Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Lightsaber sections

Shouldn't "Lightsaber Training" and "Swordplay as Darth Vader" go under the "Talents" section? Kiddre 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anakin swearing his allegiance to Palpatine

It is too simplistic to say that Anakin swore his allegiance to the Emeperor's teachings because he was "emotionally drained". Also, it is out of character for Anakin, whose entire depicted life has been an emotional rollercoaster, to act solely on that. Anakin is an individual with no social anchors; Fatherless, and forcefully seperated from his mother at birth he has had no real friends or equals. Decisions are often made based on social anchors, on the rewards and punishments of your environment. For Anakin, very few of these would exist. His "master" might berate him but he is an embaressment, he has no parents, no one whose opinion he respects (except for the emperor). That is why he pledged allegiance to the emperor, that and perhaps a self-serving desire to get the powers he thought he had.

Unfortunately that is unverifiable and original research therefore cannot be included in the article. Sorry. Also, please sign all comments to talk pages using ~~~~. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections 2-5

These sections are so chock full of unimportant minutae, unsupported claims and nakedly subjective opinion that they are better off being cut entirely. If someone wants to create separate articles for this information, be my guest, but it is merely padding in this one. — Kiddre 0:49 18 January 2005 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Jedi Prophecy

Almost nothing in this section is supported by anything in the movies or the Expanded Universe; it is merely subjective opinion and dimestore philosophy, both of which are tiring to read, out of place at wikipedia, and needless filler. I would strongly suggest taking it out. — Kiddre 19:19, 16 January 2005 (UTC)

Some people and I recently edited it, cut out some of the fluff, and then re-expanded upon important parts with more information-- is it objective now? If not, what do you suggest modifying? Please name a specific part. I do agree that the section is a bit on the long side though, and some parts of it need to be cleaned up. Maybe someone could create a new page dedicated to what is known about the Jedi Prophecy, and this section could be moved to that page. -- Solberg 07:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg
A separate page is a great idea, because that section is still unneccessary and absolutely deadly to read, even with the modifications (no offense to you; there's really nothing you can do to improve something this lousy.) But, whatever you do with it, please take it out of this article. -- Kiddre 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Kiddre

please mention something about luke 's involvement in this. he could very well be the "chosen one" having brought Darth Vader back to the light side - jackchen123

Presence in The Unifying Force

I made this change, but it was reverted, so I'll suggest it here. Right now, the article contains an incredibly major spoiler for the NJO at the end of the "Expanded Universe" spoiler by mentioning "Onimi, the true Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzhan Vong." Since the purpose of the article is to talk about Vader and the identity of the Supreme Overlord is by no means necessary to do so, wouldn't it make more sense to simply say "the Supreme Overlord of the Yuuzahn Vong" and avoid spoiling one of the better twists in the series for any unsuspecting readers reading about a character who lived, in the galaxy, 25 years earlier? I imagine there's quite a few of those users out there, especially with RotS and the Vader book being released. --Dws90 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur—it's an unnecessary detail in this context anyway. Removed. — Phil Welch 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed this article

Just thought you should know. -Silence 09:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And I support these changes. The Wookieepedian 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So do I. DivineLady 16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I don't. I hate them. I'd revert them, but I'd probably accuse myself of starting an edit war if I did that. I'm such an asshole. Wow, 4:30 AM already? The lengthy, heated debates in which I go to ridiculous lengths to defend my revision and we have a dramatic, epic battle over the fate of the universe, or this article at least, will have to wait until I wake up. 'night. -Silence 09:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
'night :P The Wookieepedian 09:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Should we reference the "Darth Vader" in Back to the Future?
  2. This must be the only Star Wars article capable of being an FA. What do we need, another PR?Yes but then again I think the it could add more to it.

igordebraga [[User talk:Igordebraga|*]] 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (this DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE!)

  • I've found that the best way to get an article FAd is to keep nominating it for FA until it gets FAd. Featured Article nominees get much more effective, thorough, and important advice on how to make the necessary changes to become FAd than Peer Reviewed articles ever do. But there are some obvious improvements to be made before we should go to that step, in my view; for one, the text needs some copyediting, and we need to cut back on the block movie-script quotations both on this page and on Anakin Skywalker; quoting them in the context of prose paragraphs is always preferable when possible, since they break up the page layout. -Silence 20:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been working for FA status on this for awhile, but as for splitting the article, please don't do that without a consensus beforehand. I'm reverting. — Phil Welch 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's take a vote then. The Wookieepedian 22:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's actually discuss the issue first, okay? — Phil Welch 22:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, let's discuss this for as long and in as much detail as it takes. But until we come to a final decision, let's keep this page in the form that the consensus has established it be in: so far, you're the only person who has opposed splitting the article, whereas have gone out of their way to specifically endorse the change: User:Silence, User:The Wookieepedian, User:igordebraga, and User:DivineLady.
This is not to say that we won't revert the article to just one page after you've made your compelling arguments, but until you do get at least one person on your side, I think we should at least give this new style of article a bit more of a try and see what more people think on the matter (it'll be harder for editors of Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker to see what the new, proposed version is if it's buried in the Edit History, whereas most frequenters of this page have already seen the version you're advocating many times and are quite familiar with it). Get at least one other supporter for your version before reverting the page again; I wouldn't revert the page right now if I was acting unilaterally rather than with a pretty clear approval from the page's readers and editors, so I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
I understand that there have been many past discussions regarding this issue, but the page has changed dramatically in a lot of ways since those discussions, so it can't be assumed that all their decisions still apply: for example, if there was a discussion to merge the "Anakin" and "Darth" articles into one because both were quite short, that discussion no longer applies, since the opposite is now the case. Let's establish a new consensus for what this article should be like now, rather than starting from the assumption that tradition is probably best. We live in a changing world! (And I'm digressing, I'll stop. :3) -Silence 22:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Alright, since this is the article being split, let's discuss the split here. I'm against it: you don't split a biography article just because the person changes his name. Yes, the article is long. Yes, there are two infoboxes—there should arguably only be one, but enough of the information changes to warrant having both so I don't really mind it. Malcolm X is a long article too, and I don't see anyone trying to split that for every single time the guy changed his name. This has been argued time and time again in the talk archives. If you want my personal opinion, the idea of splitting the article does make sense from a fanboy point of view, especially if you're trying to push Copperchair's bizarre idea that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker were literally two different people (which goes against the whole point of the movie if you ask me). But from an encyclopedic point of view and the general standards used by Wikipedia as a whole, it's a bad idea.

Really, one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia is that articles like this have a systematic bias—only fanboys want to edit them, and the articles drift further and further away from the somewhat different standards used by Wikipedia as a whole because the serious editors are busy writing about the military history of Canada or whatever. There's nothing wrong with fan wikis, but Wikipedia isn't a fan wiki. One biography article per person, please. — Phil Welch 22:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the above, let the danm thing be long, but don't split it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


i disagree with above. Anakin and Darth Vader had different personality and different views of the universe. There is no need to give the public a view the anakin skywalker was an evil villain-jackchen123

To split it would be difficult... The "pre-suit" Vader (i.e. in Revenge up to Mustafar) is still too strongly identified as Anakin in the mind of the viewer. At this point, any notion of it spoiling it for someone to brand Anakin and Vader in the same article is a bit over the top. Really, who'd be trolling wikipedia for info on Vader who hadn't seen enough of the movies to figure this out?


You make some interesting points. But remember one thing: This is not a true "biography" article (it's got the "graphy", but "bio" requires life), it is a description of made-up events in the fictional life of a character from a very popular movie and its spin-offs. Thus, it should not be automatically assumed that every aspect of a normal human being's biographical information is to be treated exactly as the "life" of a made-up character. I agree that we should be consistent in every way where it doesn't decrease the article's quality; but where we seem to disagree is on one or more of the following three points: (a) that being exactly like normal biographical articles in this case would worsen the article in this case, making total consistency a bad thing rather than a good thing. (b) that it's completely consistent with normal "biographical" articles to not have all the information on a single page. (c) that it's not worth sacrificing readability and article quality for the sake of consistency. I'm not sure which of those points you'd disagree with, but I agree with all three of them.

Now, to really get into the meat of this. The split between "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader" is not just based on the switching of a name. It is universally acknowledged, both by the creators of the character and by the fans, that there is a massive, irrevocable, fundamental difference between "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader". Whether this difference is merely psychological (in terms of his "abandoning his humanity" and becoming a servant of the Empire) and physical (in terms of his being encased in his life-support suit), or whether there is some quintessential, spiritual aspect of it too, and perhaps even a genuine destruction of the being known as Anakin Skywalker (at least until Vader's redemption), is a subject of debate, but the line drawn between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader could hardly be clearer. To characterize this difference as "just a name change", even going so far as to compare it to Malcolm Little changing his name to Malcolm X, clearly ignores the entire subject of this debate and attempts to ignore all the facts involved in this dispute. This is no mere name change, my friend. (Also, your example misses the mark, because Malcolm X actually isn't a long article, in any way. If you want some real long articles, I could give you a nice list to tide you over 'til Christmas. :)) -Silence 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to when he changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and renounced black nationalism, which is a better analogy. Furthermore, I don't want to further a POV bias on when either name is appropriate—I wrote an endnote about that awhile back. For that reason it's probably better to split the biography section differently than it's split now, and possibly shorten it—long plot summaries tend to be out of favor. — Phil Welch 23:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A better analogy, yes. And still a terrible one. :3 -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And if you have any ideas for how to split the biography section other than by Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader difference, then please do suggest them, as that's terribly important to consider. :) -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Already done. It's split by film, creating six subsections. — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you don't implicitly accuse me of being a fanboy, which I'm not. I think the Star Wars series is honestly quite lacking, and Vader could have been a much more interesting character, despite his cultural significance. (In fact, if anything, I'd say that it's "fanboy" leanings which have caused this article not to be split, as people overly eager to endorse their POV that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are exactly the same person, just at different times in his life, refuse to allow the article to be split even when it will directly benefit the article and help the readers out. But the most blatant "fanboyism-conquering-encyclopedicness" event that I've seen is the state of the Anakin Skywalker article when I first arrived at it, where the entire article was nothing but a soft redirect with a spoiler notice. Going to such absurd lengths to protect people from a spoiler is clearly unencyclopedic and biased in favor of people who'd be scared of being spoiled—and for that matter, clearly vastly inconvenient and bothersome to most people looking for information on Anakin Skywalker! -Silence 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article was split originally. After a long discussion you can read in the talk archives, the page was merged together, originally at Anakin Skywalker, but later moved to Darth Vader with a genuine hard redirect that was ultimately replaced with a soft redirect. — Phil Welch 23:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not surprised that it was split originally (since it's pretty consistent with common sense, 90% of people who search for "Anakin Skywalker" on Wikipedia are specifically looking for descriptions and biographies of Anakin alone, with links to Vader for details on that persona, not an obnoxious and inconvenient soft redirect to a general Darth Vader page that's far too unfocused and overlong to be of much use). -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And I know that there's been a lot of back and forth on this issue in the past. But that doesn't make any difference, I'm sorry to say. There could have been a hundred back-and-forth debates on whether Cher should be at "Cher" or "Cher (entertainer)", but it wouldn't change the fact that Cher should be at Cher. The same applies to any dispute; if there is an obvious solution to every problem, inconvenience, and disagreement involved which would be the best of all worlds and would solve every problem involved, I couldn't give less of a damn what people have argued before. :) Make your arguments now, don't rely on vague allusions to out-of-date debates. -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Generally when something has been disputed for a long time, you join the discussion and work for a consensus instead of just ignoring everyone else. That's the civil thing to do. — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please heed WP:CIVIL by not repeatedly accusing people of incivility just because they disagree with you. Rules-lawyering is not an excuse for breaching Wikiquette or not assuming good faith. :3 (See how it feels?)
      • There was no ongoing discussion when I got to this page; all conversation on the subject had died out a while ago. I started up the discussion by making my edit, and the edit was intended to propose a new possible version for the page and prompt further discussion on how best to handle the Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker problem, since the situation at the time was clearly unacceptable. Your repeated accusations and complaints about a perfectly valid way to organize the article (that has proven itself surprisingly popular) and to propose a new topic for discussion are not appreciated. :3 -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair enough--you made your edit and now we're discussing the issue. Let's keep it to that. — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Having Anakin Skywalker just be a soft redirect to the already-bloated Darth Vader would be like having Onslaught (comics) be a soft redirect to Professor X; there may be disputes over how closely-linked the two personas of the same individual are, but there's absolutely a clear enough distinction to allow for distinct articles on each persona/stage/psyche, especially when there's more than enough information on both topics to be quite expansive and large articles on their own!) -Silence 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with comics, and in any case my original points still stand. Comics articles are edited by comics fans: systematic bias. — Phil Welch 23:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief. Accusing everyone else in the world of bias and fanboyism doesn't change the fact that your option is the only biased, inconsistent, fanboyish one here. Open your eyes to what Wikipedia is, not what you wish it was. -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If you are going to continue being incivil I'm not going to respond to you. — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If you're going to continue accusing me of being incivil this conversation is going to continue going in circles. What is this, kindergarten? Respond to my points, if you have any counter-arguments, rather than continuing the irrelevant and ad hominem accusations of incivility where there is none. I didn't accuse you of "incivility" or start threatening to abandon the discussion when you accused me of being a simpering, ignorant fanboy—I provided counter-arguments and addressed your arguments thoroughly. That you refuse to provide me with the same level of analysis and discourse that I did with you, and to assume the same good faith for me that I did for you, is disappointing. -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • This combative tone you're using isn't getting you anywhere. — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The dismissive tone you're using isn't getting you anwhere. The reason we're running in circles isn't because I'm criticizing you, it's because you're ignoring the criticism and refusing to respond to anything I say. If you truly believe that I'm conveying a "combative tone" even though I'm not, then why not follow the advice given on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and ignore my tone and insulting phrases only, responding to the content of what I've said? You're doing the opposite, responding only to my tone and ignoring everything I'm actually saying, the result of which is that we can make no progress whatsoever in anything. I can't change how you choose to interpret my tone (only what my tone actually is), but you can change how you choose to respond to it. -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I also am a strong advocate for consistency in Wikipedia, and think we should only be inconsistent where it directly serves our purposes by improving our articles and presentation. But despite all that, I believe strongly that this article needs to be subdivided into two articles. I base this on, in addition to my above arguments, the following:

