Talk:Anakin Skywalker/Legends


 * Archives: 1 2 3
 * Darth Vader archives: 1 2

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)
 * The only image I support removing is #3. All the rest I say keep, my reasons are the same as J. Nebulax. - Impassioned Jedi 11:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to agree with that. It's actually kind of blurry. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I don't mind removing just one, not at all. I was just going to leave this talk section to rot anyhow. Heh. If there are no objections, I'll ax it and adjust the images. -Solus 15:21, 15 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) "He is a borg who died last night. You know the term, I'm sure&hellip;. Half Human&hellip; half mechanical droid."
 * 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)
 * Ah-ah-ah, Marvel is S-Canon unless referenced by a C or G canon source. Chee said so. .  .  .  .  07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I brought up this same point over at Talk:Darth Malak and I totally agree with Imp. "Cyborg" simply does not fit in the "species" field. "Species", in this context, refers to an individual's biological classification. As long as an individual retains some biological components, cybernetic enhancements simply do not change that individual's species classification. Even Grevious should not be classified as a cyborg. No matter how much he has been altered, he is biologically a Kaleesh. Perhaps we should add an "enhancements" or "cybernetics" field to the character infoboxes&hellip; – 07:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best. .  .  .  .  08:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that he had mechanical parts in place of organic parts makes him a cyborg, and that should be mentioned as it always was in the species field. Yes, it's not a species, but as of becoming a cyborg, Vader wasn't wholy Human. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me an official source that refers to a person with only one cybernetic enhancement as a cyborg. --Imp 13:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The New Essential Guide to Droids had a page on cyborgs that would probably clear this up. I'm at school, so I can't check it. -LtNOWIS 14:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Imp: Why are you so against using a real-world definition here? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there's an IU definition that doesn't match the real-world definition. Also, because I think putting (cyborg) in the species field is silly, as it has nothing to do with species. --Imp 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What is this IU definition? 2) It has plenty to do with the species. When Anakin lost an arm, he lost a part of what made him Human. The mechanical arm replaced that, making him a cyborg. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- "Pera"

That would be the IU definition right there. Also, are you implying people with prosthetics are less Human than people with all limbs intact? --Imp 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First: That's only one person's view of the term "cyborg", not the galactic definition. Second: In a way, yes. They are still Human, but they have mechanical parts to make up for lost limbs and such. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While it may just be one person's view, it's the only IU definition so far&hellip; Also, I deeply disagree with your stance on prosthetics. --Imp 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Just because it's the only IU definition does not mean it's the correct definition. 2) Why don't you explain how you deeply disagree with my stance on prosthetics? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I am aware of that, and I'll back down the moment I see another IU definition. 2) Calling specific groups of people "less Human" just seems awfully familiar&hellip; like something these guys and supporters of this would say. --Imp 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the above was out of line. I just generally am opposed to such labelling. --Imp 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By "less Human", I'm not saying that they're inferior. I'm just saying that the loss of a limb can make one physically less Human. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that whatever species a character is when they become a cyborg, they are still that species, only less so. Correct?Tocneppil 21:58, 17 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)
 * My fault. Lord knows this page needed to be drastically shortened, though. Of course, only after did I realize I had archive an active topic. Sorry.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's OK, it's just that it's this is the second time this talk page has undergone a complete overhaul in the last few days. This could have been avoided if someone hadn't dumped the contents of Talk:Anakin Skywalker and Talk:Darth Vader here after the merge. .  .  .  .  08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Even so, Vader's regency deserves a mention...if not a succession box." I think a succession box is a bad idea, but how do you propose mentioning it? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Vader was next in line, as hinted to by Palpatine and stated by Vader in ROTS (since he wanted to kill him and take his throne), it should at least be mentioned in a short blurb that he technically was Emperor for the last few minutes of his life in ROTJ, just as Grievous was the leader of the confederacy for the last few days of the CW and then Nute Gunray or the entire Separatist Council in the few hours after his death. VT-16 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, five minutes shouldn't warrant a succession box. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure executing the sitting sovereign and rejecting all allegience to the man and, presumably, the Empire he founded is a pretty strong reason to think he gave up all claim to the position. jSarek 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. He didn't want to be Emperor, so he wasn't. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, since there was no Emperor at the time, he automatically became de facto Emperor. And how do you know it was five minutes? It could have taken an hour to get to the docking bay. At any rate he was acting Emperor for a short time, which does deserve some sort of succession box mention. .  .  .  .  08:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how someone who abdicated all relationship with the Emperor, committed high treason by killing the Emperor, never issued a single Imperial directive as Emperor, was never recognized by anyone as Emperor, wasn't in the line of succession to Emperor (since there WAS no such line), and didn't survive long enough for people in the Imperial chain of command to even know he'd outlived the Emperor, could be regarded as Emperor, de facto or otherwise. jSarek 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple answer. He wasn't. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, he was for the last half of SOTE. .  .  .  .  09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't. Palpatine gave him the powers. He could have done the same for Tarkin. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...regency. .  .  .  .  22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Enough. You have no actual proof that Vader was next in line. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, you misundertand me. jSarek's explaination and rationalising has made me accept that there is no "heir" structure to Palpatine's throne. However, he did have regency during the end of SOTE. Worth a mention, if not an infobox. .  .  .  .  00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean regency = giving his powers to Vader for a short time, then you're sadly mistaken, my friend. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really. Give us your definition of regency. I'm dying to hear. .  .  .  .  00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop acting like a smart ass, Thefourdot. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. And take a look at this while you're at it. .  .  .  .  00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And again, just because Palpatine gave Vader his powers for a short time does not automatically make Vader Regent. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A Person appointed to administer a State because the monarch is a minor or is absent or incapacitated. Palpatine at end of SOTE = Absent. Vader at end of SOTE = temporary ruler of the Empire. Vader at end of SOTE = Regent. .  .  .  .  00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you miss the point. Vader was never canonically made Regent. Just because Vader was granted Palpatine's powers for a short time does not, I repeat, does not, automatically make him Regent. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thrawn was never canoninically made Emperor. Yet he is listed as a de facto Emperor. So, Vader would be a de facto Regent. .  .  .  .  00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Touche. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It could easily be handled by an infobox. Like so: .  .  .  .  01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I still say only a mention in the article, not an infobox. A couple of minutes doesn't warrant an infobox, in my opinion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking SOTE here, as well as ROTJ. In SOTE, I believe it's a couple of weeks. .  .  .  .  01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But that would only make things a lot more complicated. It would be like this: Palpatine, Vader (de facto regent), Palpatine, and then Vader (de facto regent). Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm willing to let the ROTJ thing go, but the SOTE thing is vital. .  .  .  .  01:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But that still wouldn't really warrant a succession box. Palpatine was still alive, after all. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to get technical, he was still alive when Thrawn was about. .  .  .  .  01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but at that time, no one knew he was alive. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, he "handed over" his powers to Vader for a short time. .  .  .  .  01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, five minutes shouldn't warrant a succession box.
