Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Darth Vader's Intellect 2 "I Need Him! or Nooo!!!"? 3 Section divisions 4 Anakin Skywlker/Darth Vader at the end of Episode III discussion update 5 Hayden Christensen in Jedi - huh? 6 "where both Kenobi and a dying Yoda" vs. "where both a dying Yoda and Kenobi" 7 Category:Star Wars Naberrie family 8 "widely considered one of the most iconic movie villains of all time" 9 "Appearance" image 10 Stop the petty reverting. 11 Edits by 67.171.237.88 12 Edits by Wookieepedian 13 Edits by Copperchair 14 darth vader translation 15 Tense 16 Minor Edits by Vesther 17 Making succession box more accurate 18 The Clones Wars 19 Anakin or Vader? 20 Article size 21 Anakins Birth

Darth Vader's Intellect

Anakin is the "son" of the Force, thus, he is gifted with a brilliant mind (just as the gods of ancient mythology). During his service to Watto, he learned vital technical and mechanical skills. While the Force may aid him in the construction of devices and machines, it is notewothy that Anakin is an engineering prodigy without the powers. -- User:24.253.120.206

Yeah. I tried to leave it unstated in the article whether all his talents were due to the Force, other than specifically quoting Obi-Wan about his piloting skills. I think it works best to put it that way. — Phil Welch 00:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"I Need Him! or Nooo!!!"?

There is a debate on whether "I Need Him!!!" or "NOOO!!!" warranted Anakin to simultaneously ignite his lightsaber and carve off Mace Windu's offenses. I don't think that "I Need Him" warranted Anakin to ignite his lightsaber and cut Windu's offenses off. My views is that Anakin didn't say that "he needs Palpatine" for a reason, but he tries to convince Windu to have Palpatine stand trial. Don't you guys think that Anakin was supposed to shout out "Nooo!!!" as he tries to cut off Windu's offenses to defend Palpatine?

I don't think "I need him!" warranted Anakin to defend Palpatine, I think Anakin wanted Palpatine to stand trial, but Windu chose to ignore Anakin's request, so that's why Anakin sliced Windu's hand off. I think it should be "NOOO!!!" instead of "I need him!" that caused Anakin to slice Windu's hand off. — Vesther 03:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Try writing more clearly, that made absolutely no sense. — Phil Welch 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Section divisions

If you haven't noticed I'm trying to keep the sections so that they correspond to the films, with "Anakin Skywalker" covering the prequels and "Darth Vader" covering the original trilogy. Also the use of numbering in listing the actors is amateurish, the publicity shot is a better picture, and Ben Burtt was the special effects supervisor—not in any universe would he be credited with playing the role. — Phil Welch 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Anakin Skywlker/Darth Vader at the end of Episode III discussion update

The official site has updated the databank entry for Darth Vader. I suggest you take a look at it. Copperchair 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar", "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight", and it was only after Mustafar that "He abandoned his former identity". Alright. Thanks for pointing that out. The databank follows the practice we established for the article—namely, to use both names throughout most of Revenge of the Sith. It appears Copperchair's favorite source seems to agree with our consensus. — Phil Welch 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. "When it came time to make the fateful decision, he agreed to follow Sidious' teachings and knelt before the dark master.

Anakin was renamed Darth Vader".

2."His wife, Padmé Amidala, followed Anakin to Mustafar, to plead for him to return from the dark side. When Obi-Wan Kenobi emerged from Amidala's ship, Vader was consumed with rage. He saw betrayal at every corner. Distraught, he reached out with his hand and began to telekinetically throttle Padmé. She gasped for air before collapsing, unconscious, on the Mustafar landing platform. Shocked at how far his apprentice had fallen, Kenobi vowed to stop Vader and the two entered into a fierce lightsaber duel that traversed the burning Mustafar landscape."