  • (1) The Darth Vader article is far, far too long with the information from Anakin Skywalker incorporated into it. Note that at the [Vader peer review], much of the subject for discussion was how bloated the article is, and if this article was brought up for FC, I would bet a frillion dollars that it would be rejected chiefly on the grounds that it's far, far too large as-is, exactly as Palpatine is being rejected right now! -Silence 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and much of the discussion was about how it wasn't really that long. That said, it's redundant to repeat plot summary information in character bios so I'm probably going to shorten it. That complaint's taken care of, let's move on. — Phil Welch 23:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not "taken care of"; an empty promise to excessively trim a bloated article is not the immediate solution which this vastly better alternative is. Removing valuable plot information that is directly relevant to Vader (feel free to remove the stuff that's not) is not an improvement. There's absolutely no reason not to include all the relevant information on a quasi-satellite article that anyone can use to see all the details of Vader's early life. I'd even put up a tag on the top of Anakin Skywalker saying "This article is about the early life of the character Darth Vader. For the later life and analysis of the character in general, see Darth Vader., if that wasn't an awkward way to handle things, and if that wasn't quite unnecessary from the description of the pages themselves, and if that wouldn't violate the point of having "spoiler warnings" near the top of each page. -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If it's "excessively bloated", trim the bloat. There are multiple sections where information is repeated—removing redundancies alone should bring us down some more. Furthermore, the general consensus on Wikipedia in general is to avoid detailed plot summaries entirely. I'm not sure how to apply that here but it bears consideration. Further, if you're going to accuse me of empty promises, see my previous complaints about your incivility. — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Only some of the bloat is worth being trimmed. The rest is only "bloated" because it's valuable information being packed into one page that should be allowed room to breathe in more than one page. What we should clearly do is divide it into two articles, as has been suggested many times in the past, and then focus on trimming down both articles to a manageable size where all the useful information and none of the useless information is provided, while also adding new useful, interesting, and important information as it arises. -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not removing valuable information. I'm merging what we have here to the plot summaries in the movie articles and referring there. I hope that addresses your concerns. — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • K, good. :o -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Continue allowing the articles to expand as long as more relevant information and interesting and useful new sections continue to be added, continue to trim off irrelevant details, and stop trying to choke the life out of the article by dictating that for some reason this article can never have satellite or sister articles, even though thousands of other Wikipedia articles do, and are vastly better off for it, and even though there's a clear and undeniable benefit in terms of usefulness, NPOV, and clarity which is attained by making Anakin Skywalker/"early life of Darth Vader" a daughter article of Darth Vader, rather than making it an absurd and inconvenient and totally unnecessary glorified spoiler-warning and permanent substub. -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a substub, it's a redirect. This article has satellite and sister articles and refers to them constantly—i.e. the other Star Wars articles and their plot summaries. — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Those are not satellite articles of Darth Vader, they're satellite articles of Star Wars; they're sister articles of Darth Vader, perhaps, but Darthy has no daughter articles currently. Anakin Skywalker would make the perfect one, allowing us to expand on a very important and distinct aspect of his biography and attributes that we would have much less time to address on the main Darth Vader page, and further providing the advantage of not having to create a useless soft-redirect page that does nothing but say "there's a spoiler here. if you don't like spoilers, don't click here." If they didn't want information on Anakin Skywalker, they wouldn't have searched for Anakin Skywalker in the first place, and how is a reader to possibly know whether or not he will want to know about a spoiler before he hears it?! Spoiler warnings are meant to be lines on pages, they are explicitly stated to never supposed to be pages in themselves, see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • By your reasoning, whenever any article becomes large, it means that we should start deleting information from it until it's not large anymore, even when it's large because it should be larged, because there's a huge body of significant information on the subject matter involved (as there undeniably is for Darth Vader!). -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that we should split large articles into satellite articles. In effect, this has already been done for us, as the articles on the individual films have plot summaries we can refer to. — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but those aren't satellite articles for this character. Transfer information there which doesn't directly relate to Darth Vader, but eventually, inevitably, the article will bulk up again with the vast wealth of information on Darth Vader out there, and then we'll have to make the change anyway. Best to get it out of the way now, having articles that are a tad short is always a better editing environment than having articles that are a tad long, since it encourages valuable new contributions, whereas long articles or articles that "are already long enough" discourage them, and are the poorer for it. -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, in effect. A detailed biography of Darth Vader is just going to be an abridged restating of the plot summaries anyway, because he's the main character of the series. So we summarize the plot summaries and refer to them—as I've done. — Phil Welch 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (2) There is an enormous precedent for, and a great detail of common sense in, creating sub-articles, satellite articles, sister/daughter/mother articles, or whatever you prefer to call them, when an article becomes too large. See, for example, Hugo Chavez and Early life of Hugo Chavez—even better, see the entire Charles Darwin series of articles (including Charles Darwin's education), where every stage in the man's life has its own, distinct article, and the Darwin page itself is nothing but a hub and a summary of all those articles! Obviously the Darth Vader page isn't so bloated that a measure that extreme is necessary (though it may be necessary for Palpatine), but at least one article-division is without a shadow of a doubt necessary. And the most obvious way to divide this article, such that two high-quality articles can be made on both sides of the divide, is to have one article for Early life of Darth Vader and one for Darth Vader. Well, guess what—we don't have to use such an awkward, obnoxious title as "Early life of Darth Vader", because there's an extremely clear, obvious, and indisputable difference in names, titles, actors, roles, etc. between Darth in his early life and in his later life! "Anakin Skywalker" is just shorthand for what would be a very clumsy, hard-to-find article title like "Early life of X". Win-win! -Silence 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a relative paucity of information about the life of Darth Vader—six films, the novelizations of those books, and a handful of comics and novels. There's simply less to tell, and with plot summary removed, the article will be a more manageable length. — Phil Welch 23:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how any of that has anything to do with anything I said above, much less refuting a single one of the vital points. There's plenty to tell about Vader's fictional life, and, in fact, I expect the current sections to only grow larger and larger in the future as more and more fascinating information accumulates and things are set in their proper context better.
        • More movies are coming out? — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I think he was referring to the Expanded Universe works. The Wookieepedian 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Someone editing a Star Wars article thinks that the Star Wars is exclusively a series of six movies and nothing else? For that matter, someone editing a Wikipedia article who thinks that Wikipedia has all the information and sections it will ever need to have even on topics that already exist and where no new information is forthcoming? I'd say more, but you'd accuse me of incivility again, plus just saying that is more than enough. -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
            • How about you assume good faith for a change? — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What? What does good faith have to do with whether you think non-movies are parts of the Star Wars franchise? Would you please just drop the Wikipedia catchphrases altogether, they're really starting to pile up and stink the place up, and we've both already read the same Wikipedia policy and guideline pages by now, so repeating them back and forth doesn't do anyone any good. I miss real conversations—Wikipedia conversations are like political debates, full of buzzwords and standard escape-clause responses to everything. So tiresome. -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia articles inherently tend towards growth, not shrinkage. Planning for the future requires that we split the article now, when it's already bloated, rather than making stopgap attempts to shorten it in trivial ways that will inevitably end up either being completely ineffective at shortening the article significantly, or completely ineffective at preserving the important information in the article, and moreover such efforts will prove largely futile when even more important information surfaces, on both Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader. Feel free to trim unimportant areas of the articles, but do it while the two articles are split, since clearly there's no way to split them to such an extent that they'll without reducing the article quality and usefulness. -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You seem to be surprisingly willing to ignore what's best for the article in favor of what will enforce your specific POV that there is a smooth, undilineated and undistinguishable course of events encompassing Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader's life. This sort of excessive POV-based overreaction does not belong on Wikipedia; people get the point that the two are sort of one person, going to such insane lengths to cram a clearly unmanageably large topic into one article is a mark of article bias, not of thoughtful and efficient helpfulness to our readers. The Darth Vader article is almost 30 pages long (on my resolution). I propose a fantastic way to solve all POV problems with this article and Anakin Skywalker, that will furthermore fix the article length of both Darth Vader (which is far too long, unfixably so) and Anakin Skywalker (which is too short to exist, and will have to be converted into a hard redirect if left as-is). -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not trying to enforce a specific POV. I actually think the article is better my way. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and m:Don't be a dick and heed their advice. Now, if you want a clearly and neutrally delineated article that's short and doesn't repeat information available elsewhere on the wiki, here's what you do: you summarize the biography sections and refer to the plot summaries of the movie articles themselves. — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • And responding to my honest concerns, questions, and responses by accusming me of being incivil, saying that I'm assuming bad faith, and calling me a dick is not being an incivil bad-faith-assuming dick? How about this: I apologize for offending you with any of my above statements, and assure you that 'twasn't intentional; you stop rules-lawyering and dodging every point I make while launching a series of ad hominem smokebombs to cover your tracks, and let's make this an actual exchange of ideas and discussion of what best to do, not a dance of rhetorical tactics and exchanged jabs. Much more interesting that way. -Silence 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
            • If you're willing to be more civil in the future, I would gladly discuss this with you calmly and rationally. That's what I've said all along here. But you're not doing a good job of being civil so far. — Phil Welch 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And you're doing a worse job, constantly lobbying accusations of incivility at me no matter what I say. At least I'm being incivil while also listening and responding to what you say. You're just being incivil while being incivil. :f -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (3) This way we don't need a silly, unencyclopedic soft redirect on the Anakin Skywalker page. We can actually provide real information on that page, real information aplenty! Win-win-win. -Silence 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There is absolutely no similariy between El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz and Anakin Skywalker. (1) there is not enough information and not a long enough period in Malcolm X's life at this time for an article on that name alone to be feasible. If there was already an article about that period in Malcolm X's life which was quite lengthy and stood very well on its own, it would be perfectly acceptable to change probably a very awkward, obnoxious name into a name that summarizes that time period perfectly by being the name he used at that time. none of those requirements are met by Malcolm X, and all of them are met by Darth Vader. (2) the Malcolm X article is rather short, considering how much he did and how much of an impact he had with his life. the Darth Vader article is ridiculously long. end of stor. (3) Malcolm X is a real person, and his life is a description of actual events that occurred. Darth Vader is a fictional character, and his "life" is a description of made-up events from a story that people wrote. You're comparing real apples to fictional oranges. (4) Anakin Skywalker is a soft redirect, which is unacceptably inconvenient and unencyclopedically fanboy-serving. (Spoiler warnings are bad enough, as Britannica would never bother with such things, but they at least are only a single bar which can easily be ignored; having a whole page for a spoiler warning here is beyond unnecessary, in every way.) El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz is a true redirect, which causes no inconvenience to anyone searching for him, and spoilers are totally unrelated to that name. Drawing analogies won't help your argument at all unless the things you're comparing really are analogous. -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • You want to turn Anakin Skywalker into a hard redirect again? You want to move this article to Anakin Skywalker? I'd be willing to discuss those as compromise options, but only if you stop being a jerk. — Phil Welch 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

On another note, you were concerned about people being able to see the split versions. By linking to specific versions in history, we can do that. Anakin Skywalker (split) and Darth Vader (split). — Phil Welch 23:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • My objection was not only that not having it on the main page would make it difficult for people to see the versions being proposed, but also that people visiting the page would be left unaware of any dispute occurring, and that people would have no way of editing or revising the proposed versions to meet various minor objections that are raised about them, or otherwise improve the pages. I solved the former issue by putting tags up on the Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader pages, and solved the latter issue by putting the two proposed pages up on subpages, where anyone can freely edit them if they have contributions to make to what will probably be the future face of the Darth Vader article. -Silence 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See User:Silence/Darth Vader for the suggested Darth Vader page, and User:Silence/Anakin Skywalker for the suggested Anakin Skywalker page (also note the pages have been significantly improved in unrelated ways since the separation of the two articles, hence my initial objection to reverting this article based on an out-of-date consensus; we can re-incorporate those changes manually if the article separation fails, though I highly doubt that will be necessary). Also, again, note high-quality articles like Charles Darwin and featured articles like Hugo Chávez for clear (and very helpful!) precedent for trimming down bloated articles by moving information to satellite articles to make readability easier. Also note that I wrote up a summary of the entire Anakin Skywalker page that is quite compact but has just about all of the relevant details (feel free to add or remove more and otherwise edit the above two pages in any way you wish) when I separated the two pages, thus fulfilling the requirement of having a summary for the daughter-article (rather than just a stub section linking to Anakin Skywalker, which would clearly be unacceptable) which may not have existed for past consensus decisions. This section now allows people to read only a succint but useful summary of Vader's early life, since the reason they probably came to the Darth Vader page was for information on Vader after his transformation, not when he was known as Anakin Skywalker, and since anyone interested in more details on his early life can easily click the Anakin Skywalker "main page" link provided and read on, without having to wade through pages and pages and pages of a bloated Darth Vader article to get anywhere. But anyway. I've talked more than long enough. Let's hear some rebuttals! :o (Ah, edit conflict, just got a reply. One moment.) -Silence 00:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your recent efforts to trim down the article considerably have made the possibility of not creating any satellite articles (not yet, anyway) a much more feasible option. It's now possible to weigh both possible ways to fix this article (the severe trimdown you recommend, and the Anakin spin-off article I recommend) and decide which to go ahead with, and also try to come up with ways where both of us can have our biggest concerns about the other option resolved if we do go ahead with the other possibility. So, here are the two chief concerns I have with the Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker articles, which led me to suggest this change in the first place:
1. First, the Anakin Skywalker article is an extremely inconvenient, time-wasting, useless substub of a page. Someone who searches for Anakin Skywalker wants information on that character, not a cop-out spoiler-protection-are-more-important-than-user-friendliness-and-encyclopedic-NPOV nonsense page that makes Wikipedia look more like a Star Wars fansite (with their "ZOMG DON'T CLICK THIS LINK UNLEZ U WANT SPOILERS!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" pages to wade through) than like an encyclopedia.
  • SOLUTION 1A: Turn it into a hard redirect, spoilers be damned.
  • SOLUTION 1B: Leave it as is, we don't have a better option, a little inconvenience and awkwardness is worth it to protect people from major spoilers.
  • SOLUTION 1C: Turn Anakin Skywalker into its own article, with information on that character and a link to Darth Vader too, below a spoiler tag.
2. Second, the Darth Vader article is excessively long (and certain to only grow longer in the future, as all Wikipedia articles of its nature will), but much of the information is worth preserving.
  • SOLUTION 2A: Delete extraneous information with extreme prejudice. Being short and compact and keeping all the information on one page is more important than preserving useful-and-significant-but-non-vital information.
  • SOLUTION 2B: Leave it long. Who cares if it's as bloated as a whale? It's more convenient to have all information imaginable on one page than to split it up into different pages or delete a big chunk of it.
  • SOLUTION 2C: Create satellite articles, the typical response to any long article on Wikipedia where the length isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a nice wealth of details that should be put on details-heavy pages while the main article is much more summaric.
The solutions I recommend are 1C and 2C (which go together perfectly). The solutions Phil recommends are 1B and 2A. I cannot accept 1B as a viable option, and ask that Phil propose a real solution to this truly damaging problem on Wikipedia. As for 2A, I can find this acceptable only if all of the information removed from Darth Vader to trim it down to an acceptable size is shown to be completely extraneous and useless on any Darth Vader page, and that the information is being removed because it is pointless, not because we need to shorten the page.
Of course, even if we go with 2A, it still leaves the article worse-off in a lot of ways (by not giving us any room to grow and expand and add useful new information, and by forcing us to cram two giant infoboxes into the article as it does now, rather than doing the natural and obvious thing and giving each character its own page—if Anakin and Vader are distinct enough to merit two different infoboxes, why aren't they distinct enough to merit two different articles?!
But anyway. Those are my concerns, and my understanding of the options available to us. If you have any other options or major concerns, and if you want to say under what conditions you might find my suggestions (1C and 2C) tolerable, I'd love to hear about it. (Also, anyone else who wants to voice their opinion, adding to the above solutions or saying which of the current solutions they currently prefer, that'd be great.) -Silence 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we identify redundant information, merge it together, and provide references to the merged information? I've already done that in the biography section. Identifying and removing redundancies within the article itself should be easy. Bloat problem solved.

As for your assertion that the article will continue to grow, I don't see that as an issue. The only possible areas for expansion that I see are future EU releases (which should get, at most, a brief summary and a reference to the Wikipedia or Wookieepedia entry on the book in question), new "behind the scenes" information coming to light, and more cultural references. Those areas for expansion don't really warrant splitting the article as you suggest—we might want to create articles about Production of the Star Wars films or Cultural references to Star Wars, and refer to them instead of having text within this article, but that's a different taco entirely.

Furthermore, if you want to split the bio between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader, how do you split? Do you just interrupt the story halfway between Revenge of the Sith, go to another article, and then go back to the first article at the end of Return of the Jedi? Or do you tell the story continuously, as one story? It's not a simple line between "now he's Anakin, now he's Vader". The *entire point* of Revenge of the Sith is that he's both. It's Anakin, Obi-Wan's former apprentice, who fights Obi-Wan—it's not some evil spirit who's taken over Anakin's body. The entire point of The Empire Strikes Back is that Darth Vader *is* Luke's father, not an evil spirit who's taken over the body of Luke's father and wants to conquer the galaxy. And the entire point of Return of the Jedi is that Anakin Skywalker finds the courage and the power to redeem himself. He's the same person throughout—he undergoes significant spiritual transitions, but he's still the same person.

More importantly, the biography section is currently short enough that it doesn't warrant splitting on the lines you suggest. For the EU section we might want to merge information into some sort of summary of events in the EU and refer to it the way we're referring to plot summaries of individual films.

As for the soft redirect, I think it's the best of several bad solutions. Using a hard redirect violated spoiler policy, which is why we went with the soft redirect. I'm sorry if it offends your aesthetic sensibilities but I don't see it as an issue. — Phil Welch 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, Adam gets all the fanboys on the Wookieepedia to come over here and stuff the ballot box. I'm here to determine a consensus, not hold votes. And considering that you basically have done next to nothing on Wikipedia other than helping Adam and his friends split the article (your only contributions are towards that end), you're essentially a meatpuppet. This is one reason we don't like to hold votes. — Phil Welch 18:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not trying to agree with anyone or help them. Though I have to admit that I don't like the current state of this article. I think we do need to have a vote because no matter how many times we are gonna discuss this issue, it's just not getting us into any solution at all! We're just gonna end up arguing all over again with whatever rebuttals or excuses we have to say. And I think voting is the only way we can solve this problem and stop this arguement once and for all. - DivineLady 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Then why'd you come here only after Adam posted his "call to arms" on a Star Wars Wiki talk page? And for that matter, why have you only had one edit outside of joining this argument?— Phil Welch 17:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • For your information, I did not come here after Adam posted his "call to arms". I posted my comment BEFORE I saw what Adam wrote at the Star Wars Wiki. And by the way, I actually didn't want to argue with anyone. I was only giving my comment on why this article should be split. End of story! - DivineLady 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • What the hell? Phil, I never asked those guys to come over here and "take a vote." I asked them to come over here and give their opinions on the matter. I didn't think it would hurt anything, since they themselves have worked extensively on the Wookieepedia Anakin/Vader articles, and have had long discussions themselves on whether to merge Anakin/Vader or keep them separate. The Wookieepedian 09:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I should have assumed good faith, but it seemed to me that you were trying to rally people from outside Wikipedia to your side of the dispute. I don't have a problem with that but I felt a need to point out when and where I saw it happen. — Phil Welch 11:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add my contribution to the debate. I haven't ever seen a Star Wars movie, read a novel or anything else, so my knowledge of the series/franchise is extremely limited, probably giving me a different perspective. I should immediately say that I'm in favour of a split. I'll leave the debate about whether Anakin and Vader are different persons to those who actually have watched the movies, but I don't really think it is of relevance. Anakin is one period in this character's life, Vader is another. The point is, they are completely different periods, Anakin doesn't seem at all similar to Vader from the article. Moreover, apparently enough information exists about Anakin (pre-Vader period) to warrant a separate article.
Spoilers... hmm, I think that with how famous the Star Wars universe is, most people probably know that Anakin and Vader are the same. Nonetheless, it would seem better to refer, in the Anakin Skywalker article, after a spoiler warning, to his transformation. The current merged article even has two character infoboxes, which just doesn't feel right.
It is, after all, common to split big articles into separate ones, where the early life of someone is given a separate article. George W. Bush also links to Early life of George W. Bush. Using the same logic, Anakin Skywalker can be said to be the "early life of Darth Vader", only with the added consideration of a different name and physiology.
Thus, per above, I would favour a split. Solver 13:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If we split out the early biography, the article (at this point) is only going to go down from 43K to 35K. That means that the Anakin Skywalker article is going to be a mere 8K—it's not the 50/50 split people are making it sound like. Even if we split out all the non-biography stuff about Anakin we only go down to 32K. 32K vs 11K--not much of an even split.
Give me a couple days to go through this article and cut out the fat. There's a lot of redundancies here and a lot of things that should be merged into plot summaries of other articles. I'm quite sure I can bring this article under 40K, at which point the size issue will be essentially solved. As for the infoboxes, I suppose merging them in the same manner that Palpatine's infobox was merged would make sense. — Phil Welch 17:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I still do not think this article should be split. For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I think we can agree that we are regarding movie characters as "literary." And it is a literary precedent that we will discuss a character as if he were real--how else can we speak of his "life," or his "personality," or even of his "existence"? Citing Solver, I don't believe that George W. Bush should be split into two articles--it's not as if he became a different man when he was elected President. All this linking and sub-linking will eventually turn Wikipedia into a series of one-line (exaggeration alert) articles that link to the next one-line article, requiring a new click to read the next part of one encyclopedic entry. This must be avoided. Splitting the article is, in my opinion, the wrong decision. Modifying it (and others like it) to better display two (or more) "phases" of someone's life is my solution. DrKC9N 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! As you can see with the proposal and active discussion far below, there appears to be major support (and even from prior opponents!) for two articles. I'm actually fairly ambivalent regarding this issue: given the multiple actors, movies, dual eras/sagas, unique characterisations, and wealth of information about both DV and AS, though, a roughly chronological/thematic split – in phases – would make sense (and I mildly prefer this). I can also think of far more dubious and unjustified splits (e.g., agreed for Dubya) ... though I wonder how good or evil such 'characters' can be at the same time. :) Thoughts? Please comment below. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Splitting the article is fine with me. At Wookieepedia, there is both an article of Anakin Skywalker and an article of Darth Vader. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just forget about splitting it between Anakin and Darth Vader; instead, why not put the Biography section on a separate page--it's long enough to be its own article. 209.7.38.6 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Man! Such an argument this has to turn out to be

Ok people, let's discuss without starting an argument and an edit war. It is a good idea that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker should be merged, after all they are the same person. But I think it is better to keep them separated, cause even though they are the same, they still have distinctively different identities.