 * I read of a man the other day who recieved a medal for his service to our country and died five minutes later. That still means he got the medal and it was noted. Whether Vader wanted what he now got or not, isn't relevant. He was the next in line. VT-16 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, this is just silly. Vader died before being officially appointed, therefore he was never Emperor. --Imp 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, VT. Thats a really really bad example. The problem is, he was only Emperor for a few weeks at most (and even that is disputed by myself and others), a succession box really isn't needed. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 11:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Perhaps a note saying he was possibly Regent, but nothing else. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Thrawn never officialy took the title and he was in that position for what? A few months? .  .  .  .  22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's completely different because Thrawn actually control a large portion of the Empire. Vader didn't even control a single soul. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking SOTE here, where Vader controlled the whole Empire bar Palpatine himself. .  .  .  .  01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see a quote. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have the book on me, but I believe there is a quote along the lines of "I rule the Empire now, Xizor, not Palpatine". But that may contain some wild paraphrasing. We need someone with the book. .  .  .  .  01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But even if Vader controlled the Empire for a short time in SotE, that's not enough for an infobox. When real-life rulers become sick, their regent doesn't actually take their position unless the current ruler dies. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct...they become a regent! .  .  .  .  01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. I only said that because the regent doesn't take their position while the current ruler is sick. I was only saying why there shouldn't be a succession box for Vader as Emperor. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there should be something... .  .  .  .  01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a mention in the article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I'm being rude or anything, and, if so I apologize. But I own SOTE, and I've looked for the sentance to which 4Dot is referring. Here it is, between Vader and Xizor, starting with Vader:

"You have two standard minutes to recall your vessels and to offer yourself into my custody." "I will not. I will take this up with the Emperor." "The Emperor is not here. I speak for the Empire, Xizor."

- Darth Vader and Xizor

I hope you don't think I'm biased or anything, because I'm not. The discussion just got me curious, so I looked it up. I apologize if this offends anyone, but that's what the book says. -Solus 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC) he was only Emperor for a few weeks at most
 * That's the line I was thinking of. Good stuff, Solus. .  .  .  .  05:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, he died minutes later. Dead people do not rule anything. Vader was the de facto Emperor when Palpatine died, because he was next in line, though he never got to enjoy it, nothing more. VT-16 07:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, we're talking SOTE here. Do try and catch up. .  .  .  .  08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * VT: We're not talking about RotJ anymore. Even though Vader was Regent, he essentially gave up that position when he turned back to the light. Anyway, back on subject, I think it would be best to include in "Serving the Emperor" something like this: Vader was also Regent, which would make him the Emperor if Palpatine would ever die. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can say almost certainly that he wasn't Emperor in ROTJ. He turned his back on the dark side just moments before he killed Palpatine, thus voiding his regency. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 12:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Turning your back on your religious order doesn't mean you turn your back on your preferred form of government. Is there any source to say whether Vader would have liked to continue the Empire after the Emperor's death, or did his sacrifice also mean he wanted the Empire itself to be disbanded? VT-16 13:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would Vader want to continue the Empire? The Empire was controlled by the dark side. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, lets look at this logically. Palpatine caused his fall to the darkside, (in-directly) killed Skywalker's wife by doing so. Kept Vader under his thumb for 25 years using Sith drugs and built him into a metal suit. He then tried to kill his Skywalker's own son. Why the hell would you want to follow in the footsteps of someone like that!?! Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By that thought process, one can say that America is currently aligned with the Moron Cartel, based upon it's leadership. Governements are not inherently good or evil. They are just influenced by whoever the hell is in control at the time. .  .  .  .  22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the term you guys are looking for is Executor -not that it matters anymore now that this is degenerating to name-calling. Should I also mention Sate Pestage and the Imperial Council?Tocneppil 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well...he had power over things other than the military at that time, as well. .  .  .  .  22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although never officially the second -in-command of the Empire, it would appear an Executor has that level of command over the Empire. Seems pretty all-encompassing to me.Tocneppil 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But this is a case when Palpatine was absent. He was first-in-command at the time. .  .  .  .  23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vader was in charge of the military, and Pestage was in charge of the government. Regardless of what SotE said, would you put a military leader in charge of the government while you were absent, or someone who actually knew how to control the government? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, do you currently rank higher in canon than SOTE, Jack? Face it, Vader was acting head of state in SOTE. Both for the military and the government. .  .  .  .  02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, obviously nobody here having this discussion bothered to read the article on Executor beyond a quick glance, because you guys would have seen this: Excluding the position of Emperor, the position of Executor appears to have had more power and influence than all others, including Grand Moffs, Grand Admirals, Grand Generals, and the Grand Vizier.Tocneppil 09:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thefourdot: I already said Vader was probably Regent. What I was trying to get across was this: Who would be the better choice? Someone with military experience and no government experience, or someone who had actually run the same government? I wasn't trying to just throw away the SotE reference. I was merely trying to apply common sense to the whole thing. And again, in case anyone starts arguing over something I said again, Vader was probably Regent. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I was simply trying to point out the significance of Vader's title of Executor (Imperial rank) and where it stood in regards to chain-of-command.Tocneppil 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even talking about that, Tocneppil. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, about the rank of Executor, but SOTE is done in such a way that Vader is shown to have far more power than he would normally have. .  .  .  .  20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations
Since the Interpretations of the Prophecy contains a lot of OOU (And, with all of the vagueness and mystery surrounding it, as well it should) should we move it down into the Behind the Scenes section? -Solus 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see if some could clean it up first. I don't think it should be in the "Behind the scenes" section. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All right. Sounds good to me -Solus 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd try, but it needs a lot of work. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm doing a grammar overhaul one section at a time. When I get to Interpretations I'll do my best to try and fix it up. -Solus 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Assassination attempt by Maul
When was Anakin a target for assassination by Darth Maul? I thought Maul was only ordered to dispatch Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. Someone care to clarify?-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron 00:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I always think that hadn't Qui-Gon told Anakin to duck, Anakin would have been killed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By no stretch of the imagination does that constitute having Anakin as a target for the Sith. .  .  .  .  01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Four Dots. Maul probably would have attacked Anakin, but only because he was with the jedi who were his stated target.--DannyBoy7783 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OOU
I have gone through and meticulously rewritten the 'Interpretations of the Prophecy' section, doing my best to rid it of OOU. I need an outside opinion as to if I succeeded or not. If not, then what must be improved, and, if I did help it out, can the OOU tag be removed? -Solus 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little work, upon further inspection, but it's very good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tried to make it okay, I'm glad you like it. What parts needed work? I like to fix things as soon as I notice them... being a perfectionist is annoying, trust me. -Solus 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just that your quotation marks and apostrophes appear different than mine. You're not the only one whose's computer is like that, though. Anyway, I think I managed to fix that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's weird. Thank you for fixing that, I had no idea. -Solus 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing all the articles i wrote!!!!!!!!!!! i write something then all of you try to claim it as yours...i wrote the force potential bit and the interpretations of the prophecy and Lightsaber training....i had to read a lot of information and it took me nearly 3 weeks...what do i get for it...nothing...not even a thank you you guys just go on it and alter it as you see fit like removing all my original quotes and you mock me Admiral we need 2 have a word!!!!!!Jibers 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not have the rights to anything here. Once you click "Save page", anyone can change your edits. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

De-merge or seperate article
I suggest a de-merger of Anakin and Vader, or at least split the article so its easier to distinguish between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. Maybe another one of those window thing with Vader's picture, his 'time of birth' and 'time of death' or something. At the moment the article just seems to long and 'unformed'.
 * Well, the length is precedented elsewhere. As for unformed, that just means it needs further shaping up; the merge was fairly recent, after all, and a lot of the problems with the article would still be problems if the articles were separate. jSarek 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well would it be alright if I go ahead and attempt to "draw the line" in the article to seperate between Anakin and Vader?
 * No. Kuralyov 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, Come on! We have to de-merge it!  They are in the same body, but they're different people!  If the Databank has them separate, we should too.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)[[Image:dasymbol.gif|20px]]
 * They're the same person, just markedly changed. If The New Essential Guide to Characters has them together, we should too. jSarek 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging them was the right choice. It's like trying to separate Clark Kent from Superman. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A stronger division within the article could be made to show when/where the differences between Anakin/Vader lie. And perhaps a re-titling. "AnakinSkywalker/Darth Vader", perhaps.Tocneppil 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah. Don't bother.  It will only get worse, as I see nobody is in favor of re-separating them.