It says "Anakin" because that is who Padmé was looking for. She didn't know his new name. You invented the "and it was only after Mustafar that" part. As for "He abandoned his former identity.", it refers to the fact that he no longer had a wife (or nobody of his loved ones, to be precise), which was the cause for his turn to the dark side, so he began a new life. Copperchair 20:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting "Despite his newfound power bestowed by the dark side of the Force, Anakin was grievously wounded in the fight," and also "When metal coupled with flesh in the form of cyborg implants and enhancements required to sustain him, Skywalker's transformation was complete." Copperchair, it's a completely moot point anyway. We made an agreement, and you promised not to break it. I am going to hold you to it. Don't waste our time on this yet again. — Phil Welch 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you know that was left from the older version of the page, since you pointed that out too the last time. And even though I will keep my word, I want the issue to be clear at least in the talk page, so I do not feel I am "wasting my time". Copperchair 22:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

They would have changed that part if it was wrong, Copperchair. We decided to go by the scripts, and as far as we know that's what happened. As long as you keep your word, I have no further complaints. — Phil Welch 23:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to keep reminding my of our agreement. I gave you my word, and I will keep it. But I am not satisfied with the current version of the article, and will continue to support my position on this page. Copperchair 04:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You go ahead and do that then. — Phil Welch 04:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen in Jedi - huh?

thumb|Original thumb|altered

According to the caption below the photo; "Hayden Christensen as the spirit of Anakin Skywalker (left) in Return of the Jedi." - is this a photoshopped photo?? because at the time Jedi was made he was about 2 years old. Astrokey44 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the 2004 DVD set. Lucas replaced the the old guy with Hayden. The Wookieepedian 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

oh ok, should that be noted on the picture caption? - something like "On the 2004 DVD cover, HC replaced SS from the original movie" - well I cant think of the right wording but you see what i mean. Astrokey44 13:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Lucas considers that the only' version of that films, sort of his updated one, and claims that's how Anakin should look. I guess I could mention that, though The Wookieepedian 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that its been removed, which makes sense since it was not in the original movie - just to put it up so people know what we're talking about Astrokey44 22:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the archives, this has been discussed. — Phil Welch 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And the same goes for the Palpatine article. Copperchair 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Obi-Wan keeps reverting back to DVD-version captures. While these are the most up to date and I would like to change to them eventually, I do think that at this point in time the earlier captures are more appropriate just because they're the version that's the most familiar to the most people. We can feel safe changing it over after the theatric re-release in 3D, or perhaps later on, but right now I think it's premature. After all, Lucas might make yet another change between now and then. — Phil Welch 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the new versions should be used, they're higher in quality and the latest official version of the film. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted another of his reverts. I agree with Phil. The Wookieepedian 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, they're the latest official version. It's also a version that's only existed for just over a year now and that comparatively few people have seen. The fact is, the story of Darth Vader and the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars is more than George Lucas's latest revision. As an encyclopedia it's our job to reflect reality, and reality is, far, far more people saw Sebastian Shaw as the Force ghost. Until the latest revision gains enough cultural currency to overturn the scene that's existed for over 20 years--not just among fanboys but among the public in general--then it's premature to change it. — Phil Welch 20:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we then as an encyclopedia have both versions and explain the difference in Vaders portraial between the two versions of the movies. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

We do--in List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. — Phil Welch 22:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus the fact that Lucas changed the scene is in the Vader article. The Wookieepedian 23:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia not supposed to have the latest information? We shouldn't stay purposefully outdated just so some people can catch up. There isn't going to be panic in the streets if we post a screenshot from a DVD that millions of people have bought over the past year or so. Just have a caption that says "from the 2004 DVD release". That's all. The more you show these shots, the quicker they'll be accepted. Besides, I'm sure that more people nowadays would recognize Hayden Christensen over Sebastian Shaw. You know, I sense an undercurrent of dislike against this change, or Christensen, or the Prequels in general... you shouldn't be making excuses to keep the old picture. --Marcg106 05:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I'm not "making excuses", I'm just looking beyond the impulse, of some, to treat Lucas's latest revisions as the only consideration to be made. If we're supposed to present a truly representative picture of what Star Wars is, we should present a generally broader picture than simply what Lucas's latest revision is. There won't be "panic in the streets" if we don't—we'd just be failing our job as an encyclopedia, not to make Lucas's tinkering with his old films more quickly accepted, but to catalogue the cultural phenomena of our civilization. — Phil Welch 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You say to assume good faith, yet your reply seems to have a condecending attitude toward's Lucas "tinkering". Every other page on Wikipedia is always updated with the latest information as soon as it's available. I fail to see how this page is different. "Cataloguing cultural phenomena" does not take precedent over providing accurate, up-to-date details.