Here's an excerpt from Tatooine Ghost, an EU novel about Leia discovering her father's past while she was in Tatooine, four years after the events from Return of the Jedi. (Warning: spoilers alert!)

A strange feeling of déjà vu came over Leia, and she asked, "Who was this friend?"
"Anakin Skywalker," Wald (Anakin's childhood friend) said.
"You knew Anakin?"
"Of course I knew him." Wald sounded insulted. "he was my pal. We were slaves together."
Leia's jaw dropped. "My father was a slave?"
"Don't make it sound like something dirty," Wald said, growing defensive. " We were kids. It wasn't like we gambled our way into it."
"That's not what she meant." Han took Leia's hand and gave it a little squeeze to break her out of her shock. "It's just hard to believe that a slave grew up to be Darth Vader."
"Darth Vader?" Wald waved his palms dismissively. "That's a lie. Anakin Skywalker never became Darth Vader."
"Really?" Leia heard the ice in her tone, but found herself losing the battle to keep her temper under control. The Rodian's denial touched a deep and painful chord, for rejecting the truth of Darth Vader's identity was the same as claiming all his terrible deeds never happened. "And you know this how?"
"Because I knew him," Wald retorted. "You don't understand what it takes — what it took back then — for a slave to win his freedom."
Leia took a deep breath, then said, "I'm sorry, Wald. Obviously, we have very different views of Anakin Skywalker."
"Obviously," Wald said. "And only one of us is right."

Later, Leia found a journal that belonged to her grandmother and after viewing a flashback from the journal which shows Anakin winning the Boonta Eve Race. Here's what happened:

Leia paused the image and spent a long time looking at the young boy with the sparkling blue eyes, thinking how happy he looked... and how innocent. Had she known him then, had she never met Darth Vader, she might have agreed with Wald: She might have believed they could not be the same person.

Here's another excerpt from the novel Junior Jedi Knights: The Golden Globe, this one is a moment between Leia and her son Anakin:

He (Anakin Solo) thought about the fact that Darth Vader had been a part of the Sith. He always tried not to think of Vader as his grandfather. But Vader had once been Anakin Skywalker, Luke and Leia's father. And that made him Anakin's grandfather. But that was before he began using the Force for evil and became Vader. Anakin wished that his parents hadn't named him after his mom's father. He had once asked his mother why she had chosen to name him after Vader. "You weren't named after Darth Vader," Leia had explained. "You were named after my father. He was Anakin Skywalker, not Vader. And before he died your grandfather did turn away from the dark side. He died saving your uncle Luke's life." Leia had told Anakin that it was important to remember that the power of the Force could turn even a good man to the dark side. "Anakin, to me your name reminds me of hope," Leia had explained. "Hope that even when a Jedi uses the Force for the dark side he can choose to turn back to the light. Just as my father Anakin Skywalker did."

I hope that those excerpts can give anyone some insights that although Anakin did became Darth Vader, they should be classified as two different characters because of their two different identities despite being the same person. Also, if anyone is looking for some info on just Anakin Skywalker, they would expect to get the article on Anakin Skywalker, not Darth Vader. Putting everything under one article just make the article too long, and please! People would rather read a simple detailed article which is not too long and could give them a headache. Also, even though Vader may be the far more popular one, let's not forget nor look down on Anakin Skywalker. After all, he was the "Hero of No Fear" during the Clone Wars and was also highly respected by many during those times. With the release of the Prequels, many people might want to read an article more on Anakin Skywalker, not Darth Vader. Because the Clone Wars has shown that Anakin has done a lot even before his transformation to Darth Vader.

To futher explain more, let's use Leia as an example. At first she couldn't believe that Darth Vader is her father because of the terrible things he had done. She also sees him as a monster who tortured her and even destroyed her home planet. And because of that she couldn't bring herself to forgive him at first nor accept him as her father. Later on a mission to Tatooine she met Anakin's childhood friends, who couldn't believe that their best friend had turned into Darth Vader because of his good and kind deeds he had done. It was only then when Leia found her grandmother's journal and discovered that her father wasn't really a monster she tought he was. She eventually forgives him and even named her youngest son after him. From the excerpt between Leia and her son, you can see that even though Leia knows that Anakin Skywalker becomes Vader, she finally sees them as two identities. One is the good man who is her father and the other who is the evil monster. Which is why she named her youngest son after Anakin, not Vader. And the reason why she did so is because she sees her father as a reminder of hope, not the evil villain she hated and feared. Which is why I think it is better to split Anakin from Vader. And aside from discussing, let's take a vote and be done with this, shall we? By doing this we can see that who's in favour of spliting them up and who's not. That way it'll be fair to others.- DivineLady 07:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, let's not take a vote. That's not how we do things on Wikipedia. We discuss things and come to a consensus that resolves everyone's concerns. The entire point of the story of Anakin Skywalker is his transformation into Darth Vader. It's true that he changed a lot during that transformation. If I came back after five years and found that my best friend had renounced everything he used to believe in and become cruel and domineering, I might say "I don't know you—you're not the same person." But I don't mean that literally, and like Obi-Wan, I would be all torn up inside if I had to go out and kill him. Furthermore, the entire tragedy of my going out to kill him means nothing if we don't understand the context of who he was prior to his fall.
Furthermore, I hate to stress this, but the clone wars never actually happened. We're supposed to judge by the notability of the fictional character in real life, not the notability of the character within his own fictional universe. Furthermore, while the article *is* overly long now, have you actually read it lately? Splitting out Anakin's biography wouldn't do anything but overly confuse the matter, especially since it's so hard to draw distinct lines to cut. At the very least, give me more time to remove more redundancies and reorganize the content a little better. — Phil Welch 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
While we're quoting novels, here's an excerpt from the Revenge of the Sith novelization:
This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker, forever.
The first dawn of light in your universe brings pain. The light burns you. It will always burn you. Part of you will always lie upon black glass sand beside a lake of fire while flames chew upon your flesh. You can hear yourself breathing. It comes hard, and harsh, and it scrapes nerves already raw, but you cannot stop it. You can never stop it. You can't even slow it down. You don't even have lungs anymore, not really. Mechanisms hardwired into your chest breathe for you. They will pump oxygen into your bloodstream forever.
"Lord Vader? Lord Vader, can you hear me?"
And you can't, not in the way you once did. Sensors in the shell that prisons your head trickle meaning directly into your brain. You open your scorched-pale eyes, optical sensors integrate light and shadow into a hideous simulacrum of the world around you. Or perhaps the simulacrum is perfect, and it is the world that is hideous.
"Padme? Are you here? Are you alright?"
You try to say it, but another voice speaks for you, out from the vocabulator that serves you for burned-away lips and tonue and throat.
"Padme? Are you here? Are you alright?"
"I'm very sorry, Lord Vader. I'm afraid she died. It seems in your anger, you killed her."
This burns hotter than the lava had.
"No ... no, its not possible!"
You loved her. You will always love her. You could never will her death. Never. But you remember... You remember all of it.
You remember the dragon that you brought Vader forth from your heart to slay. You remember the cold venom in Vader's blood. You remember the furnace of Vader's fury, and ther black hatred of seizing her throat to silence her lying mouth--
And there is one blazing moment in which you finally understand that there was no dragon. That there was no Vader. That there was only you. Only Anakin Skywalker. That it was all you. Is you.
Only you.
You did it.
You killed her.
You killed her because, finally, when you could have saved her, when you could have gone away with her, when you could have been thinking about her, you were thinking about yourself...
It is in this blazing moment that you finally understand the trap of the dark side, the final cruelty of the Sith--Because now your self is all you will ever have.
And you rage, and scream, and reach through the Force to crush the shadow who has destroyed you, but you are so far less now than what you were, you are more than half machine, you are like a painter gone blind, a composer gone deaf, you can remember where the power was but the power you can touch is only a memory, and so with all your world-destroying fury it is only droids around you that implode, and and equipment, and the table on which you were strapped shatters, and in the end, you cannot even touch the shadow.
In the end, you do not even want to.
In the end, the shadow is all you have left.
Because the shadow understands you, the shadow forgives you, the shadow gathers you unto itself--
And within your furnace, you burn in your own flame.
This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker, right now.
Forever.
— Phil Welch 18:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... If there is "only Anakin Skywalker" and "that there was no Vader" like what the ROTS novelisation said, then why is this article under Darth Vader instead of Anakin Skywalker? - DivineLady 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If I could do whatever I wanted the article would be under Anakin Skywalker :) — Phil Welch 11:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You seem to think that you can do whatever you want, its not up to you what happens to this article. Who cares if you don't want a vote. It's got nothing to do with what you want! I think Vader and Skywalker are two different people and their articles should be seperate like on Wookipedia. And sop trying to push your weight around, your just being a pathetic, fanboy twat!!! WookipediaUser:JascaDucato 81.107.192.60
Why not just have a bludy vote. Its obvious that you wont stop bickering about it. People have read the arguments for and against a split, and can make an informed choise. Personaly I don't care, but having read the arguments, I think a split would be beneficial, as long as there they have links to each other at the top of the page. How can it hurt?
I concur. The Wookieepedian 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Reworking

Well, I've done a lot of reworking, moving things around, etc. We're down to 40k--not really a long article anymore. It's only 33k if we don't count endnotes, sources, external links, infoboxes, etc. I can work on it some more but I've done most of what I can. Additionally, no actual content was deleted—some was merged to other articles, and some redundancies were eliminated, but on the whole I've not removed anything, and have in fact added some content. I also addressed the infobox issue and—I hope—created a good, coherent article that stands up well as a single article.

Nonetheless, I've become more amenable to the idea of a split, but only if the current article maintains its present cohesion and coherentness. I'm not ready to say I support a split just yet (nor do I think it's necessary for page size concerns) but I'm willing to look at what can be done with the article as it stands now (as opposed to how it was a couple days ago).

Furthermore, after this dispute is settled I'm putting this up for featured article status. — Phil Welch 22:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'm much more amenable to the idea of leaving the article similar to how it is now. Your improvements have been truly fantastic (though I'd like to give copyediting the article a shot, if you don't mind holding off on the FA for a bit...), and your arguments have been very compelling.
However, I still feel that there is enough material to give Anakin Skywalker its own article, and the very fact that this debate is so contentious is part of the evidence for that: one of the sections in the "Anakin Skywalker" article could very well be a discussion of when, if ever, Anakin transforms into Vader, what the relationship of the two personas are, etc. The controversies surrounding when he's Vader and when he's Anakin (or whether he's always both, your POV), and the evidence supporting each perspective on that issue, are a worthy encyclopedic topic (possibly referenced, of course), in my view, but not worth cluttering this page up with.
I also think we could use that article to discuss more fully the actors who play Anakin in the first three movies, and in the final movie (since they're credited as Anakin, unlike the actors credited as Vader), and creating that article would certainly allow us to re-add the bio template for Anakin Skywalker you recently (rightly) removed from this page.
We could also possibly to use my original idea for the article as serving as a daughter article for Vader with more details on his life when he was referred to as Anakin, or when his life touched on his name or life as Anakin Skywalker. For example, we could utilize "Anakin Skywalker" to give more details on his actions in the first three movies, and in exchange shorten the synopses of the first three movies on this page to only one or two (or at most three) paragraphs, just as the three original movie synopses are that short. Likewise, having one "Appearance" section on the Anakin Skywalker article for his pre- (and possibly post-) Vader appearance, and a different one on Darth Vader for his much more famous, archetypical appearance when in that role, would help us trim down this article a lot, which would greatly improve its chances of being FAd: a page-long "Appearance" section is a bit much, but we could easily cut it down to two-thirds of that if we had an Anakin Skywalker page. Another possible thing to discuss there is the actor-change for the two ghostly "Anakins", since that's not directly a Vader subject, even though I acknowledge that you have proven your point about the two being, essentially if not superficially, the same person. -Silence 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Something that might be more useful and neutral would be to move *this* article to Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader (as per the New Essential Guide to Characters--an old proposal from Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 2). Such an article would be a much better place to expand on the identity controversy
Nah. If we're only going to have it on one article, Wikipedia naming guidelines make it clear that we have to choose the most common name (Darth Vader), not try to incorporate both names into the title. If we do have only one article, keep it here; I just don't think we should have only one article. -Silence 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The main reason I think the prequel summaries on this page are so much longer is that the prequels are the story of Anakin Skywalker, while the originals are the story of Luke Skywalker. Anakin is EVERYWHERE in the prequels. But in the original trilogy he's not so important—he's sort of co-villain in ANH with Tarkin, while ESB has a bunch of "Luke and Yoda" and "Han and Leia" scenes that don't involve him at all, and he's absent entirely from ROTJ's "Escape from Jabba's Palace" and "Stormtroopers vs. Teddy Bears" sequences.
I understand. But, again, whenever anyone talks about this character in reference to the first three (especially the first two) movies, they invariably call him "Anakin"; and whenever anyone talks about him in reference to the second three (excepting the end of the third), they invariably call him "Darth"; as such, I still feel that this article would be benefited by keeping his early-life biography as short as his later-life biography, and simply going into the much great level of detail on Anakin Skywalker, not as a POV fork, but as an "Early life of X"-style article. It's the only way we can satisfy both people who will want this article to focus almost entirely on his later life (the life he was known as "Darth Vader" in), and those who want to learn about his early life in more detail than this article can provide without becoming overlarge. This is not to argue that Darth Vader isn't also Anakin Skywalker, just to make it easier to provide as much useful information as possible and to acknowledge what the most popular names are, and continue to be (a Star Wars handbook will have separate sections for Anakin and Vader, or at least acknowledge the difference, but a Malcolm X biography won't bother to have a "Malcolm X/El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz" title, which shows the difference in popular usage). -Silence 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we can or should go into more detail about Anakin's early life than this article already is. That's why we're referring to the plot summaries. — Phil Welch 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, we can, and should. And the whole "referring to plot summaries" thing is a nice solution in some ways, but in others it's a bit silly; anyone who wants summaries for the whole movies can simply go to a brief link provided for each of those movies at the start of the section ("In A New Hope...") that wouldn't clutter up the space as much as a lengthy italicized "For more information" link, and in some ways not dividing it by movies would be a bit of an improvement; the current divisions are OK, but could easily be merged into half as many sections considering how short you've made them, thus helping shorten the Darth Vader TOC. I'm not saying we have to do any of that, but you should be a bit more open to the fact that there is, and should be, a lot of interesting and important detail to add to this character. That you don't want to write it doesn't mean you should prevent every other editor from now until the end of time attempting to do so in an encyclopedic and high-quality way. Eventually, Darth Vader should provide the heavily-shortened form of his entire biography, the movies should provide the in-depth description of the overall plot summaries of the movies, and satellite articles should provide the in-depth description of Vader's life as portrayed by the movies and significant EU works. Anakin Skywalker would help both balance out the first three sections with the second three, counteracting the fact that Anakin is more central to the first three movies than Vader to the second three, and also allowing us to provide all the information anyone could want about Anakin on a daughter page without barraging people with any but the most crucial details on this page, which is chiefly about Vader in the iconic form he came to be known by under the name "Darth Vader", even though his early life, including his life when he was chiefly known as Anakin Skywalker, is a part of that. -Silence 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The general consensus I've seen is for less, not more, plot summary of fictional works. Given this trend, I really don't think people will or should expand the accounting of Vader's life events in this article. — Phil Welch 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I couldn't care less about general trends and abstract conceptions of consensus that inevitably can only be drawn from what personal experiences of summary-shortening you happen to have had in certain areas of Wikipedia. Obviously there are some fictional works that need more plot summaries, and other that need less plot summaries; surely you aren't advocating that every work on all of Wikipedia needs less plot summation, no matter how little it already has? Therefore the only difference between the two of us is where we draw the line: whether we think that Darth Vader has more than enough plot summarizing already, or could use more, being one of the most noteworthy fictional characters in all of popular culture today, and one whose backstory is rather legendary and frequently-referenced, even on extremely detailed points, on all levels of popular culture. Wikipedia is not paper; it has room to expand plenty, and the purpose of daughter articles is to allow the main page to be as short and tight as necessary while letting the more interested people go to delve into other pages for the details. Thus both the people who want less summation, and the ones who want more (and there are certainly plenty of both), can both easily be satisfied by Wikipedia. We should limit information based on noteworthiness (e.g. no fanfiction :)), not based on size limitations! Size limitations are easily surmounted by solutions exactly the one I've been proposing all along here. Also, it's quite obvious that people will expand Darth Vader's bio here; the question is whether they should, and whether we should fight them at every turn to keep them from ever making the biography at all larger than the specific, arbitrary size you happen to think it should be, or whether we should let Wikipedia grow naturally and trim off the truly unhelpful and obscure information while allowing articles to grow and improve. It's always easier to cut down on articles later when they're too long than to expand on them later when they're missing specific important facts. -Silence 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • How about specific Wikipedia guidelines then? "It is often informative to include plot summaries (and other spoilers) in articles on works of fiction. However, please keep them reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them." —Wikipedia:Fiction. This was recently referenced on Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith when they shortened the plot summary there. I've seen a rough agreement to that effect on other Star Wars pages as well. Furthermore, it's redundant to include a long and detailed plot summary of the Star Wars movies in general in this article when plot summaries are already written for each individual film. Things are a lot easier for all of us if we centralize the plot summaries in the film articles and simply summarize the relevant parts of the summaries in character bios. (Incidentally, this was something suggested in the peer review for this article, as you can read from the above link.) — Phil Welch 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I also think that if we're going to split, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker should both redirect to Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader and we can split to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. (Splitting to just Anakin Skywalker tends to railroad the "Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker" issue as well as the "Sebastian Shaw in ROTJ is Anakin Skywalker" issue.) On the other hand, that makes this article too Vader-centric.
Never gonna happen. Too awkward, and indisputably nonstandard. Anakin Skywalker could be a daughter article for Darth Vader (my preferred version), or it could be nothing but a redirect to Darth Vader (your past preferred version), but trying to put it on totally equal ground with Darth Vader (which would probably just lead to redundancy, or even worse a POV fork), and even worse trying to make both it and Vader daughter articles of another, bizarrely-named article, would be going way too far. I'd rather have no Anakin Skywalker article at all than that. (Luckily, those aren't the only two options. :)) -Silence 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker won't be daughter articles at all, just redirects. — Phil Welch 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I did misunderstand. So not only do we not solve a single one of the current problems with this article, but we create the new problem of having a pointlessly complex, nonstandard, and POVed article name? -Silence 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's set aside the idea of titling the main page anything other than Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels would be a better title for what you're going for, and Anakin Skywalker could become a disambiguation page. — Phil Welch 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Total waste of time and space. Disambig pages for only two potential likely article candidates are inane, as is making an article longer than it needs to be for absolutely no reason except to make a point (going to ridiculous and excessive lengths, as you are currently, to push the POV that Anakin and Darth are totally identical in every way, which, even if true, clearly isn't the only POV, and clearly isn't reflected in the usage of the names "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader", which almost everyone manages to use to refer to different, specific and easily-defined stages in a certain fictional character's life, and which almost noone blindly uses as pure synonyms). Anyone who searches for "Anakin Skywalker" is looking for information on either (1) Anakin in the first three films (85% of the time), (2) an explanation of the difference between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader, and how the two relate to one another (10% of the time), (3) Anakin at the end of the sixth film (5% of the time). Anyone who searches for "Darth Vader" is looking for Vader as he appears at the end of the 3rd film and throughout the 4th, 5th, and 6th films; most people will just be annoyed and bored by the many pages of details on Anakin Skywalker near the top of the Darth Vader page, since if they'd wanted more than the basic details on Darth's early life they would have simply searched for "Anakin Skywalker". The reason I'm pushing for this split is because not having an Anakin Skywalker article is so counter-intuitive and will cause so many people who search for "Anakin Skywalker" (there must have been countless people already, and there will be countless more in the future) to waste valuable time and effort when what they're searching for is so clearly-defined and so noteworthy that it's really not in any way necessary to not just have an article on it and be done with the problems, the controversy, the endless instability and bloat and unhelpfully mishmashed information and impractical design altogether! Such a simple and obvious solution, I'm really surprised I even have to propose it; I'd have expected the Anakin Skywalker article to have existed more or less nonstop for years now, not to be some bold new idea. -Silence 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, let's hard redirect Anakin Skywalker to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. Since by your own admission 15% of people will be looking for *this* article when they type in Anakin Skywalker, redirecting to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels and having that article refer distinctly back to this one would resolve your concerns. — Phil Welch 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "as is making an article longer than it needs to be for absolutely no reason except to make a point (going to ridiculous and excessive lengths, as you are currently, to push the POV that Anakin and Darth are totally identical in every way, which, even if true, clearly isn't the only POV"...I can tell you flat out that isn't true, nor was it necessary or useful for you to say that. Let's set aside the vitriol and work on the progress we've started to make here, alright? — Phil Welch 04:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I really don't see many problems with the length of this article though. The appearance section might be outright changed to an article about the armored suit anyway—aside from mentioning the scar (which can be moved to the section about the EU), we don't need a description of what the guy looks like, that's what photographs are for. In fact, I'm gonna do that right now! — Phil Welch 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no. Definitely no. Even if you make it a different section, obviously there has to be at least 2 or 3 paragraphs describing him in this article, with a "main article" link to an article more fully discussing his appearance (which I'm not sure is needed at this point...). What's the point of having "spoken word" articles if we're just going to assume everyone can see all our images and get all the proper significance from them? :) Just as an article about a painting must describe the painting's appearance, an article about a character with a noteworthy (hell, iconic in this case) appearance must describe that appaearance, and an FA article must describe that appearance in detail. -Silence 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Look at what I did. I have a description of the suited Vader's appearance (which can be expanded), but not the unsuited Anakin's, simply because that's (a) unnecessary detail, (b) it rehashes information already available in the article, and (c) Hayden Christensen doesn't have a particularly distinctive appearance—unlike, say, Jon Heder's portrayal of Napoleon Dynamite. — Phil Welch 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Good. More reason to have a separate Anakin Skywalker article. :) -Silence 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As a 'serious' editor who has also worked on the military history of Canada article (see above :)), I do not see there being a significant reason to not have two articles. Three movies essentially recount Darth Vader's exploits (as the full fledged 'evil' cyborg-regent), and the other three Anakin Skywalker's (as a good-bad burgeoning harbinger), with the lifeform undergoing a significant transformation in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. As well, he was depicted by at least two actors in two different 'eras': fans and not may have different perceptions of the two. Besides: as the current article is getting long and unwieldy, it would make sense to (re)cleave it based on the two 'characters', and (if done properly) can be rather seamless and continuous. Why don't we put this to a vote – where we can get broad input – and be guided by that outcome? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I just say that there are three reasons why the article should not be merged 1. When Padme arrives on Mustafar in Episode three to find Vader on his mission to eliminate the Separatist leaders, she refers to him as Anakin, to which he answers. 2. If Anakin and Vader are not viewed as the same entitiy, then it makes no sense why Vader has compassion for Luke. This compassion is evident as early as a period of time before Episode 5, where he is described as being 'obsessed with finding young Skywalker', for the reason we discover on Bespin, he wishes to overthrow the emperor with like so they can rul the galaxy as father and son. 3. Lucas himself has stated clearly that vader is not to be seen as a villain, just a victim of Palpatine's machinations. To have two articles where anakin and vader as regarded as two different entities would to be to completely miss lucas' intended portrayal of vader as a shakespearian hero; both good to the upmost extent but also tragic, tainted with suffering and misguided evil