 * Well you don't look very far then, do you? I want them seperated! But i also go with what the community says. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I voted against the merge, but we were slightly outnumbered, unfortunately. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what makes me tick is that we had a great Darth Vader article and he's one of the greatest Sith Lords, brought about the near extinction of the Jedi, etc., but now he's kind of a footnote on the Anakin page, one of my least favorite characters and an almost entirely different person. And you can't say that the difference is merely cosmetic.  I know that we have Darth Bane, Revan, and Palpatine all as different than their characters before their complete transformation into Sith.  Although, we might as well use the example of the transformation of "Dessel" into "Bane" and then "Darth Bane", and rename Anakin's article into Vader's, which wouldn't make sense at all, despite him being Vader for more of his life than he was Anakin. It just doesn't click.  Obi-Wan puts it dang straight (as best as I can quote): "...your father ceased to exist, and became Darth Vader.  So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view."  Right.  The point of view of a lot of sensible people who don't understand why it hurts to have them as two different people, like the Databank.  The Databank, if I remember correctly, is higher canon, being on the official website.  At the very least, we should definitely have Darth Vader as a seperate article, BUT, still have a section on the Anakin one that says:

I rest my case. --Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) It... just doesn't feel right. I'm sorry. I suppose that we just have to make the Vader section better. My opinion of this site has become somewhat worse because of this change.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) No, he becomes Vader, but is then redeemed by his son. You see a change in him; but not physically until he gets toasted by his master and put in the suit. It doesn't void all arguments. Read my argument above, specifically what Obi-Wan said. Don't come back trying to imply that we don't understand what we're talking about if you disagree.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) I know. This discussion is for a different time. I'm just talking to the other people.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) I'm sorry, but-- can you actually SHOW us the policy, where it came from, how it can be changed, etc.? Don't harass me if this is obviously a blatantly public document.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) I agree. But I think that he should be the exception, not the rule.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) Thank you for clarifying that, Tocneppil. This is why it should be the exception. However, renaming the article Darth Vader wouldn't be right.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) Seriously. Anyway, I think that a Darth Vader article on it's own would certainly address his pop-culture significance more than any Anakin one. I don't really think that Encyclopedias would really have it one way or another. We realize that they are the same person. However, I think it would better benefit a Star Wars website to have them as separate. I don't know where Jasca Ducato and Fourdot really insulted each other because of a disagreement. Where are you getting "insults" from, everybody?--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)
 * I would stronly suggest that people like Magnum and "Tnu" go and read the CT archive which decided that we would merge. I am sick to death of having to repeat myself. .  .  .  .  23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. What has been done is done, unfortunately. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that, sometime in the near future, another consensus track will be formed on this. When that happens, I will vote to separate. We who wanted two separate articles will get another chance. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 18:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, you'll get your chance. Just don't get your hopes up. A vote against policy is a tough battle to fight. .  .  .  .  22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It will never be separated&mdash;this is not a fanon encyclopedia. --Imp 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Darth Vader isn't fanon, Imp. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But he is redundant. .  .  .  .  04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, i wouldn't say that ;-) [[Image:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif]] Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, I don't want another debate on this. But Vader was very different from Anakin. Not redundant. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No...he is redundant. We already have an article on him. This one. .  .  .  .  22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so Cade's redundant now is he? Cor, that was a short Legacy sotryline. &#91;&#91;Image:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif &lt;sub&gt; &#91;&#91;User talk:Jasca Ducato&#124;&#39;&#39;&#39;Sith Council&#39;&#39;&#39;]] &lt;/sub&gt; &lt;sup&gt; &#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato&#124;&#39;&#39;&#39;(Sith Campaign)&#39;&#39;&#39;]] &lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...what the hell are you talking about? Oh, and btw, your sig broke. .  .  .  .  09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well we have an article on Cade Skywalker, so i guess he's redundant now as well. According to you he is. Jasca Ducato 09:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Do we have another article based on his life somewhere? Does he turn into Darth such and such, and if so, do we have an article on him? .  .  .  .  09:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that we know of, but either way. That's not what you said. You said we have an article on Vader, so he's redundant. We have an article on Cade, so i'm reasoning that (according to you), he is redundant also. Actually, seeing as we have articles on almost everythig to do with Star Wars; we might aswell just stop editing completely. Thats it then, i'm off. Jasca Ducato 09:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what the game is. Take a miswording I make and take it to a ridiculous level. Just in case you didn't comprehend, I meant in terms of having a seperate article. I am so sorry I am not foolproof. .  .  .  .  09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Jasca Ducato 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vader is not redundant, Thefourdot. This article isn't just about him. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, boo hoo. Have you seen Revenge of the Sith? The Empire Strikes Back? Return of the Jedi? I strongly suggest that you do so. Because in those very film prints, you will find the content that voids all arguements for splitting them up. Now, this might be a bit of a spoiler for you, but get this: Anakin is Vader. Sorry to burst your bubble. .  .  .  .  20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The vote was made, policy was followed, and this page was merged. If it bothers you so much, I suggest you find another page to edit. QuentinGeorge 21:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thefourdot: Stop acting like a smartass already. You need to learn to talk to others in a more polite way. Quentin: Another vote will likely happen in the future. It's inevitable. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And pointless. .  .  .  .  05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fourdot, as Nebulax said. Just because we cannot physically see you at your computer doesn't mean you can try to take over this wiki. Stop being so rude, you've already launched a personal assault against Nebulax (which is what i said you could have been banned for) and you may have won your little consensus track, but it is inevitable that another one will come up, and you might lose. Jasca Ducato 10:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An issue this big cannot be expected to just go away forever. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By this logic, we should split the Revan article in three&mdash;Revan, Darth Revan, and Revan (redeemed). No. Splitting articles up because of fan interpretation will not happen as long as I am administrator of this site. --Imp 14:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, this isn't just fan interpretation. Second, like I said, this won't go away. If a vote in the future results in two separate articles, there's nothing you can do about it, Imp. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there is&mdash;I do what's right according to policy, not what's popular. If you want to propose a policy where individuals turned to the dark side warrant two articles, feel free to do so, and I will follow it if it passes. Until then, the split won't happen. --Imp 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is, Imp, you can't go against the vote if they were to be merged. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think policy can be changed, unfortunately. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget policy - we have in bold writing, on our main page, "Encyclopedia". Encyclopedias do not award people two articles, just for the sake of a shift in personality, appearance, and allegiance. How many Michael Jackson articles do you think there would be? .  .  .  .  21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, you allow one exception, and that is a precedent for many others to be made. .  .  .  .  23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this article couldn't be titled "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader" to at least show the equal weight of both aspects of his personality.Tocneppil 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't have a huge problem with that. That also opens up the possibility of having a Jacen Solo/Darth ______ article. But I'm not a huge fan of it. Honestly, I think it's fine as it is. .  .  .  .  23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anakin/Vader is the only character that has significant 'presence' (ie. 'screen time') in both incarnations (which is where all the hue and cry originates from).Tocneppil 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thefourdot: If an exception is needed, then there has to be an exception. Tocneppil (and Thefourdot, for that matter): I can understand why it could be a good idea to have it at Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. And, Tocneppil, the fact that he has significant screen time could make that title an exception. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The reason why everyone wants a separate article is because they believe Vader holds more 'weight' -enough to stand as a separate character. If this combined article was simply called "Darth Vader" I bet there wouldn't be such an uproar. Most of the other characters with dual identities have simply an 'alias' that they've gone under. Anakin/Vader is the only exception.Tocneppil 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If an exception is needed, then there has to be an exception. But at the core of this issue is the fact that there is nothing at all wrong with the current article. If there was some alarming discrepancy, or technical error in the current article, then yes, a split might be a viable option, but at the moment, all that is being fought for is a sentimental tribute to a fictional character. It's all subjective, and unless you can find an objective reason, I really don't see a split happening. .  .  .  .  03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is subjective. The whole point on which this argument revolves is point-of-view. Fourdot, I can see your point on wanting to maintain an encyclopedic integrity, but I also can see how the others' perspective also has validity, in that Vader was a significant presence, both In-universe and in our pop-cultural references. When people speak of Vader, they mean Vader (both In-universe and Out). If there is a question to be raised regarding how this article is presented, it would be that Wookieepedia follows Lucasfilm's lead as the definitive source, and the official site has two separate entries for Anakin and Vader. Wookieepedia's own definition of G-canon states:Directly provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas . . . . Elements originating with Lucas in the movie novelizations, reference books and other sources are also G-canon. The official site is monitored and updated every week  by Lucasfilm, and so far no attempt at merging the two characters has occurred. For Wookieepedia to go against the official site lessens Wookieepedia's standing as an authorative and reliable source of information. Our merging of Vader/Anakin could be seen as a fan assumption flying against Lucasfilm's official policy (comparative, perhaps to preferring the original theatrical releases of the Original Trilogy, and not mentioning changes made during the re-releases).Tocneppil 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This debate can rage on and on, but to counter claims that it's "unencyclopedic" to have two seperate articles, I would like to direct your attention to Steve Sansweet's Star Wars Encyclopedia, which has Anakin and Vader listed under seperate entries. Don't forget, said encyclopedia was written in close co-operation with Lucasfilm. Also, as Tocneppil pointed out (as I'm sure many other have as well), the OFFICIAL SITE has two different entries for the same person. Who are we to go against what the official site says? Quite frankly, doing that seems arrogant on our part.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Official Site and it's respective Databank is not an encyclopedia, nor does it claim to be. Being an encyclopedia, we must look at things in black and white. Emotional, physical, and spiritual seperation are not things which we should look at at all. This is this, and not anything else. And as for Steve Sansweet's "Encyclopedia", we can factor in the whole "Spoiler" thing. And, for encyclopedic references, I'm not sure that I'd be looking to an obvious piece of merchandising based on a fictional universe. I'd rather look at Wikipedia, or Britanica, or any other sort of "proper" encyclopedia. Also, the NEGTC has them under one listing. But then, that's not an encyclopedia either. .  .  .  .  06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is important that emotion not get in the way of gathering information. Also true the Official Site isn't an encyclopedia. However it is a primary source of information as established by Wookieepedia's rules regarding canonicity and interpretation of information. And if they have two separate entries, which they haven't changed, there must be a reason. Like Lucas' decision to change the 'Han shot first' scene, it might not make sense, but that's the way the information is presented at the source (which is the Databank part of the Official Site, not the merchandising department).Tocneppil 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But let me point out a key thing about the Databank's entry - It stipulates that they are one and the same person. The Vader article says that he was once Anakin, and vice versa. And it is vital that we look at them as the same person. In our case, it's simply not enough to have two respective articles that serve one another, we must have a single article. We must keep a standard which says one article per person. And to make an exception, quite frankly, is a dangerous thing. .  .  .  .  08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we must not have anything! THis wiki performed perfectly well with two seperate articles, and like you said; the Databanks has two articles. So you just proved yourself wrong, again. Jasca Ducato 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And, for encyclopedic references, I'm not sure that I'd be looking to an obvious piece of merchandising based on a fictional universe. I'd rather look at Wikipedia, or Britanica, or any other sort of "proper" encyclopedia. I'd like to address the fact that Wikipedia has Anakin and Vader as two seperate articles. They've even had several discussions on the subject, all of which ended in the decision to keep them split. I can't comment on Britanica (due to the fact that I don't read it).  