This flippant attitude toward's Lucas' updates is not appropriate. The idea that, "oh, he'll make more revisions in the future, so why bother displaying them now?" is completely against what Wikipedia's about. If he does make those changes, then we'll update the pages accordingly. But for now, the images should reflect the most current version.

I'd really like to see some other pages where up-to-date information is sacrificed for the sake of "preserving culture".

It would be interesting to see arguments against this change that aren't based in a fundamental dissaproval of Lucas' prerogative to change his films. --Marcg106 15:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Lucas changing his films. I just don't think Wikipedia should be activist about promoting the acceptance of those changes: that's called maintaining the Neutral point of view. Once again, this page notes that Christiansen appears in the latest version of Return of the Jedi--no "accurate, up-to-date details" are sacrificed. If you want to see arguments that "aren't based in a fundamental dissaproval of Lucas' prerogative to change his films", I suggest you reread my arguments because you obviously failed to comprehend them the first time. — Phil Welch 18:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I suggest that we display images from both versions of the films and explain the differences, there's no need to pick one version, and no, having it at List of changes in Star Wars re-releases is not enough. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? That's the article that's actually *about* differences between various versions of the films. It's at best a tangential issue in this article. — Phil Welch 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well in my opionion if the portrayal of this character changes through different versions of the movies we should explain that in this article as well as the list of .. article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As currently written, the article clearly states that the portrayal does change. We just haven't cluttered the article with two pictures of the same scene. — Phil Welch 15:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, I felt that I'd rather see Sebastian Shaw as the forgiven Anakin, IMO Anakin "secretly" aged while he was encaged in his "original trilogy damnation", as his burning healed up though not completely. So, I'd say if people has the courage, the forgiven Anakin image should be reverted back to Sebastian, who represented the forgiven Anakin more closely. — Vesther 21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"where both Kenobi and a dying Yoda" vs. "where both a dying Yoda and Kenobi"

I really hope there's not some stupid edit war brewing over this, but I see that Copperchair has reverted this edit several times, and I really, really just want to ask: um, why does such a small word choice even matter? – Mipadi 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Kenobi and a dying Yoda" flows better, even though it's not chronologically accurate. But there's no representation or expectation that it would be, either. — Phil Welch 07:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Star Wars Naberrie family

Does Anakin really belong in this category? He married Padme and that might be considered marrying into the Naberrie family, but usually we see it as the woman marrying into the man's family and not the other way around. If there's something definite about the way this is seen in the Star Wars universe, I'd like to see it. — Phil Welch 07:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the way it is in the real world is quite the double standard, so I would think that the Star Wars world, as advanced as they seem in all aspects, would see it both ways. As far as in-universe aspects go, I'm quite surprised that they would still expect women to take the last name of the person they marry. But of course, since those stories were written by earthly humans, it's not all that surprising. Let's leave it at that, as there's really no established custom as far as "marrying into" in Star Wars fiction yet.The Wookieepedian 08:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing i've always found notable in the Star Wars canon is the vast array of different customs in different cultures, even within a given species. I think a little delving could probably be done and see what the custom is on Naboo, because with all of the source material a precedent has probably been established somewhere in the EU TastemyHouse 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"widely considered one of the most iconic movie villains of all time"

I've attempted to replace this weasel statement in the lead section with a factual statement that conveys approximately the same message. It may be less dramatic, but the original statement is still an opinion without references, even if it is not a widely disputed statement. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How about we just leave it the way I had it, but.. give a reference to your specific fact, wherever it is on the net. The Wookieepedian 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded it to keep the notion that he's an iconic figure (without the opinionated "one of the most"), while mentioning his pop culture significance and AFI to back it up. It easily summarizes and leads the reader into the "cultural figure" section. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Good. I agree with your style of wording. The Wookieepedian 04:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

He's been featured on some sci-fi presentation as the #1 greatest villian of all time, unlike his #3 ranking in the reference used in the article. Vader is rather iconic; though we'd need significant backup to state here that he's the most iconic villan ever. Stepping back from wikidom a bit, he may very well be.

