Talk:Jacen Solo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article. | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 22, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
[edit] Jacen's daughter
Template:Spoiler Yes folks! It turns out that Tenel Ka had given birth to his daughter in the newly released Star Wars Dark Nest book, The Unseen Queen. People around the internet are now talking about it! However, that child is still unnamed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.94.62.3 (talk • contribs) .
Hmm... can anyone say dark side? Jacen is ashamed of his daughter, and erases his cousin's memory to keep her a secret... tsk tsk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.236.250.141 (talk • contribs) .
Sykes
- I believe it's Allana though I could be mistaken though talk about a plot twist!! Jamhaw 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
Of course Allana is Jacen's daughter!!!!! It says so multiple times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.47.58 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jacen's Force Abilities
Can someone expand on Jacen's Force strength, powers, and lightsaber skills. 164.116.107.39 06:53 January 19 2006. (UTC)
Yes. As seen in several books, Jacen is possessed with incredible foresight abilities, much like his grandfather Anakin Skywalker, but perhaps even more pronounced. However, several possibilities stemming from the end of the book Betrayal indicate that his foresight may be corrupted by the dark side of the force, hence deceiving him into murdering a fellow Jedi (Nelani Dinn) and manipulating the memories of his cousin (Ben Skywalker) to keep it a secret.
As for his other abilities I will refrain from commenting until I have studied more material. Doncroft 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Stealing from KOTOR? Referencing KOTOR yes, stealing no. When elements are introduced to the EU by one source, they're encouraged to be incorporated into others. :) Tophtucker (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Images
We need more images. Like bad. —Mirlen 04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I dunno. Looks pretty good to me- most articles don't have this many, much less most Star Wars articles.
- They probably need one of him as Darth Caedus. Simon Beavis
- That said, from an anal copyright view, having so many fair use images is rather shaky, legally, and so not adding more pictures might actually be a good thing. --maru (talk) Contribs 06:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Empathetic...?
Is it empathic, or empaTHETic? I think it's the first one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.59.46 (talk • contribs) .
- No its the second one, see Sympathy. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reasoning
I think Jacen attacked it so the Chiss would attack BEFORE the killiks were ready so his kid would be safe like what he did to Ta Chume. Jamhaw 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
[edit] "stronger than Luke" section
Shouldn't we delete that whole section? It's all speculation. Isn't am encyclopedia supposed to have factual information? Mwsilvabreen 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Awhile ago, that may have been proper; however, the books themselves are now explicitly raising the issue. Stilgar135 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum- the section isn't just about whether or not he's stronger than Luke. It's about his entire character, how it's changed and Jacen's relationship with the rest of the Jedi order. The title was presumably chosen because it sounds snazzy and is one of the central questions raised in the section, though not the only one. Stilgar135 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't we change the title to something like "Abilities" or something? Mwsilvabreen 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the current title encapsulates the section as well as anything could. The crux of much of the Star Wars story post-Traitor is Jacen's disillusionment with Jedi tradition and his conviction that he can do better. His belief that he will be stronger than Luke and that he will finally save the galaxy is one of the driving forces behind his character, perhaps the most important one. Further, the section also talks about fan controversy over Jacen, much of which is based in power comparisons. Stilgar135 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't we change the title to something like "Abilities" or something? Mwsilvabreen 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum- the section isn't just about whether or not he's stronger than Luke. It's about his entire character, how it's changed and Jacen's relationship with the rest of the Jedi order. The title was presumably chosen because it sounds snazzy and is one of the central questions raised in the section, though not the only one. Stilgar135 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with stilgar. The books are starting to explicitly state the case that Jacen is rivaling Luke in power and will soon surpass him. Even Mara is becoming aware of this in the second half of "Tempest". I'm looking for the legacy series to really shake some things up seeing that the Original Characters are getting too old to have any realistic impact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.132.221 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC).Personally i think Jacen will be stronger than Luke because he embraces all of the force not a certain half of it, similar to Darth Revan in the KOTOR series. However I'm a little ticked off with the writers trying to make him a "evil" character per se , he could become the prophecied chosen one and plus i've been reading about this dude since i was in my pre-teens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.154.9.248 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment. The books are directly comparing Luke's and Jacen's force abilities now as a subplot of the current fall to the darkside storyline.--Drsketch 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is a part that blatantly states that Luke Skywalker is as powerful as Anakin Skyalker would have become had he not lost most of his flesh on Mustafar. This can't be correct purely because before his ascension to Sith Mastery (in Sacrifice), Lumiya stated that he could not best Luke in a fight (albeit a lightsaber duel... but regardless...) Yet at the same time we have someone stating that Jacen as a Sith Lord will be ALMOST as strong as Vader should have been... it just seems like some bad roundabout thinking... and really speculatory, as well. I reccomend getting rid of most of it. While it is irrefutable that Luke Skywalker is currently the strongest Jedi, there has been little said for or against Jacen's own power... ps. I hate his Sith name... I was hoping it would have meaning, but it turns out that it was just junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.163 (talk • contribs)
I found this statement in here: "It should be further noted that in Lucas' version of The Star Wars Universe that The Sith were destroyed when Darth Vader saved the life of his son Luke Skywalker thus fulfilling The Prophecy of The Chosen One, therefore the Sith never truly returned and Jacen is actually a Dark Jedi."