StarNeptune Talk to me! 09:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And couldn't it be said in this case that by creating a single article for two characters -as shown on the Official Site- we've made an exception? Our individual entries for Anakin and Vader also referenced each other, much like, I might add our separate entries for the various incarnations of the 'TIE' series of vehicles. I agree that we must maintain certain standards, but included in those standards is the importance of following the lead of Lucasfilm (ranked as 'G-canon'), be it Greedo shooting first, how many clones actually fought in the Clone Wars, or Anakin and Vader having separate (but complimentary) entries.Tocneppil 09:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Databank entries are separate because they have restrictions on article size&hellip; Wookieepedia has no such restrictions, ergo the article stays unsplit. --Imp 10:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And how do you know that? Regardless, the Databank and the Star Wars Encyclopedia have two separate articles. And Thefourdot, enough with your "They're not encyclopedias, but we are" crap. I'm sick of it. They are more of encyclopedias because they don't have "that anyone can edit" followed by "encyclopedia" like us. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nebulax on this one 100%. And if Fourdot starts to treat Nebulax or myself like imbeciles again i will consider it a personal attack. Jasca Ducato 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy on how long until an issue can be voted on again? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None that I'm aware of. Shall I start another CT?  StarNeptune Talk to me! 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is already one up. --Imp 14:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnu's outburst qualifies as a CT? ~sigh~ I guess I'll go fix it up then...  StarNeptune Talk to me! 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jasca Ducato: Fourdot is hardly the one making the personal attacks here. I strongly suggest you two leave eachother alone. --Imp 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that an accusation Imp? If so, i challenge you to quote me once in this entire arguement where i have personally insulted Fourdot. He's the one treating me and Nebulax like imbeciles, just because we don't agree with his POV. He thinks Vader/Anakin should be merged, i don't. And because of that, i'm an idiot! (According to God that is) Jasca Ducato 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guys, calm down. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not once did I insult Ducato. He's got this bee in his bonnet where he thinks that I've got a personal vendetta against him. Well, don't flatter yourself, mate. I don't have a personal vendetta against anyone, but if there's anyone I do spar with on a frequent basis, it's Jack, not you. All of a sudden, you're arking up because I was sarcastic in a few posts. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm a sarcastic person, and if that makes me a prick in your eyes, so be it. I don't give a damn. I'm not here to please you. I'm also not here to insult you. Yeah, you don't agree with my POV, but i'm going to continue debating regardless. I swayed several votes in the CT to have them merged (remember, the one that was archived when you edited it...the one where you couldn't count the votes) so I see no reason to stop. I can't recall making any personal attacks, and if I did, I'm sorry, but as long as I'm not breaching Civility, I'm not stopping. I'd rather talk about the article than have this petty bitch-fight.

Now, in regards to Vader being a pop-culture symbol, that's all well and good, but in the light of our format, our methodology that shouldn't warrant a seperate article. It should be on this, the current article, and on the ANH article. Yes, the Databank and other sources have them seperate, but they say, quite explicitly, that they are the same person. Not that they are seperate characters. As Imp said, they have size limits - we do not. I see no reason to adpot the hinderances that plague Hidalgo's work. . .  .  .  22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thefourdot, watch it. You're beginning to prove Jasca right. Now, both of you shut up and take it to your talk pages. This isn't the place for it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know Jack. See above. I ended it and returned to discussing the article. At any rate, the CT is running again (!) so we can discuss things there. .  .  .  .  23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That little fight between you two shouldn't have even been here in the first place. It would have been better to end it on his talk page. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there was a fight until I came here this morning. .  .  .  .  23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you actually didn't know, Thefourdot, but you were a part of it for a lot longer than just today. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of this crap seems to be going on behind my back, and since I'm in a different timezone than the rest of you, I find it hard to keep up with the squaballing. Yeah, you've had little discussions about me here and there, but, you know, I cop it on the chin and get on with my work. I don't go to every single talk page and complain about another users demeanor. Yeah, I had that chat about you with Cull, and that was probably wrong, but at least you had the dignity to acknowledge your faults. I've tried to pull back on the personal insults, but for everything else, it's just my personality, and I adress you or anyone else as I would if I were standing next to you. That's just the way I roll. .  .  .  .  23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Thefourdot, if you address us as if we were right next to you, I wouldn't want to be standing next to you anytime soon. No offense. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And vice versa, purely on the basis that there's a high chance of things getting violent. .  .  .  .  23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Thefourdot, I'm the one trying to become nicer. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bully for you. But a community can't be constructive if all it does is agree with one another. .  .  .  .  23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is great. Your discussion, which by now has zero to do with Anakin, ends now. --Imp 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One last thing: A community can certainly be constructive if everyone agrees. Now, onto Anakin: How can it be made known to all that we don't want another consensus track on this issue for a while? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Will there be a link to said consensus track?--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)
 * You mean the one going on now, or the one that will happen (without a doubt) in the future? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Click Here to see it. -  Yoshi  626  01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And when there's another one, I'll provide the link here. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How can we ensure that another CT does not appear for a while? Well, when a new one arises, we should immediately close it, at least for four months or so. .  .  .  .  01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And perhaps next time more notice could be given to allow everyone signed up to Wookieepedia a chance to vote (something like the banner announcing "Mofferance" or asking us if we're going to "Celebration IV" would be nice). That way the true weight of opinion can be judged by the number of votes, as opposed to the small handful which gives the appearance of 'Minority Rule'.Tocneppil 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, already on the current CT, there are more votes on the "Keep" than there were last time. This is the chance to get a strong consensus and dissuade detractors for quite some time. .  .  .  .  03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some only voted to keep them merged because they didn't want another vote for a while. In no way should this vote decide the fate of this article. What we should do is close down the consensus track, regardless of the vote, and write a note on the page saying "A new consensus track will be held in the future. Please do not start another one until it is decided to". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything recently said.--Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)