"Appearance" image

The image of Darth Vader by the "Appereance" section is there for a very simple reason—so we get to see what he looks like in a section discussing what he looks like. It's an illustration. While I'm not opposed to a caption necessarily, it would have to be a caption that is useful to the purpose of illustrating what Lord Vader looks like, or else it's a distraction from the meaning and flow of the page. By the way, formatting the image as a thumbnail without a caption is quite silly as well. — Phil Welch 19:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The caption goes along with the discussion of his appearance. Furthermore, the image is a thumbnail, so it should be formatted as such.

Wikipedia even specifies a standard format for adding images: 1 2 – Mipadi 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop the petty reverting.

This is directed towards Copperchair and The Wookieepedian, who keep reverting Hayden's episode VI appearance in the infobox. Regardless of which version of the film you consider the "true" version, all versions of the movie need to be acknowledged to avoid POV. I've place a footnote to clarify which version of ROTJ Hayden appears in. Hopefully this is a satisfactory solution for both of you. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, Copperchair cannot accept any type of compromise. For him, all Star Wars articles must be based only on the '97 Speial Editions. I was not trying to promote my version as he was. He was attempting to remove information from other versions. I left everything in from the other versions. If I acted like him, I would have removed the fact that Sebastian Shaw originally played him. Yep, that's how silly Copperchair's actions are, when looked at from a different point of view! Even when I have given him this comparison, he merely avoids it, and continues reverting. And the guy claims he studied law! The Wookieepedian 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Inexplicably removing factually correct and referenced information, as Copperchair is doing, arguably constitutes vandalism. I'm conservative when it comes to defining vandalism but I think this qualifies, if barely. — Phil Welch 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT vandalism, as that information is already in the article (Sebastian Shaw portrayed the dying, middle-aged (and redeemed) man behind the mask in the theatrical release of Return of the Jedi and shortly after, as his ghost; however, in the most recent DVD release, Christensen is digitally inserted in Shaw's place.) Thus, Poiuyt Man's footnote is redundant. Copperchair 07:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And so is the fact that Shaw played him. Should we remove that from the info box as well? The Wookieepedian 07:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

By that logic, the whole infobox is redundant, as all the information within it is mirrored in prose within the article. The infobox is meant to summarize various crucial details, and the footnote is used to prevent bloating the infobox by inserting the entire explanation into it. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 09:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No, because he, unlike Hayden, appears in the end credits. Copperchair 07:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

But face reality; Hayden played him in the DVD of ROTJ. That is a FACT. End credits or not, Hayden played him in the DVD. That doesn't seem too hard to understand, unless YOU HAPPEN TO REFUSE TO BECUASE YOU ARE A 97' PURIST. The Wookieepedian 07:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I GO BY THE END CREDITS. If someone is not credited, he/she should not be listed as if he/she was. Copperchair 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't. End credits can be in error. In all cases, despite end credits, if an actor was in a movie, THEN AN ACTOR WAS IN A MOVIE. People make mistakes in credits, you know. For instance, with ROTS, Aiden Barton portrayed Luke and Leia, but they were left out of the credits. Did they play Luke and Leia? Yes. Also take the 2004 DVD. In that case, the editors apparently forgot to change or add the credits. The Wookieepedian 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

They didn't forget; they decided not to include them in the end credits, and I will respect that decision. Copperchair 09:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Then who are you to say that Lucas purposely didn't include Hayden in the credits? Regardless of whether or not he is credited, he is in the movie. The infobox box field is labeled "Portrayer", which includes all actors that have portrayed the character. It is not labeled "Actors credited". --Poiuyt Man ^talk 09:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair will say anything just to reduce the information from the 2004 versions in articles. The Wookieepedian 09:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I say Lucas purposely didn't include Hayden in the credits because he didn't. Or did he? Copperchair 09:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to excuses. The Wookieepedian 09:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As usual, myself and the others agree and Copperchair disagrees. The civil, good-faith decision would be to respect the rough consensus that's beginning to emerge. Copperchair's decision is to not respect the rough consensus that's beginning to emerge. The conclusion of this modus tollens is left as an exercise for the reader. — Phil Welch 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 67.171.237.88

This anonymous user has made a number of good edits and a number of ones that I personally disagree with, so I think this would be a good place to discuss them. Below are the differences that seem to be cropping up (add others if you wish):

My "The iconic villain has appeared throughout pop culture" vs. 67's "Considered one of the most iconic villains in movie history has become a staple of pop culture "—despite the bad grammar in 67's version that we would presumably want to fix, I think a rough consensus to my version is visible above. If 67 wants to try and persuade us in the relevant section above why his version is better he's free to, but this one seems settled for the time being.