Templates

Another reason for separation is that the current template is overlong; because it incorporates information not just from Darth Vader in the form he was always called by that as, but also as a child, pre-armor adult, etc. I'm much more sympathetic now to the view that Anakin and Vader are essentially the same person, but clarity should take first place in Wikipedia articles: using two separate infoboxes makes each infobox twice as readable by not bombarding our readers with information they aren't looking for (someone comes to the Darth Vader article for Vader as he was in the last three films, not for the child or teen Anakin; sorry, but it's just so, whether the popular mind is right or wrong on this matter).
By cutting it into two articles, we can tremendously reduce the size of each and thus not clutter up any page with a too-large box. Having information on the home planets he lived on throughout his life is acceptable, but mentioning his previous political and Jedi affiliations will just confuse people new to this article ("wait, the Vader everyone's been talking about, the guy in this picture, is with the good guys? wait... I'm confused..."—such nuances are better covered in the article's text than in an infobox grown over-huge for excessive technical accuracy), and for the "actor" box, shouldn't we credit the actors in the same way they were credited in the movies themselves? In other words, the child and teen Anakin weren't credited as "Darth Vader" for the first two movies, so why act as though they were?
Of course, having two templates would be a really, really bad idea if we only had one article, and couldn't simply move the "Anakin" template to the Anakin Skywalker article, solving both problems in one blow. :) -Silence 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I've updated User:Silence/Darth Vader with some new style changes. The specific text involved, obviously, will be changed in many points for the final version (if there's any support for making the effort to do so, I'll do it), but the general layout and page breakdown is what I'm asking about. -Silence 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As well, having two infoboxes is cumbersome. The current infobox can be enhanced (I think, if need be) if both characters' details were included in the same box (not two) with side-by-side pictures and details: Anakin first, Vader after. If there should be one article (with one infobox), how about something like this ... If there are no objections, I will replace the current infobox with the one proposed here. E Pluribus Anthony 22:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Star Wars character
Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader

Hayden Christensen, as Anakin Skywalker (with lightsaber); transformed, an elder Darth Vader was portrayed by David Prowse and voiced by James Earl Jones
Portrayed by Jake Lloyd (I)
Hayden Christensen (II, III)
David Prowse (IV-VI)
James Earl Jones (III-VI voice)
Position Padawan, Jedi Knight / Dark Lord of the Sith
Homeworld Unknown; childhood spent on Tatooine, later life Coruscant
Species Human (cyborg)
Gender Male
Affiliation Jedi, Galactic Republic / Sith, Galactic Empire


It's pretty freaking wide and I think we're heading for a split anyway, but go for it. — Phil Welch 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually: it's no wider (on my screen) that the current one; the picture can also be reduced in size. I think this will do until the single/dual article dichotomy is resolved. By the way: while I am interested in this topic, I was compelled to visit and comment by a summary of this 'dispute' in the most recent issue of Wired. :) Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The "soft redirect" has served its time.

I've logged out to make this comment, since I was originally inadvertently not logged in when I made this edit creating the essence of the Anakin Skywalker article in its current form - only just discoved this debate being re-opened. (I'm not a major contributor otherwise, so not using this to "hide", but to associate this comment with the minimal version I created).

The edit was not intended to state an opinion on the form the article should take, but to try a minimal pseudo-article implied by this series of edits [1] [2] [3] [4] following from the partial concensus reached by a relatively small number of people in Talk:Anakin_Skywalker/Archive and Talk:Darth_Vader/Archive_3.

My "2 line version" was intended to make as obvious as possible the current status of the article, and appears to have succeeded in that respect since the number of "enhancements" made to the article in the following 3 months was substantially reduced.

Given articles like Isaac Newton's early life and achievements and Isaac Newton's later life, Early life of George W. Bush, etc. there is certainly precedent for multiple articles to a real biography. The "most common name" for an article that might otherwise be called Early life of Darth Vader is certainly Anakin Skywalker, and conversely the "most common name" for an article that might otherwise be called Later life of Anakin Skywalker or Anakin Skywalker after his fall to the dark side would be Darth Vader.

A "google test" for "Darth Vader" vs. "Anakin Skywalker" gives a slight edge to Darth Vader, but at least as of today, they are about evenly split with between 2.5 and 3 million hits each, each side of the character seems notable in its own right.

I would suggest a more ideal structure would be along the lines as follows:

Darth Vader article:

  • Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Darth Vader characteristics (sith/cyborg/etc.)
  • Early life as Anakin Skywalker
    • pointer to main Anakin Skywalker article.
    • summary of involvement in episodes 1-3
  • .... additional sections giving details of the later parts of life in service to the empire.

Anakin Skywalker article:

  • Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Anakin Skywalker characteristics (jedi/human/etc.)
  • ...various sections giving details of involvement in episodes 1-3
  • Later life as Darth Vader
    • pointer to main Darth Vader article.
    • Summary of involvement in episodes 4-6, and in particular the end of ROTJ

The above is intended as a symmetric structure - each article can be interpreted as a child article of the other, including a recap of its parent article. While there will certainly be overlap between the two, there is definite value to having non-spoiler info about Anakin Skywalker, and a less confusing single infobox, something that the current structure does not allow. The focus of an article targetted towards people looking for information on Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader is different.

There are other cases of articles where a person is known under more than one distinct identity. For example (after searching around): Deep Throat (Watergate)/W. Mark Felt, Richard Bachman/Stephen King - pairs of articles about the same person which refer to each other but are primarily focussed on different identities of that person. I don't see a compelling reason to insist on all the information on Anakin / Vader being on one article. --83.151.213.148 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I think I support you and – definitely – in having two articles. My attempt at a single infobox presently was more a(n attempt at a) balanced solution given the back-and-forthing or until salient decisions are made.  :) Perhaps we should put this to a vote, and be guided by the results of that? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a vote is premature—if and when Silence responds (or I give up waiting for him) we can finalize the conditions under which I'm amenable to a split and proceed from there. — Phil Welch 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it is premature, particularly given this debate and the article history up to this point (e.g., two articles existed previously and were then merged, etc.) However, I will hold off on a vote until Silence is heard (ha!) or for a couple of days, but will initiate a poll, vote, and or RfC if this is not forthcoming or if other challenges persist. If a consensus is arrived at or identified, what you or I are amenable to is moot. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to get in the way of a solution, go ahead and do that. I'm actually trying to negotiate a compromise instead of calling a vote. — Phil Welch 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
How is calling for a vote – when a clear consensus doesn't exist either way regarding this – getting in the way of progress or a solution? This article (once two) has a long and storied (and one could could say, circuitous) discussion accompanying it. A vote (or another mechanism to gather greater input) will merely identify or enable a consensus, which is at the cornerstone of Wp. Actually, such comments are obstructionist: you should probably be more discriminating in your comments before making them. E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First, negotiations are still underway. Second, if there's no clear consensus, than what's needed is discussion, not a vote, which will only show that there is wide disagreement. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. — Phil Welch 17:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In response – first: discussions have been underway for quite sometime, with no resolution; you saying so, given feedback to the contrary, is insufficient. Second: there's no clear consensus (but I will wait another day and some) before garnering greater input; a vote or RfC will facilitate that. Third: this article (or proposed ones) are not your property. Lastly: if your attitude with me (in so short a time) is indicative of anything throughout, you need to refrain from being pejorative – a vote will not only occur but may be necessary to overcome any impasse. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

From Vesther's point of view

IMO I think that retaining the article as being Darth Vader (Have Anakin Skywalker redirect to Darth Vader) is fine, because after watching Revenge of the Sith, I now realize that Darth Vader isn't the villian of the Star Wars franchise after all. In fact, since Darth Vader, at the end of Episode V, realized that he is indeed the Chosen One, and he made a lot of reckless choices, and starts to regain his sanity from Episode V up until near the end of Return of the Jedi, realizes that he did fail his deeds as Anakin Skywalker before he got immolated at Mustafar. The 2-Meter Armor serves as the consequences that Vader must live with for the next 23 years of his life. Vader went insane at the end of Episode III, but then started regaining his sanity near the end of Episode V, then chose to rectify his mistakes and elected to pass away as Anakin Skywalker near the end of Episode VI. If you watch the films in order, you will see that Darth Vader, believe it or not, is really the filmset's protagonist, even though Vader commits pure atrocities on Episode IV and most of V. Vader knows that he is the good guy, and he knows what he did bad throughout his pre-armor life (i.e. seek the power to prevent others from dying, pledging to Palpatine's teachings). Vader overtime knows what he did right, and what he did wrong, so I can no longer consider Vader as a villian, but a protagonist with his fatal flaw being making dark mistakes and his fear of losing his loved ones. Vader did sell his soul to the devil, but knew that he still believed in God, and knows that his mission as The Chosen One was his true mission, not to remain loyal to the Emperor. In Episode III-V, Vader did a lot of bad things, and of course, we all now know that the 2-meter armor is the consequence Vader must live with, and IMO the 2-meter armor is basically Vader's punishment/detention for doing all of these bad things at the start of his tenure as Palpatine's apprentice. — Vesther 05:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; users can agree to disagree, as is the case here. Given the support and opposition to having just one article, it may very well be prudent to resolve this through a vote where broad input can be collected and a consensus identified (which currently doesn't exist). As stated above, I will wait a couple of days before doing so. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 05:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

(a) If we *have* a spoiler warning we may as well use it to, say, actually protect against spoilers. While Vader's identity is arguably well known enough not to be a spoiler, failing a definitive consensus to that effect we should still treat it as one. (b) The level of detail you're providing is frankly unnecessary in a summary section. It's a redundant statement which adds unnecessary and distracting detail. The idea is for the opening summary to be a series of generalizations that the rest of the article addresses more specifically. Accordingly I've moved the specific details into a slightly more suitable section. (c) Spoiler issue aside, it's better to start the discussion of Vader's original identity in a paragraph more or less dedicated to that purpose. — Phil Welch 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC), 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