 * Ditto. Jasca Ducato 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, let's have the consensus track closed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Besides the fact that it is still ongoing regarding issues like creating a special infobox, image placement for said infobox, and deciding what to name this article, it seems the only ones who are complaining about having the CT closed and/or invalidated are the ones who are losing the vote. Maybe the result is unfair, but the CT was already there...I just put it into vote format because Tnu probably didn't know how to. However, I do agree with making a banner at the top of this talk page warning people not to make anymore CTs on the subject for at least 6 months to a year.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"And perhaps next time more notice could be given to allow everyone signed up to Wookieepedia a chance to vote (something like the banner announcing "Mofferance" or asking us if we're going to "Celebration IV" would be nice). That way the true weight of opinion can be judged by the number of votes, as opposed to the small handful which gives the appearance of 'Minority Rule'." What? Why should this CT get some kind of special notification that others don't get? All interested users should be checking the CT regularly as it is, because all of those posts deserve "the true weight of opinion." We can't put up notices for *every* contentious issue we have here. jSarek 12:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, but what the heck do you mean? We know he doesn't own the article. He's saying he can do good work on it- if we had more people like that, this entire encyclopedia could be improved ten-fold! And what do you mean, "God's representative"? You mean a priest?! A Prophet? A Bishop? Please don't be so sensetive, Jasca. Everything is worked out. You are incurring against Fourdot, not the other way around. Not once did I see him insult you on either of your talk pages, or this entire discussion. Stop being stupid and wasting page. I am not declaring you an enemy. We should stop kriffing around and work on the article.-- V ladius M agnum ( Clan Magnum )
 * StarNeptune, the reasons I'm saying to end the consensus track is 1) it's obvious which side prevailed in it and 2) we didn't want another one so soon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Jack. But we're using it to decide on adding a second image to the infobox and the title for the article so it probably shouldn't be locked until that's done even if the vote on keeping it merged is pretty clear. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry JSarek, I had intended that a banner announcement for voting would prevent people who weren't aware of all this from coming in and complaining that the change had occurred on 25 votes.Tocneppil 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For that infobox vote, it should be copied to a new consensus track and then lock the consensus track for the merge. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nebulax's is correct on this one. It should be moved and locked. Jasca Ducato 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators? Any objections? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst I wouldn't have a problem with it being locked, it's time isn't up, and a call from you saying that it should be locked because you're not happy with it, or that it shouldn't have been started in the first place isn't good grounds for closing a thread. It's not harming anyone - if anything, there's a strong enough consensus to ward of detractors for quite some time. .  .  .  .  21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thefourdot, it's still going to discourage a vote on the issue for a while when it's closed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You would think so, wouldn't you. But unfortunately, there are those who do not accept something unless there's a strong consensus to slap them in the face. (No, I'm not talking about you). It's usually the more immature users, so if we let this just go through its normal run, we can just show it to them and stop them from going too far. .  .  .  .  22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The first consensus track was enough. Even now, this doesn't need to be finished to get a point across. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the last consensus track did have more votes for the merge, but it was only majority, not consensus (it was a margin of one, or something), and so the CT was closed with the very wise decision to revert to policy. Now, due to the lack of consensus, there's been a lot of rumbling from the vocal minority (which includes you, Jack), and whilst I don't think that you are complaining on grounds of no previous consensus, there are many who are (Marty Feldman for one). So if we just let this run it's course, there can be no reasonable excuse for starting up another CT in the forseeable future. And I can get the current article up to FA. .  .  .  .  22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, just for the record, the "forseeable future" is up to four to six months, roughly. A new consensus track should take place around that time. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in my country we don't have set times for the forseeable future. Anyway, if I were advocating a split, I'd listen to SFH - Wait a year. .  .  .  .  23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, in my country we don't have set times for the forseeable future". Thefourdot, stop acting like a you-know-what. I was only using that because someone had suggests six months above. And waiting a year may be too long. Six months, maybe even eight, is good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/20.gif Whatever. .  .  .  .  01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But if we were to take Thefourdot's suggestion and continue it on, when would it end? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "And I can get the current article up to FA" Fourdot, you don't own this article, alright? I think we should take Nebulac's suggestion and i also think Fourdot should stop being God's representative! Jasca Ducato 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jasca, I'm sorry, but you really are taking this way too seriously now. Your comments are only promting a response from Thefourdot, not stopping him. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's taking every ounce of my self control to stop myself from tearing him apart. But I really don't want to cause Imp or Ataru the trouble of having to control the situation. So I'm cooperating. .  .  .  .  21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's appreciated. Thank you fourdot, for trying to keep a more civil environment. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Was he the Chosen One???

 * I was wondering if Anakin WAS the chosen One. The Chosen One was suppose to destroy the Sith. As far as i'm concerned Anakin Solo killed the Emperor. Which is true? Thanks! Quinlanfan 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anakin was the Chosen One, period. Darth Abeonis Sith Council (Sith Campaign) 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anakin Skywalker killed the Emperor, the Sith Lord completing the prophecy. However I'm gonna guess that the fact the Emperor came back tells us that the propecy wasn't at all permenant to use the word.
 * That Or, eu after the movies timeline cheapens the movies--Black Jack Scarron 08:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC). a cloned emperor??? yes, just scrap the entire prophecy...