"Mark Hamill noted in a 1983 interview, "Bob Anderson was the man who actually did Vader’s fighting. It was always supposed to be a secret, but I finally told George I didn’t think it was fair any more. Bob worked so bloody hard that he deserves some recognition. It’s ridiculous to preserve the myth that it’s all done by one man."". He wants it removed. Why?

"It is interesting to note that "Vader" is the Dutch word for "father" and that the German word for "father" (Vater) is similar. Thus, it may be tempting to read the character name "Darth Vader" as "Dark Father," a word-play that may well be the root of the Sith title. However, judging by the origin of the other Sith names, Vader may also possibly be a derivative of the word "invader." It is worth noting that in the original scripts for Star Wars, the name "Darth Vader" was given to a normal Imperial general. The title "Darth" may also come from "Dark Lord of the Sith." In the French translation of the movies, his name is translated as "Dark Vador", which means nothing in French." He wants it removed. Why?

If there are any other disputes feel free to bring them up. — Phil Welch 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see whoever keeps making these anonymous changes answer for himself. On Wikipedia we resolve issues through discussion, not continual reversion. — Phil Welch 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Wookieepedian

Wookiee, if you want to go ahead and argue for some of your recent changes to the article (some of which I've reverted, some of which I've kept and altered a bit) feel free to. I'm letting you provide opening arguments this time :) — Phil Welch 18:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary change I wanted to make was to move the EU section directly below the sections on "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader," as it is, of course, a direct continuation and expansion of the story in the first two sections. Yeah, it's not as notable, but it brings the story parts of the page together, before bringing in non-story details, such as appearance and things. The Wookieepedian 23:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Phil, glad to see you reworked the opening wording. I made the initial change becuase it seems this article lean more toward the classic idea of Vader as a pure villain, and didn't seem to touch as much on, or make it a blatant point that he was the tragic hero, and main focus of the series. The Wookieepedian 07:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, moving the EU section makes sense from a certain perspective, but on the other hand, I want to sort of work away from the current bias of lumping EU in together with the rest of the films, because in terms of cultural impact and currency there's a vast, vast gulf (the films having significant impact while the EU having next to none). Think of it as a work against the geek fanboy systematic bias. :) If it's a big deal to you we can discuss it in greater detail, I'm just trying to summarize my rationale here. By the way, thanks for being such a great editor to work with lately! — Phil Welch 08:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that there is a HUGE difference in impact and familiarity between the films and the EU. My complaint, however, is that the sections on "appearance," "talents," etc. separate the "story" aspects of the character's life, familiarity or not. It makes it look as though that, rather than looking at it as part of his complete life, makes it into a more minor detail, while some of the events in the EU clearly are major (for example: Luke's first battle with him in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, his involvement in Shadows of the Empire, the hunting down of the rebels responsible for the first death star's destruction in the holiday special). It's really an issue of order and completeness that I have with it. I think it's important, however, to distinguish what is in the films, and what isn't. For instance, typically, edotors will not distinguish what's part of the films, but will the EU, as it in in the Vader article. I think we can move up the EU section on Vader and elsewhere, if a disticion is made, so that readers themselves will be able to make a clear distiction, and can skip over EU material that they may not find too interesting. So, if we make clear disticions, it would work well for the people of both worlds: the fanboys, who want to see the films and EU lumped together, and everyone else, who may not be as interested, and will want to see the difference so that they can skip over it (for an example of an article that does make such a clear distinction, see Obi-Wan Kenobi). Now, I do think that it would be very fanboyish to not separate the two, and merely name the events, and not distinguish films and EU (Cough, Star Wars Wiki, Cough). The Wookieepedian 09:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Were Darth Vader a real person, I'd certainly agree his EU exploits would be far more important to him than a simple minor detail. However, Darth Vader is a fictional character, and in that respect, little-known exploits that are almost unknown outside serious fandom are minor details, especially compared to the distinctive appearance and cultural impact of the character. The criterion here is "important to the reader", and by "the reader" I mean the aggregate of all readers. The average reader would be interested to learn what Vader's done in the expanded universe, but I think he would care a bit more about what he did in the actual movies and about how he's the quintessential pop-culture villain. — Phil Welch 02:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Copperchair