These changes are relevant. If this is to be a unified article, upfront mentions are necessary of both DV and AS to provide the appropriate context to users. The unified infobox is also upfront, which indicates that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are one and the same (and is no secret); this is not an inordinate level of detail in an article that marries the two. These are two facets of one major character in the entire SW saga. And by minimising mentions of AS in the lead (and given prior discussions), this article is clearly unbalanced and requiring attention. If this is to be an article solely about DV, then treat it as such and one should be created for his younger self. E Pluribus Anthony 18:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you actually take into consideration my compromise edits instead of revert warring you'll notice that I'm trying to address your concerns in a way that satisfies both of us. If I'm failing to do that please explain how and we can work it out. — Phil Welch 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am being very observant not only of your edits but attitude. While you've made efforts to include more of AS, you continue to make edits that somewhat diminish not only his stature but general summations about the films, which are wholly relevant to this unified article. I have summarised and moved related sections below while retaining the spoiler warning, and you alone have made subjective edits – or removals – throughout otherwise. This is not a compromise and is unsatisfactory: if you were making edits in a true spirit of compromise, I would expect salient discussion and a refractory period from making either subjective edits/reverts on your part or potentially inflammatory comments as you have. I will restore deletions of summative information as needed shortly; in any event, there's a clear need for some sort of RfC or vote to resolve this and I will do so soon. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...I'm not removing information, because that information is plainly available in the article proper. It's especially absurd to create a "Summary" section that's one paragraph long *right before the lead of the section it's summarizing*. The article summary should concisely get the main point across. Furthermore, I'm trying the best I can to have the same level of detail for AS as for DV—I believe it was you who branched off the Anakin Skywalker details into a pointless one-paragraph subsection. — Phil Welch 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect: you removed information and are (as before) building the article in a unilateral way; that is not compromise. In a unified article, a section (and heading) summarising verbose text about two facets of the same character in six movies is necessary (though not essential if an article is structured properly) and permissible by Wp guidelines. Your current edits to this article also hark of your prior edits, merges, and deletions to it. And again, as previously, you persist in denigrating other contributions. I arrived to help guide edits to this article (or two) any which way, not to be emboldened by your clear lack of tact. To that end: additional discussion with you is rather pointless and I will be guided by additional user input hereafter. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. In order to address your concerns about diminishing the stature of Anakin, he now has his very own paragraph back in the lead section, right after the Vader paragraph. In other words, it's roughly ordered in the same way the films were released while giving equal time (and probably more than equal time) to Anakin. As for removing "summative information", very little was *re*moved—some was moved to the summary of the biography section, while some was already in that section and, in my opinion, didn't need repeating. (I would welcome a third opinion on this point.) I'm going to try expanding the lead section again in a bit of a different direction—hope you're happy with it. As for my attitude, I apologize—now let's get to the task of hammering out a consensus. — Phil Welch 20:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Great. I'm all for not repeating things unnecessarily in articles, but a summary upfront in a loaded article regarding two disparate aspects of the same (and in this case, somewhat major) 'lifeform' is not pointless nor absurd. The current version is better than before, though; it still requires 'massaging' (I cannot attend to it presently, but will soon) and welcome additional commentary. E Pluribus Anthony 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify I don't think providing a summary is absurd. I think putting the "Summary" section heading so that one paragraph of the lead section was its own one paragraph section was absurd, because it makes more sense to just include that in the lead section. Go ahead and massage, but let's resolve the split dispute (which I will reopen presently) before we get too engrossed in edits that may not even be relevant soon. — Phil Welch 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is fine: however, in my eyes (and as a unified article), the prior lead wasn't summative at all and was unbalanced. My editions/additions were intended to be dually summative while maintaining mystique (as per your initial intent). Edits are good; removals without discussion aren't (and also apologise if this is your perception).
And I'll gladly partake in additional discourse regarding one or two articles shortly: I am going to more thoroughly review the back-matter before making any additional commitments. And I believe it is still prudent to offer this puppy up for some collective comment, which will better guide our actions. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already solicited comment on my proposal, as you know. If you want to RfC the matter that's cool too. I'm just leaning towards "voting is evil" at the moment—let's not resort to it unless we can't come up with a consensus. — Phil Welch 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

He he; I clearly disagree with the 'voting is evil' notion. :) Remember: another proposal has also been made (above); a request for comment will enable other users to offer perspectives or ideas that we cannot or do not currently envision. More to follow; merci! E Pluribus Anthony 23:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I would like for that proposal to be restated below if my counterproposal doesn't address the inherent concerns. As my proposal is more or less a changed version of Silence's proposal, Silence, or anyone else for that matter, is more than free to suggest changes or restate his proposal below, even by copy and paste if he wants. If one of the people who doesn't want to fork the article desires he can express a proposal to that effect as well. — Phil Welch 23:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Fork

Let's use this section to compile specific proposals and explanations of our concerns so we can reach a consensus on whether or not to fork this article.

Philwelch's proposal

The biographical sections of the "Biography" section of this present article, along with certain details specifically referring to Anakin Skywalker as he appears, should be forked to an article titled Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. Anakin Skywalker will become a hard redirect to the new article. The new article will be a "child" of this article and will refer back to this article. This article will retain almost all of its cohesive properties—i.e. it will continue to tell the complete story of Anakin Skywalker from birth, through the fall, to his redemption and death. But it will do so in a summary way, moving more specific details to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels.

The infobox on this article will refer to Darth Vader alone—an Anakin Skywalker infobox will be forked to the new article. Additionally, the lead section to this article will again include a spoiler warning and will only mention the name "Anakin Skywalker" below that warning—in other words, the lead section will be substantially similar to earlier versions and substantially different from the version Anthony and I are trying to work out.

My main concerns are (a) the cohesiveness of this article in telling the complete story of Anakin Skywalker, (b) providing the ability for the rest of Wikipedia to refer selectively either to prequel-Anakin or original-trilogy-Vader, (c) having articles of appropriate size.

As for Silence's desire to have more plot details included in the biographical sections, I must say that I personally agree with him. The long and detailed bio sections we had previously were largely due to my involvement. While others outside this particular dispute want to minimize the amount of plot summary, I would be perfectly amenable to, post-fork, returning back to the level of detail in our plot summary as we had previously. In fact, if we do it that way and nominate for FA, we are bound to get a definitive answer on how to do this.

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Vesther seem to like the idea of keeping the article together. In response to that concern, which I share, I suggest that my proposal maintains the cohesiveness of this article while forking certain details to a more focused article. There are numerous links to Anakin Skywalker which will be redirected to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels that only want to refer to him in the prequels.

As for my proposed title, my primary concerns are to neutrally make the point that the forked article isn't a half and half split of this one so much as it is a child article filled with enough cohesive details to stand on its own as an article. If you want to put it at Anakin Skywalker, I could be convinced, but that may lead to certain confusions.

Furthermore, this way we'll have two featured articles instead of just one. What fun!

I'm willing to accept any comment on this proposal as well as any opposing proposals. — Phil Welch 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Philwelch's proposal

  • I appreciate this effort (and see that it was proposed earlier), but I agree with prior assetions that this proposal is an unbalanced and confusing way to treat the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader dichotomy. For balance: should we redirect Darth Vader to Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars sequels? If not (or even if so), there's no reason to obfuscate two unique and major characterisations (e.g., different actors, different sagas, different eras) in the proposed manner. Users will instinctively search for Darth Vader or Anakin Skywalker (a spade is a spade), and there's no reason to belabour this through unnecessary redirects. In addition, as indicated above, there are also almost as many online references to the latter as to the former (in addition to the wealth of information for each). Moreover, the official website sees fit to have an article each for A. Skywalker and Darth Vader. If done properly, cohesion between two articles can be maintained and giving th AS article a cryptic name wouldn't serve any purpose. In summary: this proposal is insufficient – while advocating for a child article, the proponent's separation isn't equal. Or (to extend the current metaphor): this isn't a fork, it's a dull knife. E Pluribus Anthony 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Tell me what you want changed. Do you want the forked article to be placed at simply Anakin Skywalker? — Phil Welch 00:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the proposal is somewhat flawed at the core; it's not merely a matter of forking (perhaps Borking? :)). Just think about what a user will be looking for: can you honestly continue to advance the notion that anyone will search for articles with the lengthy redirects you propose? This not only obscures the matter, put will delay users from accessing information. I am very clear above: no such redirects, and balanced citable, verifiable, neutral commentary that assumes good faith; this is all Wp requires. And I don't think this requires additional elaboration. E Pluribus Anthony 05:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That's a decent if not completely persuasive argument about the title of my proposed fork article—it's not a damning indictment of my proposal as a whole. And technically, any article split is considered a "fork" :) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
          • No: I've clearly assessed and stated my opinion about your proposal. Technical references aside: what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As well, from what I can gather above, Silence disagreed with your proposal, so you passing off yours as a mere variant of S's is totally misleading. I will wait one more day before posting an RfC. E Pluribus Anthony 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not misleading. I was originally opposed to splitting the article at all. Silence, as far as I can tell, wanted the Anakin Skywalker article to be an "early life of Anakin Skywalker" type article. My proposal was based on his with several changes of my own. Let's just set aside this "agreement/disagreement" nonsense for a moment and tell me what you want different. — Phil Welch 00:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ about leading Wikipedians down a potentially garden path: I can find no assertion from S. above supporting what you propose, but can find numerous comments above that support one article or even two. A spade is a spade. However, I'm all about mutualism and will forego disagreements as a gesture of good faith and as long as that is reciprocated ... and this hasn't necessarily been exemplified in this discussion. As stated, I support whatever the consensus is, with a mild preference for two articles. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 05:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • "There is an enormous precedent for, and a great detail of common sense in, creating sub-articles, satellite articles, sister/daughter/mother articles, or whatever you prefer to call them, when an article becomes too large. See, for example, Hugo Chavez and Early life of Hugo Chavez…the most obvious way to divide this article, such that two high-quality articles can be made on both sides of the divide, is to have one article for Early life of Darth Vader and one for Darth Vader" --Silence, as quoted from above. If we're interpreting him differently, fine—but his basic idea, as expressed there, is something I tried to preserve in my proposal. That might not be so important in a little bit though...— Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
          • This is exactly my point: I agree with S. statement and interpret it fine: a thorough read above (and in the history) will indicate that you have not supported such an ... articular dichotomy with consistency. I do not think your recent proposal, unfortunately, addressed S.'s (or other) positions adequately. However, I have no intention of belabouring this issue with Wikipedians who are on the road to consensus or 'conversion' ... if not already. Thanks!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

General Comments

  • I support having a single balanced article or two discreet ones; given the wealth of information and numerous dichotomies, two would make sense and prefer this. If a consensus decides on having only one article (and one does not exist), I would support this if and only if such an article is balanced; the current article, despite ongoing attempts, is not there yet.
  • In the case of two articles, I support the proposal, outlined above (and below, with mild mod):
Star Wars character
Darth Vader
Image:Darth Vader.jpg
Portrayed by Hayden Christensen (III)
David Prowse (IV-VI)
James Earl Jones (III-VI voice)

* See also Anakin Skywalker
Position Dark Lord of the Sith *
Homeworld Unknown; childhood spent on Tatooine, later life Coruscant
Species Human
Gender Male
Affiliation Sith, Galactic Empire *
Star Wars character
Anakin Skywalker
Image:Rots32.jpg
Hayden Christensen, as Anakin Skywalker, wields his lightsaber in a publicity shot
Portrayed by Jake Lloyd (I)
Hayden Christensen (II-III, VI[5])
Sebastian Shaw (VI)

* See also Darth Vader
Position Padawan, Jedi Knight *
Homeworld Unknown; raised on Tatooine
Species Human
Gender Male
Affiliation Jedi, Galactic Republic *

EPA's (et al.) proposal

    • Darth Vader article:
      • Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Darth Vader characteristics (sith/cyborg/etc.)
      • Brief summary of early life as Anakin Skywalker
        • pointer to main Anakin Skywalker article.
        • summary of involvement in episodes 1-3
      • .... additional sections giving details of the later parts of life in service to the empire.
    • Anakin Skywalker article:
      • Pre-spoiler intro, with infobox giving Anakin Skywalker characteristics (jedi/human/etc.)
      • ...various sections giving details of involvement in episodes 1-3
      • Brief summary of later life as Darth Vader
        • pointer to main Darth Vader article.
        • Summary of involvement in episodes 4-6, and in particular the end of ROTJ
E Pluribus Anthony 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on EPA's proposal

  • OK, an even split. I have some concerns with the apparent redundancy here, but this plan could work, and does solve the problem (and I concede there is a problem) in titling the articles. In this situation we would have two cohesive articles covering the whole of the story—not just one—but with different emphases. Finally, this will definitely land us in double-featured-article land. I'm not signing off just yet but I'm very likely to agree with this. — Phil Welch 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Yes: I do not share your concerns about redundancy and believe cohesion (yet mystique) can be preserved. We must work together to realise this! I would also be careful about nominating such articles for featured status just yet; I've noticed there being a 'bias' against elevating articles in Wp about fictional characters/works. However, hope springs eternal! :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

More Comments on EPA's proposal

When reading through this I was in agreement with those who thought that the two articles should be split, and my thoughts on how this should be done were somewhere along the lines of what EPA is proposing. I am personally suprised that, in the argument for the split, no one has yet to go and quote the origional trilogy (if someone did, and I missed it somewhere, my appologies). In Episode IV, Obi-Wan talks as though Darth Vader is an enterly different person from Anakin Skywalker "He betrayed and murdered your father". It isn't until near the end of episode V that it is actually revealed that the two are one and the same. In episode VI, Obi-Wan still talks somewhat as though Darth Vader is a seperate person, by saying "the good man who was your father was destroyed". If the origional trilogy talks as though the two are individual, that should be enough support in favor of the two splitting.Dr. B 03:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

While that's true you have to keep the context in mind—Obi-Wan and Yoda have a plan, and that plan is for Luke Skywalker to kill Darth Vader. Keep in mind that in Episode III, Obi-Wan begs Yoda that he not have to face Anakin. Yoda responds by telling Obi-Wan this interpretation of events—so Obi-Wan can bring himself to kill Anakin. It doesn't work, as we know, but Yoda and Obi-Wan spend the next 19 years convincing themselves this is how it is so they can basically get Luke to kill Vader without hesitation. (A big reason they stop him from facing Vader until he's ready is that it's only by losing to Vader that Luke ever hears the revelation.) Finally, after Luke turns around and confronts Obi-Wan and Yoda about this, Yoda simply notes, "Your father he is", while Obi-Wan talks about "a certain point of view". But in this context, I really see Obi-Wan's attitude as just a rationalization. After all, Luke's faith that the good in his father hasn't been destroyed completely is ultimately how Luke is able to resist the dark side and how Anakin is able to find redemption. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 03:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello! As the initial characterisation of Darth Vader by Obi-Wan is something which occurred in the initial saga (eps IV and V above), I feel this should be dealt with (if split) largely in the Darth Vader article. I would note only germane elements in the Anakin article (like the substantial history of events before the original saga ... the tragic friendship between the two in the prequels) where they possibly contradict interpretations and characterisations in the original saga. E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The above aside, I'm still leaning toward EPA's proposal :) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
As do I. The Wookieepedian 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! And remember, it really isn't my proposal: I rehashed it from another user above (who added it with an anon IP). :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
["anon IP"] Actually far from anonymous - it's a static IP used only by 1 person, and therefore traceable to a real identity - compared with the 'anon' pseudonym I would otherwise edit under if I were logged in... just sticking to using this ID for editing this page in order to maintain continuity - understandable that "EPA" is easier to type when referring to the suggestions though ;-) --83.151.213.148 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I hear you; it is, indeed, difficult to refer to users through numbers – Borg drones notwithstanding – (hence me using et al. above) and the user who suggested the idea, et al. should really get a username to reduce ambiguity or potential skepticism about contributions. Thanks for the input! :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

yourname's proposal

If you have a proposal that differs significantly from the above, detail it here and retitle the section

Hello! This is really not about Anakin and Vader being the same, but I think that its important to note out Vader and Anakin's lightsaber styles. Did the cybernetic transformations that Anakin went through to become Vader some how make him considerably less powerful then before? In Star Wars: Rise of Darth Vader,Vader is injured by a Jedi that survived order 66. He is sliced in the arm. Maybe losing his arm and legs also took away the midi-chlorians in his blood. But I'm sure you all argue about this alot.

Proposed RfC!?

Hello! Based on the above, I think there's general (though not unanimous) agreement to split this one article about DV into two: one focusing on the younger Anakin Skywalker and another focusing on the transformed Darth Vader. Great!

Given this, an RfC may be unnecessary. As also noted above, however, I propose the following RfC (or something like it) to validate this decision or to guide our actions otherwise:

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two articles?

  • There is a wealth of information about Darth Vader (renowned from the original Star Wars trilogy of movies) and his younger self, Anakin Skywalker (recounted in the recent prequel trilogy). Given the dichotomy of this very important film character – spanning two sagas and eras – and ongoing discussion in Wp about the single article (AS redirects to DV), do you think the current article is sufficient or should it be split into two: one each for DV and AS?
    • I think that the article should remain in one piece. Whether the current version is adequate or not, I cannot say. DrKC9N 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you have a reason you think that the article should remain in one piece? You have nothing to support your statement. I could say that I think something too, but without anything behind it, it blows over like a snowflake in the wind.
        • Numerous other users – and a majority of ones who've already commented – think differently. An RfC may be needed to authoritatively guide our actions. E Pluribus Anthony 05:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
          • They'll just get merged again. :) APclark 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
            • If there isn't a consensus to merge, IDd through prior discussion (and this is also true of the prior merge), they should/will not be. :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Additionally, if the split can be done in a good enough manner, there should be no reason for anyone who isn't already opposed to it being split wanting it to be one article again.Dr. B 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I thought the original question was simply yea/nay. My previous comment on this talk page gave my reason. I understand now that it's a proposed RfC, but I commented as if the request had been made. So, yes, I think the RfC is good. DrKC9N 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • AOK! I'm really neither here or there with this issue, with mild preference for two. While a consensus seems to be apparent regarding this, I didn't want to proceed with an RfC, etc. without garnering appropriate input. I'll post the RfC today. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Make additions above with brief signed comments below. If there are no objections or comments before 6 December 2005, 23:59, I will post this RfC appropriately. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 02:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll: Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker – one article or two articles?

Extensive discussion has occurred above, previously and recently. Cite (or reiterate) and sign your preference for one of three options below. (Voting should continue until 31 December 2005, but may be extended if necessary.)

