith Lord? If she's in, what about her apprentice, Darth Desolous? Gorthuar 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing her until a source is provided. Gorthuar 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Qel-Droma?
I see he's supposed to be named Dark Lord in the Essential Guide to the Force. Would someone provide a page reference please? I'd like to check it myself. Gorthuar 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Secondary title?
I know its not really brought up much in any of the canon sources as many DLOTS didn't always do this, but should it be mentioned that some Sith did take on a secondary title along with their Dark Lord title? Like Sion was the Lord of Pain, and Nihilus the Lord of Hunger? Darth Scath 07:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not secondary title. Titles as lord of pain were special titles in Triumvirat. And by the way, Sion was not DLotS. Only Nihilus was but only after abandoning the triumvirat.--ScorpiO 08:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Darth Bandon
One dark lord 'Darth Bandon' is missing from the list. He was apprentice to Darth Malak.
 * Indeed he was Malak's apprentice. However the rule that a Dark Lord's apprentice would also bear the title of Dark Lord was introduced only 3,000 years after Darth Malak by Darth Bane. Therefore Darth Bandon is not egligible. Gorthuar 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Darth Ramage
What should be done about Ramage. He worked with bota which was discovered in 220 BBY during the time of Bane's Sith Order. Shouldn't he be moved from yet-to-be-known era to Bane's Sith Order on the list below Veticus?