Aside from the bizarre "let's not mention Hayden's appearance in ROTJ" thing (which I didn't bother reverting Copperchair on), the three main things Copperchair changed in his latest uncivilly-summarized edit are as follows:

1. In the summary, "In later films, his redemption, as well as his initial fall from grace, are explored in greater depth." is changed to "In the third film released in the series we see his redemption, and in later films his initial fall from grace is explored in greater depth." I personally think the former version is far better-phrased within the context of a summary section.
2. "Vader gets a lock on Luke's X-wing, noting that "the Force is strong with this one."" is changed to "Vader gets a lock on Luke's X-wing, noting that "The Force is strong with this one."" The former is capitalized correctly—even when quoting a complete sentence within a sentence, my understanding is that the quote does not begin with a capital letter.
3. "That night, Luke burns his father's Sith armor (and whatever remains inside) in the manner of a Jedi's funeral." is changed to "That night, Vader's body disappears as he becomes one with the Force. Luke burns his father's Sith armor in the manner of a Jedi's funeral.". A lot of editors other than Copperchair have been making a wide variety of edits stating either that Anakin didn't disappear and Luke burned his body, or that Anakin did disappear and Luke burned his armor. It isn't shown in the film, and the way I have it stated here is more neutral. That said, a better addressing of this issue may be in order.

I hope this is informative. — Phil Welch 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted his removal of the Hayden appearance, AGAIN. The Wookieepedian 07:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reincorporated old material as a footnote linked from the disappearing-body issue. That should settle that issue. The capitalization and summary style issues, of course, Copperchair continues reverting on without explanation. — Phil Welch 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he continues that with several articles, just as always. The Wookieepedian 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

darth vader translation

i would just like to suggest, although i know that it has been mentioned here to some degree, that the "darth," as originally conceived, was not a title.

the name "vader" back in 77, or whenever lucas was writing his original screenplay, actually could have been inspired by the german or dutch pronunciation of the word for father; i see the argument for why not on this page, but would like to submit that people have been looking at the "darth" meaning "dark" incorrectly, and that lucas really was making an allusion.

i think darth in this case is actually closer to the word "dearth" which means missing or lost. in this case, if vader means father, then the translation would be "missing father."

using the pronunciation of old english (which is very similar to dutch and german) and spelling it phonetically, dearth would become darth. vader would have to be pronounced as we do now in order to make it a degree away from the german, which is too similar to its meaning (and would therefore clue the viewer into the secret.) using the two seperate pronunciations, he creates a mysterious name with a secret meaning.

noting also that this site is dedicated to keeping things most up-to-date, this argument may not mean much, since it is obvious that the darth appellation has become a title and not an actual name as of episode one. regardless, this may be an interesting point to add to the article, or at least a bit of new trivia for those who are editing this board.

i leave it to your judgement for whether or not it should be included.

Tense

I don't understand why the biography is in the present tense. Shouldn't it be in the past (as well as the minor villians page) with the exception of the image captions?- JustPhil 20:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Present tense is apparently standard on Wikipedia for fictional events. — Phil Welch 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edits by Vesther

Now possessing the ROTS DVD, I watched the Immolation Scene very closely. I think everybody agrees that Anakin's eyes turn yellow before he gets toasted up, but before his immolation, isn't Obi-Wan supposed to be in a state of grief? Like Obi-Wan knew that Anakin broke his mission as the Chosen One? Obi-Wan, after maiming and immobilizing Anakin, started to be in a state of grief since Anakin apparently joined the Sith instead of destroying the Sith. — Vesther 21:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Making succession box more accurate