Seeing as those who were voting for the article to become two articles have more votes, and it is the 4th of January, is the article going to be split up now?
Nope. For one, wikipeida is not a democracy. This vote is relatively close, and does not show a clear consensus one way or another. Additionally, several points I've made have not been addressed at all. --Ctachme 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A majority who have commented beg to differ: arguably a consensus does not exist for the status quo nor did it when the merge first took place. I am preparing a summary regarding course of action and will put this up soon. E Pluribus Anthony 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has even bothered to respond to the points I made against splitting the article. Though a majority of people do support splitting the article that does not change the fact that discussion is not completed. --Ctachme 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
In response:
  • first: as you can see, I've commented extensively below so others can weigh in, and (IMO) questions anew do not differ substantially from prior ones;
  • second: the timeframe of the vote was clearly indicated, and additional discourse (still encouraged) will not yield anything substantive or different and, perhaps, be circuitous;
  • lastly, and importantly: this is not about you – your position is predicated on the faulty notion that responses to your queries will determine whether or not we should move forward and that failure to do so obviates the vote and already lengthy discussions to date.
Thus, as above, a summary will be placed shortly indicating course of action. E Pluribus Anthony 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You claim that additional discourse will not yield any other ideas, yet I have brought up a different idea that has yet to be discussed (that instead of splitting into 2 equal articles you have one main article and have more than one sub article). And of course this is not about me, this is about what is best for wikipedia. And frankly, I DO think that failure to discuss all of the options obviates the vote. One of the reasons for discussion (and voting) is to ensure that major changes are not undertaken until all avenues have been considered. What's your reason for rushing this decision through? Wikipedia will still be around for a while (hopefully). That said, you clearly have managed to get a few more people to agree with you than disagree with you, so I suppose there is nothing I can do. --Ctachme 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander – I defer to my prior statements. I'm not rushing anything through: on the contrary, the RfC/poll transpired over three weeks (longer than the typical RfC) and a week has passed since it's closed. And as you can see above and below, we've discussed many options extensively already: just because your query has gone unanswered doesn't invalidate everything else. If someone else wants to address/discuss your suggestions point-for-point, they should feel free to do so (I won't), but IMO there's nothing new there. As well, they have yet to emerge as a substantial alternative ... clearly, in two weeks you have not compelled anybody to address them, and the lack of response to them proves that. And my zeal would be just as well if the tables were reversed and the one-article or another option the prevalent one. Given all of this, I see no reason why we shouldn't move forward. E Pluribus Anthony 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

ONE article

  1. It is a literary precedent that we will discuss a character as if he were real--how else can we speak of his "life," or his "personality," or even of his "existence"? More linking and sub-linking will eventually turn Wikipedia into a series of one-line (exaggeration alert) articles that link to the next one-line article, requiring a new click to read the next part of one encyclopedic entry. Modifying it to better display two "phases" of Anakin's life is my solution. Also, the novel and common sense make it very clear that a person is still the same individual, whether or not he changes appearance, political status, creed/religion, or ethical orientation. Darth Vader still cares for Padme and eventually learns to love his son and turn back from the Dark Side. If those in support of two articles would be fair, they would really support three articles: one for Anakin, one for Vader, and then one for Anakin again. Obviously this does not make sense, as he did not change into another person only to change back. (As a side note, this is apparently the intent of George Lucas, as well, who replaced Sebastian Shaw (actor) with Hayden Christensen at the end of RotJ in an effort to unify the character.) DrKC9N 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    But novels and Episode IV state that Anakin became consumed and a different person when he became Darth Vader Jedi6 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Plus, Yoda said in ROTS to Obi-Wan: "The boy you trained, gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader. The Wookieepedian 20:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    True, and true, but I will make the distinction that the Episode III novel makes: he is personally and biographically the same person, but to people examining him ideologically from the outside (i.e., Ben and Yoda), Anakin died. But, seeing as they had a darker view of him than was realistic (he did repent), I think it is safe to dismiss their comments as pertaining only to the evil portions of Vader. They failed to recognize the truth, which, as Padme said, was that "there is still good in him." In other words, Anakin is still in Vader. The best idea I have seen is the soft-redirect, which avoids a spoiler. But I think it should redirect from Darth Vader to Anakin Skywalker, not the other way around. DrKC9N 20:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    We should be careful here not to start up the discussion in too great length, so we don't bog down the RfC or make it difficult to vote or count the votes. DrKC9N 20:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Agreed; let's keep the discussions brief, DrK, etc. There appears to be support either way. Given the multiple actors, movies, dual eras/sagas, unique characterisations, and wealth of information about both DV and AS, the current article is getting long and unwieldy: a split may be needed to effectively disseminate information, and the proposal accounts for this. And we're talking about one character across eras, not one person per se (and I generally wouldn't split such biographies): Dubya, Michael Jackson, et al. are unique and are not portrayed throughout by different actors over different eras (security body doubles notwithstanding). :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Darth Vader. Vader, and becoming Vader, and breaking the Dark side's hold, are the central feature of Anakin Skywalker's life. I haven't calculated it, but he was probably Vader more than Skywalker. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Anakin Skywalker... because technically speaking, that's who he was. Metaphorically, he died as all that, but when you are writing an encylcopedia, it's more about facts than metaphors. If you want to divide up the Anakin Skywalker article into two sections, fine, but it's one aritcle. Lucas said that this was the story of HIM not THEM. Besides, you'd ether have so much duplicate material... or one of the articles will have holes in it. --Ctachme 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment The proposal above summarises the content in each proposed article; this should satisfy concerns about the character's duality while still recounting unique character information appropriately. As well, the official website sees fit to have an article each for A. Skywalker and Darth Vader. E Pluribus Anthony 20:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Additonal Points --I'm going to copy this right from the Tom Riddle article, I hope that the author doesn't mind:
    Melkor and Morgoth of the Silmarillion dont have articles separate from each other, nor do Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader (softredirect). Outside of fiction, historical people, Like Caesar Augustus formerly Gaius Octavius, and Pope Benedict XVI known before the papacy, as Joseph Alois Ratzinger (not to mention his 265 predecessors), dont have their early history and later history divided into two different articles, why should Tom Riddle/ Lord Voldemort?
    I think that this is a very valid point. The simple fact of the matter is that generally, it is most logical to have the same person be one article, no matter what their name is. Some other points:
    • starwars.com splits it -- I say that's irrelevant, George Lucas (who refers to "him" as "a" character) did not make that site... some webdesigner guy out there did. We can do better.
    • we could add more info if it was split -- again... not an entirely valid point. If you wanted more info than was appropriate to fit on one article, then please, create sub articles for those sections that are getting too large. For example you could, if you wish significantly shorten the Transformation into Vader section and put this at the top of the section Main article: Fall of Anakin Skywalker, that seems like it would be the most appropriate way to add more information.
    • the Tom Riddle article shows precedent -- but the only reason that article has not been merged is because nobody was willing to do the work to do it, not because that would have been inappropriate. And again... there is much more precedent for one article than two.
    The simple fact, as I see it, is that this is one character that goes through very significant changes... but that does not change the fact that is this one continuous character. Lastly, one point that I just thought of. When famous women marry and change their name, do we split the articles? That right there would be a transition that some could argue merits two articles just as this situation does... but it's still the same person, thus, the same article. --Ctachme 04:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. One article under Darth Vader as per DrKC9N —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. One article under Anakin Skywalker - Ends Of Invention 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Anakin Skywalker --Palpatine 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. One article under Anakin Skywalker (with queries of "Darth Vader" redirecting). As Ctachme mentioned, Lucas continually refers to it as 'his' story, not 'their' story, and the story is about a guy name Anakin Skywalker who temporarily took the pseudonym "Darth Vader". Dharmabum420 05:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. One article Darth Vader - much better name recognition that Anakin Skywalker. novacatz 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment While DV is unquestionably more iconic, (as of this date) at least online there are 2.95 million references in Google to DV, while almost as many – 2.44 million – for Anakin Skywalker. Hardly unrecognisable. E Pluribus Anthony 17:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    I am not disputing that Anakin Skywalker is common but I feel that DV has much better name recognition. I am a bit surprised that DV has such a small margin over AS though.....novacatz 23:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    I know: I was also surprised by this near-parity of online mentions. E Pluribus Anthony 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Which is why the article needs to be split. DivineLady 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Actually it is proof that there are many misguided people out there! :))) novacatz 10:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Darth Vader. -Sean Curtin 06:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. One article Darth Vader - People, people, we have been through all this before MONTHS ago. Put it back the way it was.Ace-o-aces 14:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment While the status quo (arrived at months ago) was sufficient then and is still an option, and I wonder whether this was routed in consensus, many of the participants in recent discussions and this RfC/poll may and do beg to differ with you now. Sometimes the more things change, the more they do not stay the same. E Pluribus Anthony 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I agree with E Pluribus Anthony. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia. It has a tendency to change over time, and must be allowed to as opinions or consensus change. The Wookieepedian 15:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. One article, since there are many facts about the character that would need to be repeated if there were two articles, and also many facts that would not fit neatly into either single article. Since the character was first named Anakin Skywalker, that should be the title of the article. Darth Vader should redirect there. And there should be a spoiler warning. A new generation is growing up that has never experienced Star Wars. Rick Norwood 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Thanks for your comment. The proposal above indicates the possible content of each article, maintaining continuity and mystique but limiting duplication. And two discreet articles would allow newbies to consult either article, without necessarily being surprised by the other or content in just one (as is now the case). E Pluribus Anthony 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. In the context of the movie Vader "killed" Anakin, but even in that universe, this is a metaphorical accusation. Wikipedia is not a place to conform to metaphorical contexts. Anakin and Vader are technically (this is an Encyclopedia, right?)the same person, and "technically" is good enough for me and should be for everyone else since this is an online information source, not a place to carry myths and sayings. Keep it as one article. The Filmaker 21:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment TF: For voting purposes/clarity, please embolden or indicate the name/locale for the one article – DV, AS, or something else. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 17:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment While unity in (and between) articles is a desirable goal, the current article is too long and unwieldy. As well, the official website sees fit to have an article each for A. Skywalker and Darth Vader ... so such a split is hardly metaphorical or 'mythical.' E Pluribus Anthony 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Yes, yes! To E Pluribus Anthony, you listen! :P The Wookieepedian 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Let me point you towards two things:
    This page is 44 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. (Seen upon entering the page to edit the Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker article)
    A rule of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
    32KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists) (Found at Wikipedia:Article size)
    Dr. B 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Those limits and policies are relics of a bygone age. I've just received word that editting such large articles will no longer be of concern to us- those limits have been dissolved. Heck, the policy even includes weasel words in it. I do not think the article suffers "stylistically" from its current size and comprehensiveness. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Weasel? This is unclear. If this is a relic, why is it atop this page – and others – of excessive length? Others disagree with the current article and prior ones (any glance at the history and archives will indicate that), stylistically and otherwise. And while there have been some efforts to unify the current article, over time these seem to have been insufficient: some may not want to scroll through reams of text to find information on specific aspects of DV or AS when this may be better fulfilled in two articles. E Pluribus Anthony 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, weasel. Did you miss the "may be longer than preferable" (emphasis mine) bit? It is a relic because of pernicious Deletionists, and the pure inertia of policy (and in this case, software as well. I might be able to edit and change it, since I'm an admin- assuming I ever figured out what protected page was being used to give that little message.). And it is hardly scrolling through reams of text- the section box is readily available for skipping to the right time period. As oppposed to starting to read the saga of Anakin Skywalker, and going through the first two movies, but part way through ROTS abruptly being directed to read an entirely different article, and then skipping forward to his redemption aboard the second Death Star (needless to say, he did quite a bit in the decades intervening- but if you would like to know what, go read another article...) and all the duplication and such two articles entail. I'd rather scroll than click and load (and do some more scrolling). --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Noted. I don't disagree with having one article, but it's hard to condone a single article when it's constantly being pared down by those who desire that state. E Pluribus Anthony 06:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. One article at Anakin Skywalker. Anakin became Darth Vader (a character change similar, but opposite, to Gandalf the Grey becoming Gandalf the White) but he is still the same individual. - jaredwf 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Gandalf was always Gandalf whether Grey, White, or (as needed) something rather different; arguably, Vader might have always been Anakin (by birth), but not necessarily the other way around. E Pluribus Anthony 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Do you have to argue with EVERYONE who votes against you, Anthony? For the love of God, you've made your points, just let it go. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: I would hardly call commenting on points from either end being argumentative; I've also commented below and this is – after all – an open RfC/poll where anyone can comment. Should I, or DrKC9N et al. refrain because you have during this RfC? You seemed content to comment extensively previously. Maybe you should let it go: I would like to point out that you are probably taking this personally (and have not pointed your reply to others) ... particularly after being called to account for prior instances of incivility regarding this (not only by me) and other issues – [6] [7] Talk:Darth_Vader/Archive_4#Stop_the_petty_reverting. et al. [8] And I'm still deciding: I haven't voted yet. I will not belabour this: if you or others have an issue with me, take it to my talk page or refrain. Otherwise, contribute relevant dialogue and do so appropriately. E Pluribus Anthony 06:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    You just seem to be repeating yourself a lot and challenging half the people who vote. You're right, I haven't really commented yet. I'm thinking it over and working on other things before coming back to this. If you want to waste time and space making unrelated personal attacks against me, that's certainly your prerogative. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment And you have made countless assertions and have sought fit to "waste" far more time in previous discussions and the four archives. I will continue to comment judiciously and challenge anyone as needed, just as anyone should, and continue to deliberate. Moreover, your accusations of me making personal attacks is wholly unjustified – my recounting of your inappropriate behaviour regarding this issue (e.g., invoking WP:NPA/WP:NPOV in retaliation, you calling someone an "ass" after being corrected) is relevant and precisely what it is. Anyone can consult those links (and others) and make there own conclusions. A spade is a spade, and Wp is not your mother. But we are diverging from the issue of this RfC/poll: if you wish to address me further, do so at my talk page. E Pluribus Anthony 07:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Anakin metaphorically dies to become Darth Vader as Gandalf the Grey dies to become Gandalf the White. As you say, Gandalf is always Gandalf regardless of the current title. My point is that this applies to Anakin as well. He is called Darth Vader but Anakin is always Anakin regardless of what names are given to him. -- jaredwf 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think the comparison is wholly apt but, of course, that's just one way to skin the cat. It'll be interesting to see if AS prevails and the article moved because of it ... I suspect there would be heavy resistance to that. E Pluribus Anthony 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Darth Vader. It's the name he's known by, and more importantly the name people will remember ten years from now, Google hits be damned. Splitting it is just goofy -- will there then have to be a third "Gestalt" entry for the "emerged Anakin" that lives for about thirty seconds at the end of ROTJ? Should the Norman Bates entry be split into three: Norman, Norman's Mother, and The Norman's Mother That Lives Inside Norman's Head? One person, one entry, regardless of personas. [[User:MattShepherd][Matthew Shepherd] 20:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment As the above states, there are numerous reasons for one or two articles: the fact that the Norman Bates article is brief is a testament that it should be enhanced, not that it needn't be split up (which I wouldn't support in that instance even if it were proposed). DV/AS is unique in that it spans two ... gestalts (eras), so two articles regarding this isn't goofy. As for more articles than two: more assumptions are being made than necessary. And with an example cited below, Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort (and for other reasons), the proposal herein is with some precedent. E Pluribus Anthony 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Darth Vader, per name recognition arguments above, with sectioning where sensible (child A.S., adult A.S., and D.V. would be my partitioning of choice, but I don't feel very strongly about that). Re. article size concerns noted under "two articles", I think it would make more sense to convert individual sections of the main article into summaries linking to in-depth coverage, as opposed to having two separate articles at the top level. Your mileage may vary. --Christopher Thomas 01:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Anakin Vader, Grand Imperial Poobah of the Sith —Miles←☎ 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Anakin Skywalker, It makes more sense to use a person's real name. The Lord Voldemort and Tom Riddle pages are a perfect example of why this should be. Both pages state the same basic information that could be merged into one article. -Hoekenheef 15:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. anakin skywalker - same reasons as many... wikipedia doesnt need multiple articles for essentially the same or similar topics; I'm not sure that the bio of 2 parts of a fictional characters life need 2 separate entries. Use real name and a redirect on Vader. FT2 (Talk) 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Darth Vader - best known for many years. One article please! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Darth Vader. There are the same person. We don't have separate articles for every pop star's different alias, so I don't see why a fictional character should be treated any differently. Soo 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment. Because the article is super long? And DV was more of a different incarnation and personality than AS; its not the same as Puff Daddy calling himself P.Diddy. --DrBat 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Either. I have read the arguments and think it should remain a single article. If a person was looking for information on Anakin and Vader they should not have to hop around for what is essentially the same character. I will use an example everyone here can understand, Bruce Wayne forwards to Batman. You could argue they are two different people because of the existing dichotomy. You can argue that Superman and Clark Kent have their own articles, but look at the poor condition of the Kent article. I read someone state that wikipedia is a "living encyclopedia"; however, this was once two article and now is one. If we split it, what is to say it will not wind up as one again, being a living encyclopedia is good, being a confusing one where things change too much (especially back and forth) is bad. (oops forgot my signature) -Thebdj 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Darth Vader. They are very much the same character. Do we have seperate articles for Spider-Man and Peter Parker? How about for Bruce Banner and The Hulk? Or maybe Otto Octavius and Dr. Octopus? See how ridiculous and unneccesary that would be? Otto Octavius and Dr. Octopus are the same person; before the accident, Otto was nice; then afterwards he was a criminal. But that doesn't seperate them. Banner and the Hulk are the same too. They may have very different personalities, but they are still basically the same person (the Hulk is one of Banner's multiple personalities, as he has multiple personality disorder). Darth Vader is the same body as Anakin Skywalker, but his mind has been warped by the Emperor. One article please. Scorpionman 02:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your three examples are remarkably misleading and non-analogous ones, suggesting (falsely) that Darth Vader is merely some sort of disguise or costume and Anakin Skywalker only some "secret identity", or that Darth Vader continued to be regularly known as "Anakin Skywalker" after his transformation, or, like the three characters you mentioned ago, he regularly and frequently alternated between the two roles of Vader and Anakin.
    • Furthermore, you are highly selective with which articles you choose to mention, ignoring the Clark Kent and Superman articles entirely even though they're in no way different from the above articles. If you're curious about why Clark Kent merits his own article while Peter Parker, Otto Octavius, and Bruce Banner don't, the answer is surprisingly simple: (1) because there's enough completely distinct, organized, coherent, and relevant information on the "Clark Kent" persona himself to merit a separate article for analyzing the details of this pop culture archetype, while Superman#Clark Kent summarizes this daughter article; and (2) because the Superman article and Clark Kent section are both so damn long, and with so much other relevant information still not included, that a split is simply the easiest way to organize the information!
    • This is the only reason there's currently a debate over whether or not to re-merge Tom Riddle into Voldemort: not because of any sort of silly content disputes over whether the two are really distinct entities (who cares? in my view, that's not what any of these discussions are about: they're about whether there's enough significant information on the sub-personality to create a cohesive and useful distinct article, not about whether the two personas are the same person or different people, which should be discussed in the text of the articles, not battled over in the very way we name our articles), but because there really isn't that much information on Tom Riddle to write an article about. Like Peter Parker, Dr. Otto Octavius, and Bruce Banner, and unlike Anakin Skywalker, Tom Riddle's sole claim to fame is Voldemort: he wouldn't be noteworthy if not for this later persona of his. But while Dr. Otto Octavius and Peter Parker would never star in a movie without the focus being on their superhero and supervillain personas (Dr. Octopus and Spider-Man), and while Bruce Banner would be a nobody without his regular transformations to and from the Hulk, and while Tom Riddle and even (though to a much lesser extent, as shows like Smallville demonstrate) Clark Kent are defined and based upon and entirely noteworthy because of their alternate personas, Anakin Skywalker is noteworthy as a distinct entity in his own right. His google hits rival Darth Vader's, he starred in three blockbuster and widely-seen movies, he has an elaborate, developed, and intricate personality entirely distinct from his life as Darth Vader in the original three movies, and he has become a pop culture fixation just as much as "Clark Kent" has, though even more so on the merits of his own character than any of the other examples we've given have, since those character personalities are all solely relevant, and have never starred in a movie without their more famous personas playing a more prominent role.
    • But in the end, as I said, this is not a matter of whether Anakin and Vader are two people or one person. It would be POV to have Wikipedia itself declare boldly "Anakin and Vader are the exact same person", just as it would be POV to have Wikipedia itself declare boldly "Anakin and Vader are totally different people"; there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue, and on every level of the spectrum between those two extremes. What this is an issue of is whether there's enough noteworthy and distinct information on the fictional character or persona typically referred to using the name "Anakin Skywalker" to write an article on him, either as a daughter article (like Early life of Hugo Chavez and Clark Kent) or a sister article (though this option is a little too close to a "fork" for my liking). I believe this to be the case beyond a shadow of a doubt, as I've seen hundreds of pages of information on this character, and it would be doing our readers a disservice to not provide at least a distinct article in order to give a decent summary of these important points. In my view, most of the arguments of those who believe this article should be kept as a single page are based on trying to push the POV that Vader and Anakin are the exact same person, which, whether true or not, is in no way relevant to this debate; and in my view, most of the arguments of those who believe this article should be two pages are based on technical considerations and an interest in providing the readers with as much information as possible on this highly noteworthy topic (although certainly, admittedly, some of the "split"-voters are also clearly voting based on their POV that the two personas are distinct characters; that's unfortunate as well ). Our considerations from our perspective as an encyclopedia must come before any of our sensibilities and opinions regarding how closely-related Vader and Anakin are: this is not our concern, our concern is only to provide all the relevant information, cite it well, and let the readers decide. And the best way to provide that relevant information is to not pack and cram it into a single article, but to expand it. For God's sake, we have thousands of articles on Wikipedia that don't even get 5 hits on Google, and we can't even set aside the space to write an article on a topic that gets 2,130,000 hits on Google and is one of the most recognizable fictional characters (or "personas of a fictional character", if you prefer) in the English-speaking world right now? -Silence 18:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. One article either name is OK by me, but Darth Vader if I must choose, as Skywalker was not famous but Vader was. Primarily because we do not have separate articles for Arthur Wellesley / Duke of Wellington, nor for Robert Zimmerman / Bob Dylan, nor for princes that become kings, nor for anybody else with two names. If we are going to have two articles for Vader -- a fictional character -- and one article for John Churchill / Duke of Marlborough for instance, there is a serious disturbance in the Force. Herostratus 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Nope, we take these things on a case by case basis. It doesn't matter if the person is fictional or not, we must look at each situation individually. I'm surprised that you are comparing a simply name change of some like Bob Dylan to an entire change in mental state, physical state, and attitude of Anakin/Vader. And using either name as the sole name of the article could be interpreted as biased. Creating two separate articles allows us to better delve into, and focus specifically, on two VERY different parts of Anakin/Vader's life. So I ask you, does Star Wars.com combine Anakin/Vader into a single article in their databank? NO. Does The Star Wars Wiki? NO. Should Wikipedia? NO. The Wookieepedian 18:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. One article it's hard to choose the one name, but I'd have to side with Anakin Skywalker because, even though some say it might be a spoiler, I don't think there is one Star Wars fan that doesn't not know that Anakin is also Darth Vader. If one article wins, here's my old idea, no matter which name is imputted in "search", the name could be Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Jedi Striker 9:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. One article. I don't care what you call it, or indeed if for size reasons it needs to be broken into separate pages, but i believe it should be conceived as one whole. Sandpiper 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader I think it should be both. same with Sidous and Palpatine. That way people can find exactly what they're looking for without having to type both names in. Starwarsnerd 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