 * Now that the two have merged, all of Darth Vader's quotes are gone... Just wanted to point that out. --Anon
 * I think the whole Prophecy section of this wiki is very poorly done. It spends too much time debating what the definition of "Balance to the force" is, but spends no time on the fact that Obi Wan states that the Prophecy says the Chosen One is to "Destroy the Sith, not join them!", and also does not mention that he says that the Chosen One is to "Bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness!". Not leaving it in darkness would, again, imply that the prophecy says that "balance" would be destroying the Sith. It also does not seem to touch on the fact that Anakin does, in the end, destroy the Sith when he returns to the light and kills the Emperor. I also seem to remember Lucas specifically saying in one of the DVD commentaries that Anakin is, in fact, the chosen one.... but I'm dreading having to go through them and find it to be 100% certain.--Refuse Winst 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Anakin's bedroom ceiling
This is a bad picture...but is it worth including this info? There are Darth Maul like sith patterns painted on his ceiling. I've seen better pictures so I can look for it if anyone wants this in. You can see a little bit of it here. Perhaps for the BTS section?--DannyBoy7783 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you point those Maul-like Sith patterns out for us? I didn't see any. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's very hard to see in that particular picture but you'll notice along the top of the image (the room's ceiling) that there is an orange/red coloring to the ceiling and there is a pattern in it. It's hard to see there but you'll have to take my word for it that it's like Maul's tats. I'll try and get a better picture at some point if I can. Until then it's not really very useful to upload that picture. --DannyBoy7783 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it...sure it's not just the lighting? .  .  .  .  05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks similar to the patterns on the ceiling of the Lars dining room, seen in AotC and ANH - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooo, I've got goosebumps! Could this be a hint that young Anakin was being watched over by Palpy all the time?! I love stuff like this!!8)Tocneppil 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see in this image, but it's there.--Valin Kenobi 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Preposal
Image:Comp-anivader.jpg I think it represents Both Sides of Anakin perfectly and it's an excellent Mirror Image. And don't start at me with that Portrait poodoo either Four Dot Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC) I like this one best, as it presents Anankin in his "transition period" from Ani to Vader. Adamwankenobi 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's too wide of an image to use. if you shrunk it down so it looked ok layout-wise the pictures would be too small.--DannyBoy7783 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely no to both. We want one from Anakin in his prime, and we already have it as the main image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, it's one image. I'm guessing that's the point of asking about it - if used both images would be in the infobox. A nice idea but it won't fly. --DannyBoy7783 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't mind two images in the infobox&mdash;just as long as the main image used now and a good Vader one were used. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't really like the above image. A mix Ani/Vader one would be fine, but it would have to look really good. -Solus 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if we were to have two images, how could we get them side-by-side? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The only thing I could think of is a good promo that mixes them, but the only one I know of is of poor quality. -Solus 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do vaguely remember a full-body Vader image that was good... I'll try to find it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Portraits, gentlemen. .  .  .  .  02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, it is almost impossible to get, find or make an image that both represents Anakin and Vader. Unless you want to venture out into fancreated images where the Anakin image is laid over the Vader image with a lower opacity setting. Let's just stick with the current one. -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How's this for a fun fact - Anakin was Vader before he was in the suit. So, a portrait of Anakin in the hood would give us both Darth Vader, and Anakin, since I'm sure he would have worn the hood in his tenure as a Jedi. Simple. .  .  .  .  02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not that simple. Having a picture of the pre-suit Vader wouldn't really give us a picture of Anakin, or vice-versa. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 03:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but yes it would. Just give us a grumpy looking Anakin, and we can regard it as either, since the promo shots are not specifically labelled Anakin, or Vader. We cannot determine them, since they are taken in a studio, not in the film. .  .  .  .  03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the only problem with a "grump looking Anakin" picture is that I don't think any good ones exist. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I'm sure someone like Redemption could whip one up...there was one I was thinking of...went along these lines: .  .  .  .  04:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or:  .  .  .  .  04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn...first image aint working. .  .  .  .  04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here we go. Obviously not this particular one, but the same shot, just of better quality: .  .  .  .  04:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They're kind of dark, don't you think? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I were to choose between them, I'd pick the Official Pix one. The pic over there --> is okay but of low quality and, in my opinion kinda... meh. -Solus 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But only if I had to choose between them. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They're kind of dark, don't you think? Well, since it doesn't obscure his face completely, I reckon it represents his personality well. .  .  .  .  20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's not good for a main image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reason being? .  .  .  .  21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's too dark. While it does literally show Anakin's light and dark sides, the fact that it's dark doesn't make it good for the infobox. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, not that one. But we need one of a grouchy Anakin. .  .  .  .  21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's one of the ones I was thinking of. I would vote for it but...check the CT. .  .  .  .  22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I had to choose between these three, I'd still go for Image 1. Image 3 is, frankly, of low quality and I, personally, do not like it. -Solus 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this one cropped to put in. (if we have to change it at all; I'm happy with what's currently there) -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for the one on the right. And don't let your consensus track limit your voting, Thefourdot. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None of these images take my fancy, so I'm going neutral. .  .  .  .  06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the current one is better, upon further consideration. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -Solus 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)+
 * I like the image we have up there currently. I don't think it needs to be changed. I hope this doesn't turn into the same main image debate as seen on the Luke Skywalker article. - Impassioned Jedi 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two infoboxes?
So, if we're going to keep the Vader and Anakin articles merged, what would you think of putting two character infoboxes in the article (a Jedi character infobox for Anakin and an Sith one, later in the article, for Vader?) Or would that strike the rest of you as a bad idea? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of it. Might help quell all the "merge/seperate" debates a little, too - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No point. If it does remained merged then we might as well just have one, otherwise it would be unitdy. Jasca Ducato 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bad idea to make compromises just to keep people quiet. He's still only one person after all. --Imp 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely only one. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does it, but I don't really like it. Keep it at one.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternatively QuentinGeorge suggested putting two pictures in the one infobox, I made a little test which you can see in action on the merging CT thread. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)