How is Jon Hart's version more accurate? Please explain, Jon Hart, how the previous version was inaccurate. — Phil Welch 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Lumiya and Flint did succeed Vader? Because after Bane it's a good idea to list both extant Sith? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The previous box said "apprentice to Darth Sidious". Sidious was *the* Dark Lord of the Sith and presumably has his own succession series. Also, Vader was Sidious's last apprentice. So the previous version was completely accurate, and far less confusing/misleading. — Phil Welch 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not "completely accurate"- what about Flint and Lumiya? They were not mentioned in the previous infobox. AS well, I do not see any confusion here- "under" seems clear to me. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Flint and Lumiya were not apprentices of Darth Sidious, that's why they weren't mentioned. The confusion is because Darth Sidious is listed as a previous Dark Lord of the Sith under Darth Sidious. He was his own apprentice? What? — Phil Welch 01:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Clones Wars

Shouldn't the information on his involvement with the clone wars (the part on the animated series) go under the expanded universe section? The Wookieepedian 00:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead and move it. — Phil Welch 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anakin or Vader?

Phil, I've read your conversations with Copperchair. But, why must you strickly follow the shooting script? He is clearly designated Darth Vader halfway trogh ROTS. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he is culturally synonomous with the suit does it? The Wookieepedian 00:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's part of it. You'll notice that during the ROTS sections we do use the name "Vader" sometimes. For instance, "In order to increase Lord Vader's power with the dark side...". The agreement seems to be: dialogue should be quoted from the shooting script as much as possible, but exposition can use either name depending on flow, redundancy, and which aspect we want to discuss. This will lead us to use "Anakin" a lot simply because "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan" is more the concept of that sequence than "Vader vs. Obi-Wan". — Phil Welch 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In some sections, however, it is factually incorrect to use "Anakin" (ex. the caption of him with the yellow eyes). I think "Vader" should be used as much as possible, while using "Anakin" when discussing his former self in the film, prior to being declared "Lord Vader." For instance, "Anakin's lightsaber," or "Anakin's wife." The Wookieepedian 00:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The shooting script, novelization, and multiple other sources refer to him as "Anakin" even after he'd fallen to the Dark Side. If you have the soundtrack, for instance, the music for the duel is titled "Anakin vs. Obi-Wan". Anakin and Vader are just different names for the same person, the only reason to use exclusively one name is in situations where the other name didn't apply (i.e. most of the prequels) and in situations where it was a galaxy-wide secret that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker (i.e. most of the original trilogy). But when he's fighting Obi-Wan, choking Padme, or killing the Separatist leaders and Jedi younglings, everyone who was there knew he was Anakin Skywalker. It's just that for most of the original trilogy, Padme's dead, Obi-Wan's keeping secrets, and everyone else Anakin killed in ROTS aren't telling secrets either. — Phil Welch 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There's another issue: does this page go here or at Anakin Skywalker. Yes, people spent a lot of time moving things around, but if we consider Vader a seperate person, he was niether born nor did he die. In the end, he was still Anakin. --HereToHelp|talk 23:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader is the better known name—that trumps other considerations. Check the talk archives. There is PLENTY of precedent for this. — Phil Welch 00:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Article size

My God! This article is getting really full. Whenever I tried to edit or add information to this page nowadays, sometimes it just doesn't work. It also says that this article is already 54 kilobytes long, meaning that it has already exceeded its page limit. Shouldn't we do something about it before anything goes wrong? --Anon.

There is no limit. That is merely the suggested size. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Anakins Birth

Who thinks Anakin was created by Palpatine's so called master and why? Does anyone have ideas on my question?

Didn't you already ask this? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

i did but i wanted results on my thoughts so i began to ask around

This thing you are saying is incorrect. Anakin's mother says that he was born from unknown causes (I think is the force). But that theory with Sidious master is wierd. And anyway , who's Darth Sidious's Master. I think his master is Darth Plageious, the sith master that could cheat death (Palpatine has talked about him in episode 3 with Anakin, in the Senate)

I believe in the Novelisation, Sidious says that Plagieus was his master... until he killed him. Emmanovi 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)