TWO articles

  1. The Wookieepedian 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I should also note that I noticed that the end credits of Return of the Jedi list Anakin and Vader as two separate characters. The Wookieepedian 17:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment. It should also be noted that this is more probably a concession to the logistics of playing the characters than to any real or imagined distinction betwixt the two. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Perhaps real and imagined ... all the more reason for a cleavage. E Pluribus Anthony 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment OK, so, from your statement, Maru, I would conclude that: "David Prowse, James Earl Jones, and Sebatian Shaw as Darth Vader." Now, think about that for a second... Sebastain Shaw portrayed an evil sith lord? No. David Prowse and James Earl Jones portrayed a good, kind man? No. Their logistsics may instead be based on character, rather than the distinction of actors as you suggest. The Wookieepedian 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jedi6 19:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'm going to stick with my origional argument here - "In Episode IV, Obi-Wan talks as though Darth Vader is an enterly different person from Anakin Skywalker "He betrayed and murdered your father". It isn't until near the end of episode V that it is actually revealed that the two are one and the same. In episode VI, Obi-Wan still talks somewhat as though Darth Vader is a seperate person, by saying "the good man who was your father was destroyed". If the origional trilogy talks as though the two are individual, that should be enough support in favor of the two splitting."Dr. B 21:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Obi-Wan didn't was probably wrong when he said that. If it was true that "the good man who was [Luke's] father was destroyed," then there would have been no way for Vader to repent and no Anakin remaining to merge with the Force. DrKC9N 15:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Since Obi-Wan's characterisation of DV/AS is different within and between sagas, this may be all the more reason to explore this dichotomy/inconsistency in separate articles. E Pluribus Anthony 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. For about any other person, I would oppose a split into a "younger" and an "older" article. Here it seems appropriate since they came to popular culture basically as different characters, so "Darth Vader" makes me think of the Ep. IV-VI villain, but "Anakin Skywalker" makes me think of the young boy and young Jedi. Kusma (討論) 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. I don't see the characters as "two different people", so I wouldn't agree with a split for that reason. However, I do support two articles for the purely practical reason of keeping the article length manageable. Since the two personas are largely contained each within their own trilogy, it seems practical to me to have two articles.--TidyCat 07:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment This is the only line of reasoning for the split that nearly convinces me. Other reasons are needless semantics (and unsupported in the canon). DrKC9N 15:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment This reply is a red herring: how can this be true when even the official website sees fit to have an article each for A. Skywalker and Darth Vader? E Pluribus Anthony 20:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment As does the Star Wars Wiki. The Wookieepedian 20:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Two names. Two personalities. Two trilogies. Two articles. — Haeleth Talk 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. I'd argue two names, if just because it's getting really long (maybe the Darth Vader article can have a short blurb for anakin, with a
    Main article: Anakin Skywalker
    link? Also, their sw.com profiles speak like they're two different people. --DrBat 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Yes: I believe the proposal above indicates this sort of format and would support this. E Pluribus Anthony 03:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. I'll say split the article. They may be the same person, but only with two different identities. Plus, there's enough information for two articles. Otherwise keeping it as one would make the article too long to read. DivineLady 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Split. For so many reasons as mentioned above Sethie 04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. I also agree. Split. Until Palpatine bestowed upon him the title of "Darth Vader," he was Anakin Skywalker. He was Vader until he was redeemed at the end of Return of the Jedi, when he again became Skywalker.-Platypus Man | Talk 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment And this is so appropriate coming from a platypus. :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I'm not offended or anything, but what do you mean? I don't see how my vote and the platypus relate.-Platypus Man | Talk 13:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Sorry: I should have commented on your user page instead. The platypus is an atypical aquatic mammal that is commonly referred to as the duck-billed platypus; I thought it funny/apt – 'natural' actually! – that an online creature using such an alias would evince support for this hybrid (in so many ways) character/approach and atypical issue. :) Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Oh, OK. That makes sense.-Platypus Man | Talk 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Three articles, then? Or does the Anakin article drop off for 10 years and then pick back up for RotJ? DrKC9N 15:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Feel free to post this voting option below. However, I believe three articles unnecessarily complicates the issue and the proposal above already accounts for this ... both ways. E Pluribus Anthony 15:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I agree. The "third" article wouldn't make sense. It would basically consist of saying that Vader came back to the light, died, and then Luke saw him. If I were doing it, I would have the Anakin article talk about his childhood and before he turned to the dark side. It would mention that he became Darth Vader, but not mentioning more than the most basic of things. It would end with the fact that he turned back at the end. The Vader article would have everything about him from the end of RotS to the end of RotJ, briefly mentioning that he was Anakin and became Anakin again at the end of his life.-Platypus Man | Talk 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    CommentMe too. Now that the Star Wars saga is complete, a lot of people now see them as two, which is Anakin Skywalker from the prequels and Darth Vader from the classic trilogy. It wouldn't make sense to have a third article, since Vader became Anakin again at the end of ROTJ. Also if there are two articles, Vader's redemption can be further explain in the Anakin article. DivineLady 06:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Agreed; Star Wars itself tends to treat Anakin and Vader as 2 different people (except soul!physically, but you get the idea). JuigiKario 05:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. There is absolutely no need for one article when there is plenty of information on each of them separately. J.Nebulax 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Two articles. Treat Darth Vader as the main article because it's the more common of the two names, and Anakin Skywalker as a daughter article dealing in detail with his role in the first three movies (since he's vastly more commonly known by that name in those movies), and only very little (about two paragraphs) with the last three movies. Incidentally, though there's a noteworthy amount of support in this vote for having the information on either Darth Vader or Anakin Skywalker, people seem pretty evenly split on which article to have it on, so even the votes for "have it on Darth Vader" and "have it on Anakin Skywalker" provide evidence for how much we need two articles. -Silence 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment The fact that those who support keeping it together can't agree on an article title is an excellent point.Dr. B 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yes. Really, the current system is misleading, since it conflates all "keep at one article" votes into a single list, even though some may prefer having two articles to having only one article that's at the name they didn't choose. The current vote makes it look like 14 people support "two articles" and 9 people support "one article", but really it's more that: 5 people support having the article at "Anakin Skywalker", 4 people support having the article at "Darth Vader" (so the current situation is by far the least popular one), and 14 people support having one article at Anakin Skywalker and one at Darth Vader. That's a much clearer idea of what the consensus is than treating all "one article" votes as identical. -Silence 06:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment There is nothing misleading about the vote as structured: you can only support one article or two ... it just so happens that support for one article requires an assertion about which name it should be under. One article; one name. To split that voting option based on this would diminish the position of those who maintain only one article (for which there's significant support – 39%, as I write this) for whatever reason; it's analogous to "divide and conquer". The fact that there is no consensus among those advocating for one article is (as yet) self-evident. We can turn that on its head and propose a plethora of options for two articles (or even three, as proposed above), but that would also be counterproductive and unnecessarily complicates the issue. Upon the vote's conclusion, we'll see which position is more prevalent and should proceed on that basis. E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't at all disagree, I merely wish that the poll had required from the beginning that people specify whether they care more about having the article there be an article for the name they're voting for (either Darth or Anakin) or more about having only one article regardless of the name chosen. Since that was not specified, we have no way of knowing whether, if "Darth Vader" gets the least votes, people who voted "Darth Vader" should have their votes counted under "Anakin Skywalker" or under "Two articles" (depending on which would have been their second choice); the same for whether "Anakin Skywalker"-shippers would have as their second option keeping it at Darth, or splitting it so there's an article for both pages.
    Probably the safer of the two assumptions is that the "one vote" people don't care as much about what the article's title is as about having it only be one article, unless they specified otherwise in their comment, but it seems a pretty imprecise way to handle the vote groupings. Really, shouldn't this ideally be two distinct votes? One vote for "Should there be one article or two articles", and a second vote for "If there is only one article, what should that article be named?" (with the options including "Anakin Skywalker", "Darth Vader", some weird combo of the two, etc.); after all, wouldn't it be significant to see what name the two-article-supporters would choose if they had to settle for a one-article situation (i.e., I'd vote "Darth Vader" if people who voted for two articles were allowed to vote on what name they'd pick for a one-article version). Conflating two unrelated polls will do nothing but make the results for both polls less accurate. -Silence 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I'm glad we're in general agreement. However, assume nothing. One article or two: you cannot get more basic than that. One article: one name only; two articles, the two names specified upfront – these are a priori concepts that are inextricably linked and related in this issue and RfC/poll. (For balance: I've reiterated/edited the provisos in each vote section/heading.) The current approach is wholly valid, precise, and conflates nothing: a period of comment and discussion preceded the vote (during which you were unable to comment, understandable, at my behest :( and thanks for your subsequent response), the options (including one name/one vote) were presented without substantial edition upon initiating the vote, and the votes/results have been self-evident. Thus far (in two days), 23 Wikipedians have indicated this or that without any ambiguity (and one other suggestion with comment below). And we will be able to surmise a consensus based on the results and outputs of this RfC/poll, whatever they are (we already can, but that would be premature). While your approach might also have done so, this would also have been too divisive: multiple votes and options would unnecessarily muddy and complicate the issue and potentially bring any of the results of an RfC/poll(s) into question. I appreciate your added input but unless there's further substantial comment otherwise, we shall proceed as discussed. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 08:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Two Articles. Anakin Skywalker was a lost, confused soul that was swayed by a very conniving man. Swallowed by his fear, he faced his former master and was defeated, left for dead. It was the same evil man (Palpatine) that kept him alive, thus creating Darth Vader. Anakin lived with the shame that he had killed the love of his life (which, this is debatable, however it is said that Padmé could not live without Anakin. He was tricked by Palpatine). Basically, a confused boy (it would appear that he turned into Vader in his late teens) who was swayed by a master of deception. Basically, two people: Anakin Skywalker the lost boy and Darth Vader, the shameful man. --Txredcoat 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Two Articles. Firstly, as has already been stated, Anakin and Darth Vader bear virtually no qualitative similarites. Secondly, films I, II and III are very different to IV, V and VI - the former are far more CG-ish, with massive armies and so on. I'm not sure we need to worry to much about creating a spoiler - after all, at least until Star Wars ceases to be one of the classic Sci-Fi sagas, nearly everyone knows that Anakin becomes DV. --David.Mestel 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Though I agree with you on separating the articles (see my vote above), the fact that the films may look differently or have different content isn't a valid reason to give that there should be two separate articles. It's all part of one story. And, regardless of popularity, all articles need spoiler warnings within them. And in this case, out of respect for those three people who have never heard of it. The Wookieepedian 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment No qualitative similarities, except for the fact that they're the same person. DrKC9N 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Same person/lifeform – life-changing events (like immolation) notwithstanding – but different characters, actors, movies, sagas, eras ... those seem to be qualitative and (arguably) quantitative dissimilarities. E Pluribus Anthony 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Two articles. Each should have a paragraph or so about the events before/after the change respectively, with the link "See main article at Darth Vader" or whatever. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Solver 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Agreeing with most of reasons for splitting as quoted above, and thus I retain my previous opinion on the issue. Solver 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Two articles, for similar reasons that Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort have two separate articles. Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are the same physically, but they are two different people. SujinYH 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Wow. Considering that Riddle an Voldemort are closer in character than Vader and Skywalker, not to mention that Riddle's entry is rather short (compared to that of Voldemort), if they are split, then this article should definetly be split.
  19. Two articles. I haven't much to add; what I think has pretty well been said above alread. -Ethan (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Two articles. Having two separate articles will let us add more information. But it IS a big deal though, I can imagine that the transition won't be smooth. In the case that the article does fork, I think we should keep some sort of backup of the original whole article just in case we screw it up. -- Solberg 10:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg
    • Um, are you aware that every version of every Wikipedia article ever is stored in the "history" section of each page? There is zero risk of data loss. And I'd be more worried about whether any important information has been lost in the process of Phil Welch attempting to heavily compress the article so that it would fit into one page; when we do split the article and create an Anakin Skywalker page, we should probably look both at the current page and at its past state (i.e. User:Silence/Anakin Skywalker, etc.) in case there are some details that we want to keep once we have twice as much room to keep it in (and, equally importantly, to expand from there; there are literally dozens of pages of significant information on Darth Vader that is not yet on Wikipedia but could prove valuable to people seeking it). -Silence 11:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm aware that there is a history page, but I didn't know it contains every version. Don't the "backup" records have to stop at some point? That's a lot of disk space, and this is not the only page that is using it. In either case, I agree that if we split it into two articles later, we should search past versions and take back good pieces of information we want that were too lengthy for the current article. -- Solberg 12:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg
    Not necessarily. I believe they are stored as diffs, or delta encodings; so since the changes only are saved, the size of an article and its revisions do not grow that fast. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    I always wondered whether such an archival system would be sufficient, or necessary, if Wikipedia continues to grow at such an exorbitant rate. Perhaps 'purgin' very old diffs would be practical at some point, as the IRS does? :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't believe we are legally allowed to do that, because of the GFDL. That said, I understand that bandwidth and hard drive speed (and the related issue of replication of changes) are the current Wikipedia bottlenecks; not space. Given how cheap space is, and how space-frugal text is, I don't anticipate any problems in regard to textual histories. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    Ah; I understand. Thanks for the information! :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    Primarily, this split should allow us more room to expand the Expanded Universe section, which is the section most in need, IMO. The Wookieepedian 12:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I agree with Silence: provisional articles can be prepared and edited beforehand; if confirmed through this vote, we can place them appropriately after (if most support having a single article at AS, content changes will need to be made to reflect that, too), much content can be included that has been whittled away due to this and that. E Pluribus Anthony 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Eh, the EU makes up the majority of Star Wars. Anakin/Vader has made many appearances in the EU that should be better covered. The events in the films can be elaborated on, but there's really not much more than that. The Wookieepedian 13:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Mybad (and I've revised my prior comment): yes – I was thinking Star Trek for a moment (which you know I've been working on too, W) ... in that respect, the ST Expanded Universe has dubious canonicity. Mea culpa ;) E Pluribus Anthony 13:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, I know that none of the ST EU is considered canon. I could see where you were coming from there. But with the SW EU as you know, nearly everything is considered canon and everything is taken into consideration. So I think that the film sections can be expanded somewhat, but the EU section will need the most work. The Wookieepedian 13:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Agreed! Forgive my ... temporary hallucination. :) E Pluribus Anthony 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Be careful with the SW canon. There is a rank system to it, and while some things do get a certain degree of canonicity (is that actually a word?) it is important to remember anything George does to in a movie takes precedent over prior published "canon". -Thebdj 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Two articles. Don't want to spoil Revenge of the Sith for those poor people in the future who start out with Episode One and don't know what's coming. - Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuoton 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. King of All the Franks 20:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Two articles, Superman and Clark Kent have two separate articles; one for each identity. Cymsdale 13:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. E Pluribus Anthony 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment EPA, I do believe that you have given your fair share of reasons for your vote. ;) The Wookieepedian 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    That goes without saying! I actually entered the fray rather ambivalent initially, but have since been emboldened for the dual option. :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. I might not be an expert in this area but I think that there should be two articles. Darth Vader and Anakin are basically two seperate people. ONEder Boy 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Two articles, partly due to the dual identity (per Superman and Clark Kent as well as Lord Voldemort and Tom Riddle), and partly due to article size (52 Kb, with room to grow in EU content). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Two articles J•A•K 00:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Two articles Anakin and Vader are two very different people that happen to share the same body. Throughout the movies, the are almost always referred to as seperate people, and the difference between the Ep. 1 Anakin and the OT Vader is massive. --dws90 05:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Two articles Jill Tan 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    You obviously paid no attention to what I said. Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader in the same way that Otto Octavius is Dr. Octopus. I never said that Darth is a disguise; Dr. Octopus isn't a disguise either. Like I said, before the nuclear accident he was a nice, kind scientist; after the accident he suffered brain damage and adopted a new personality, in the same way that Anakin adopted the Darth Vader personality. Darth Vader is not different from Anakin; he is simply a different personality. They both are in the same body, aren't they? Scorpionman 17:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Two articles One article about Darth Vader's life and deeds and the other to Anakin Skywalker. No overlaps, and instead have the 'See Also' section have links to Darth Vader or Anakin Skywalker. —Mirlen 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. two articles ANAKIN and darth Vader were and are different people. It would be a disgrace to show Anakin in a darker light User:210.49.222.229 04:00, January 29, 2006 (UTC)
  32. Two articles for the simple reason that when I want info on Anakin I do a search for Anakin and when I want info on Darth Vader I do a search for Darth Vader. I don't put one name in on Google when searching info on the other. Plus one article on both of them is just way too big. Once the Star Wars tv series comes out there will be even more info. Might as well get it over with now. Mithridates 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OTHER

  • (abstentions, other options, etc.)
  1. Comment-you decide it. But I only wait for the finale of this endless discussion to finally push Darth Vader (or Anakin Skywalker, how it's gonna be?) into the FAC. (although I found nice the way it is now. the only problem is... 44 kb.).igordebraga [[User talk:Igordebraga|*]] 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment and that 44 kb is part of the reason why we are trying to split the article. I recall seeing one person comment on how they beleive that, if we turn this into two articles, there's a possibility that they BOTH might be featured article candidates.
  2. Comment The article is too long. Do what we did at Superman and split off a section either on Anakin or Darth, so that you get to have your cake and eat it. See Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Hiding talk 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's exactly what I suggested we do with my very first edits to the Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker articles, waaay back on November 27th, which started this whoooole debate: Anakin, Darth. And now, it's taken us months of impassioned, heated, contentious, fracturing back-and-forth debate to come... all the way back to square one. The simplest and most obvious solution to this mess really is the best one, it turns out. Hopefully soon the article can finally be split so work can really begin on these two worthy encyclopedia topics for the first time. -Silence 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC/poll: conclusion

Happy new year! Thanks to everyone for your participation during and after the RfC/poll, which has garnered significant input and discussion. As promised, below is a summary: as of the vote closing (end of day 31 December 2005), 48 Wikipedians have indicated the following:

  • 21 (44%) support 1 article, of whom:
  • 9 (19%) support it as is, at Darth Vader
  • 9 (19%) support having it at Anakin Skywalker
  • 3 (6%) support either title, a hybrid one, or undefined
  • 26 (54%) support 2 articles, one each for DV and AS
  • 1 (2%) has abstained

This year (since the poll end), the margins have not changed appreciably.

The two-article option has garnered an absolute majority; moreover, a consensus does not support the status quo if you also consider that a number of the one-article supporters prefer the title to be Anakin Skywalker instead.

So, you might ask if it's still appropriate to split the article since the two-article option did not garner a supermajority. Well, I sought a neutral assessment from a Wp bureaucrat, who is entrusted to administrate things like Wp administrator votes. Based on his assessment of the vote results (emphasis retained):

...having two separate articles is the answer. It has an absolute majority of the votes. Deference is given to the status quo in these cases, but the alternative (one merged article) is evenly divided as to what the one article would be named. Since no other alternative got more than a quarter of the votes, we are not dealing with a supermajority issue...

(We then proceeded to talk about Spaceballs and Vader's helmet, but that's another story ...)

So, based on everything above, the two-article option has prevailed: one each for Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker.

Next steps

As for how to go about doing the split, Silence created two discrete articles earlier:

To start, these (or similar) articles should be edited, consistent with the DV/AS proposal cited, retrofitting them with anything updated in the current article. Once this is done, over say the next week, we can then replace the content/articles in both locales.

Again, thanks to all of you for your input, patience, and continued co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Same name, same article?

Wouldn't it be easier and less of a debate if the article was enitled "Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader"? That way, if people were searching and entered either "Anakin Skywalker" or "Darth Vader", they'd come upon the article, but it's be less confusion with the new title since they are the same person. Jedi Striker 7:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your question. While a possibility, a unified title as you suggest (with a slash) is atypical in Wp. As well, for those who are unfamiliar with the saga, such a title may constitute a spoiler. If you have an intention to vote (for a single article or other?), I'd suggest moving your suggestion to the appropriate section above. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 01:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It would most definitely be a spoiler. That's why a soft redirect would be necessary (if one article), or an unnamed link after a spoiler alert (if split). DrKC9N 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Midi-clorians vs. midi-chlorians (spelling discussion)

The current WP article on this topic is found at midi-clorians (sic) at the insistence of a user with an early edition of the novelization of The Phantom Menace where the word is supposedly spelled that way. Requesting input in the discussion over what is actually the canonical spelling. Thank you. Rcharman 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Prophecy

I recently added a new section to the Darth Vader page regarding interpretations of the Jedi Prophecy. I did my best to be objective, and detailed the primary interpretation of the Prophecy, as seemingly described by Yoda. I discounted the Luke interpretation because it seems like something most other wiki writers would do, since it contradicts the Prophecy on some key points. Feel free to add other interpretations though. In particular, I wonder if it's possible to consider Palpatine to be the Chosen One. Also, maybe if someone can definitively prove that Palpatine or Plagueis created Anakin (still currently controversial), another paragraph could be added on about the irony of the Sith destroying themselves by helping fulfill the prophecy. Solberg 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

It is possible. Though any supposition is inherently subjective without sourcing it (including mine), I believe there'd be more support for the contention that Anakin/Vader was the chosen one. AS' rise as a 'prodigy' and murderous actions (on behalf of Palpatine) enabled the Emperor and brought about the Empire, and DV's later death brought about the Empire's fall and onset of the Alliance. AS (if he turned the other way) could've ended P. and his efforts with literally a single blow. All of this largely points to P's adroit political manipulations, not to anything 'messianic' (I think, so to speak). Moreover, AS' offspring were a portend for future acts (helping to restore balance again) and Palpatine wasn't depicted among the Jedi (with Obi-Wan and Yoda) in ROTJ. Even after DV's formation and throughout the sagas, I believe him to still be the chosen one: he did end up bringing about balance ... it's just that this took some 25 years to realise.
... however, the weed on this side of the border may be of dubious quality ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, I couldn't find any official source backing any Palpatine = "the Chosen one" interpretation, so I didn't include that interpretation in the main article. I was just throwing it out there to see if anyone else could find such a source. It seems like an interesting consideration, but like you, I think in the end it was probably Anakin. It's interesting, because although Palpatine seems perpetually calm, and in control of everything in the galaxy, in the end Anakin was the truly influential figure at each key scene (saving Naboo almost on his own, killing Mace Windu allowing the Sith to continue on, killing Palpatine himself much later, etc). More realistically, Palpatine can't be the Chosen One because that doesn't seem like something Lucas would do. Solberg 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Hi; I'm glad we're in agreement. Palpatine was a master manipulator, but AS/DV got everything done and was the pivotal element throughout. One of the main themes in George Lucas' films is that of redemption amidst despair: from THX-1138 to the Star Wars saga, all depict characters that emerge redeemed ... at cost.
By the way, care to vote above? :) In any event, thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 12:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm my opinion is that it's irrelevant because even if we change it to two pages so there's "less text," it'll be so good that the readers will want to see both pages!!  ;)

He he; either way (if you're so compelled), assert this above: there is a third option for abstentions and other ideas. And a split will enable more text. :) TY! E Pluribus Anthony 13:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm the Interpretations section has been recently edited to argue that the "balance" to be brought only referred to the destruction of the Sith, and cites Lucas for this. Anyone aware of the source for this? I will have the "According to Lucas" removed until the source has been cited. -- Solberg 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Thanks to the anonymous person for adding the citation! I wonder if the tidbit about the chosen one being born of a virgin mother is something from the EU or is really part of G Canon. Does anyone know where the idea started from? Besides the bible and so on, I mean. If it's just EU, should it be removed, or maybe just modified to state it's from there? -- Solberg 07:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Ep 1, if I recall correctly. --maru (talk) contribs 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we consider luke's invovlement in this/

Alert: The "Lightsaber Training" section

What is the source of this section? According to Star Wars: Labyrinth of Evil, it clearly implies Anakin Skywalker has NEVER studied Form III Soresu at all. I don't believe there is source that confirm / imply Anakin Skywalker has mastered Soresu. Combining the Sith Novel, Insider, and EP2 Visual Dictionary, Anakin has only mastered Shien (Sith Novel), Djem So (Sith Novel), Ataru acrobatic (EP2 VD + Sith Novel). I suggest we remove the section if no proof can be provided about Anakin mastering Soresu. Darth Kevinmhk 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the central character

Anakin Skywalker is not the main character of the entire series. He is the main character of the prequels. The originals were quite deliberately made to focus on Luke's journey. While Anakin's redemption is a featured storyline in Return of the Jedi, it is not the focus of that trilogy on the whole. The original trilogy was never made as "Anakin redemption story," it was made as "Luke's journey to Jedi Knighthood." Try as they might, the prequels can't change the focus of three films that have already been made. Referring to him as the "central character" is therefore not accurate, it's just towing the Lucasfilm party line.


We seriously need to address this issue. The entry has changed from the central of IV, V and VI to the central of I, II and II, to the central of the entire series. To be honest, I really think it is more appropriate to say Anakin is the central character of Episodes I-III. However, Vader is not really the central character of Episodes IV-VI. Luke is the central character of IV-VI and the prequels really do nothing to change that. This is particularly true for Episode IV where Vader is little more then the bad guy. It wasn't until the end of Episode V when we learn that Vader is Luke's father, that Vader becomes a bit more then just a bad guy. Even then, the story is still focused on the journey of Luke and not Anakin/Vader.
You could maybe say he was "a" central character of Episodes IV-VI, but he is not "the" central character. If we ignore the prequels all together then there is little argument that Luke is the center of the story from the original trilogy. The story follows Luke and pretty much everything that happens in the movies is centered around Luke. I do not know how we successfully resolve this issue, but if it has to be decided by a vote then sobeit. -Thebdj 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument of Anakin/Vader not being THE central character is a nebulous swirling cloud of debate. Anakin is THE central character of the entire series just as Frodo is the central character of LotR. This is even though through much of RotK, Frodo is almost a supporting character with the other three hobbits pulling far more weight characterwise. So I think its fair to say that Luke is the central character of IV-VI, whilst Anakin is the central character of I-VI.[bigjimleo 6 Feb 2006]

Those are my feelings on the matter as well. :) The Wookieepedian 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Masterv88

Wait a second...I'm confused. I just reverted because the article Anakin Skywalker redirected to Darth Vader. But eventually this should be just the Darth Vader page, and Anakin Skywalker should be its own, as well (as per RfC above). Did I just catch it in the middle of the transition? If so, apologies... DrKC9N 04:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A question

How old was Anakin when he was made a Jedi Knight? Deskana (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Around 22, I believe. The Wookieepedian 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Anakin-ness" of Vader

While I don't care about merge v. split, I do want to direct anyone who wants to debate how much the man in the suit is Anakin Skywalker to a better resource than the Revenge of the Sith novelization... If you care to, please consider the Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader novel. Without spoiling too much...

WARNING-- IF YOU ARE LIKELY TO GET MAD AT SPOILERS STOP READING NOW ANYWAY

The debate as to the Anakin-ness of Vader by the time of Ep IV is pretty much closed in the text of that novel. The reactions to being the man in the suit in Sith are initial impressions of someone embarking on the journey to the Dark Side. This novel also seems to have a bit more weight canon-wise than the rest of the Expanded Universe stuff as its another James Luceno book. Dark Lord is as much the tie-up of the loose ends of Sith as Labryinth of Evil was the introduction to the opening scroll of Sith. To that end, even if the material of that book is not included in the character bio here (I agree, it's covered on fan sites well enough for anyone that interested), I think the bio should not contradict that book or postulate as to "open questions" when they are in fact answered there.[bigjimleo 7 Feb 2006 03:42 (UTC)]

New Lede Without Spoilers

I just wrote a new lede to this article above the Spoilers warning tag. It includes information that I considered to be general knowledge of popular culture that has totally permeated society, that Vader is a character in the star wars films and is known as an iconic villian figure.

I feel that is the connection between Vader and Anakin that could be considered a plot spoiler, even though most people know this connection anyway. Because the Anakin-Vader connection is a plot spoiler, whereas everyone knows Vader as the character in teh dark suit, I'd like people working on this page to consider having only a picture of Vader in the suit at the top of the page, and have pictures of Hayden Christensen appear later, well below the plot spoiler tag.

It's true. I had the pleasure of watching all six episodes last summer here in Korea with a girl who didn't know anything about the movie, from one to six. Watched one and two, the next week Episode 3 came out and then after that we watched the old ones. The verdict from her? Anakin's awesome, Obi-wan is too perfect and Anakin's better, Episode 4 is terrible because Darth Vader has no depth at all, Luke's not half as good as Anakin was, the guy who played Anakin at the end where he dies doesn't look like him at all, and only the spirit Jedi Anakin at the end was good because she wasn't expecting that. Had it been Sebastian Shaw I think she would have been disappointed. I'm one of the ones that favours this being split into two articles though. If it has to be one it should be Anakin Skywalker. He was born as Anakin and died as him, so why not? Mithridates 06:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way...

Even if we're not going with two articles this one should be called Anakin Skywalker. He was Anakin before turning into Darth Vader, was Anakin as well after his redemption, and some people argue as well that he was Anakin the whole time. Note that pages on wrestlers for example redirect to their real names as they only appear as wrestlers for a number of years; same thing for any other dual identity. If so then Darth Vader should be a soft redirect because lots of people still don't know. Especially in Asia it's hard to find someone that knows they're the same person. Mithridates 11:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry: the RfC/poll provided a clear course of action – two articles. Getting around to doing the split properly is taking longer than anticipated, but it will happen soon enough. Stay tuned! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Pics

Pics are rather dark, at least on my monitor. Perhspa they could be lightened a bit. --Shadow Puppet 22:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quality, but quality. We have 4 pictures from the end of Revenge of the Sith. This does seem a bit excession, especially considering the article length is still something of a problem and removing at least one and probably two of the pictures wouldn't hurt. I couldn't really decide which ones are best to eliminate. Any thoughts? Or heck go ahead and just remove two. -Thebdj 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many photos. Perhaps we should have only one or two images from each film? The Wookieepedian 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)



I axed many photos (3 total) and do not think the edits will hold. There are WAY too many pictures in the article still. I think we need to remember that the use of these copyrighted images needs to be limited to those times where it adds to the article. We originally had 4 pictures from the last like 30 minutes of Episode III and a picture of Vader in his "dome" which really had nothing to do with the article. I also think the Transformation section might be TOO Big making the sections after look almost too small. -Thebdj 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Clone Wars/EU

There is no mention of him killing Asajj Ventress or any of the EU events during the clone wars.

How much of anakin in this article?

How much of Anakinin this article? it seems like you can get all the info on anakin on this page as you can on the ACTUAL anakin page! then the only point in having an anakin page is spoiler reasons. Is that really enough? should anakin related stories be kept in anakin boards?

Darth Vader on Bacta

On Panacea (medicine) it claims that Vader's suit has bacta in it. Is this canonical? JoshuaZ 06:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Appearance in "Indian In The Cupboard" Film

Those of you who remember seeing the 1995 film "The Indian In The Cupboard" may remember that upon discoverying that he can animate plastic figures with his new cupboard, the eager young boy crams the cupboard full of the nearest toys he can find - among them, Darth Vader, who breifly spars with a T. Rex before taking notice of the boy. Since the story treats the characters brought to life as actual persons suddenly ripped from their place in space and time, as opposed to merely being "Frankensteined" on the spot, does this merit serious examination as to whether or not the event was canon?

If nothing else, it would make a worthwhile trivia entry. The actor playing Vader in this case was Tom Bewley.

LOL! Yes, I remember that, and... uh... no... that's not canon. But it would make a good trivia entry! :) The Wookieepedian 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
To which I must say no. We need to avoid Trivia sections like the plague. We have managed to get the DV article to a Good Article and I really think introducing trivia sections leads to nothing but fancruft and lots of rv'ing because you get unreferenced and unverifiable "trivia". It is sort of interesting to know, but in the end it is not worth much of a reference. If you get hell-bent on adding a reference somewhere. May I suggest a VERY SMALL mention in the Cultural Figure section. -Thebdj 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)