This is wrong. Anakin did destroy the Sith line that he and the Emperor were part of, but the Sith are not a hereditary lineage, but followers of an idea, and ideas cannot be destroyed. The Prophecy of the Chosen One involved bringing balance to the Force. It has been favoring the Dark Side at that point, and Anakin brought it back to a light or neutral slant with his sacrifice. So I removed that incorrect statment. Simon Beavis
[edit] Time traveler category
How is he a time traveler? As far as I've seen, time travel seems impossible in the galaxy Mwsilvabreen 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's because he's able to project back through time and observe historical events as they're happening. Stilgar135 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Must have missed that part. When does he do that? Mwsilvabreen 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the first Dark Nest book, he sees Raynar crashing the Tachyon Flyer and pulling Lomi and Welk from the wreckage. In the second LoTF book, he sees the massacre at the temple through Anakin's eyes, and appears to gain some sort of empathy from it- though I'm not sure if this is a direct effect of the time travel or just indicative of his fucked-up mindset. As far as we know, this can only be done when he's at the location where the event happened and needs to have a very specific idea of what he wants to do. Still, the category doesn't define time travel, so I'd say that this qualifies by default. Stilgar135 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Must have missed that part. When does he do that? Mwsilvabreen 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Jacen understands why Anakin does what he does, he just thinks he went about it the wrong way.
It's flow walking not time travel.
Exactly. I wonder if Jacen will learn to flow walk forward in time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.47.58 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
Darth Caedus should redirect to this article. Simon Beavis
But should there be "Darth Caedus" in the charactor box? Am I the only one to think that it shouldn't? Pmuean 05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] in-universe
This article appears to be written like a biography, please see WP:WAF. Aspects of the narratives themselves are completely missing. Also, the article doesn't even feature references for its primary sources. —AldeBaer 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Solokids.jpg
Image:Solokids.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DELETION
I will wait about 4 weeks before resubmitting this article for deletion if until then no efforts are underway to properly rewrite this article from a non-in-universe perspective. Real world context and according third-party reliable secondary sources are necessary to maintain the bare minimum of encyclopedic standards. User:Dorftrottel 02:33, January 30, 2008
- As I said on your talk page, nobody has any obligation to adhere to your deadlines. Perhaps you have nothing better to do but work on wikipedia, but most editors have school, work, friends, family and other hobbies that occupy our time. RogueNinjatalk 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added citations for the Legacy of the Force era,but as far as anything before that goes,I'm no help there.TheNobleSith (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] An Opinon On Deletion - From Biologist Minon
Though I am not normally a person that is either 'pro' or 'anti' deletion I feel compelled to comment on the unresolved issue of the article about the Star Wars character 'Jacen Solo'. I believe that this article should be deleted if the article cannot be brought up to a standard that, although maybe not at full Wikipedia guidelines; is at least within an Olympic class stone's throw from this point.
With my regards,
Biologist Minon, 31-1-2008, 13-52 hours, New Zealand Time
[edit] Jack Merridew removing references
Just to let everyone know, prolific deletionist Jack Merridew has removed several citations referencing the official Star Wars novels from this article in order to make it a better target for deletion and is reverting everyone who attempts to re-add them, thus violating the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.165 (talk • contribs)
- Because you and everyone else who adds them aren't properly referencing them. Book references generally need an ISBN number, a publisher, an author, a number of pages (if referring to a specific passage), AND a title, not just the title. If I had read the books that people are trying to reference, I would do it myself, but I have not. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- But partial references are better than no references at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.165 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Partial references are, sadly, useless. The way the references were written, a layman could infer any of a number of things; i.e. that the specific titles are video games, works of fan fiction, or the name of a demonstration at a sci-fi con. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- But partial references are better than no references at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.136.165 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, I have. And I will continue to remove such worthless non-references. Thanks Jéské. --Jack Merridew 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I suppo
sert Jack Merridew and Jeske in the removal of non-reference "references." A reference exists so that readers/editors can go back and verify the information -- remember that verifiability is a pillar of wikipedia -- and just dropping down a title doesn't help. Perhaps a solution is to identify here on the talk pages the excised "references" and ask other editors to help find substantiating material. (As a side note, I notice that these references are all to primary sources for plot summary -- material that this article has too much of. A better use of editors' time would be to find material to establish the character's notability and other real-world facets.) --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppo
-
-
- I'll take that as a support. See here for the ones I removed; there are other diffs that are about the same. I agree that there are notability concerns and will probably get around to tagging it so. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Removing incomplete references is silly. There is no deadline, and thus there is no reason to remove references that are valid but incomplete. Powers T 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The references are not valid - they are simply the title of a work, nothing more. As I said above, just the title of a work (book, video game, sonnet) is useless because it does not specify *what* the information comes from - is it a book, a video game, or a fan-fic? It is for that reason that just putting a title as a reference is useless. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Removing incomplete references is silly. There is no deadline, and thus there is no reason to remove references that are valid but incomplete. Powers T 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
They are not incomplete, they are worthless; they amount to hoax refs. --Jack Merridew 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hoaxes? How? They're primary sources, not hoaxes. Powers T 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not the way they're in there. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You are reverting other work too. This amounts to vandalism. The consensus here is that those refs are junk. Talk here if you want. --Jack Merridew 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- And besides which, you're removing valid internal links as well. Powers T 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redlinks are not valid internal links, and it's best if they are removed on-sight, Powers. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Fraudulent refs, then. A ref that simply repeats the section header is no ref at all; it is a sham. I believe there are some redlinks to deleted articles that you're restoring too. Cut it out; read the above discussion. --Jack Merridew 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on WP:N, I see no possible argument for this to not be deleted. Although personally I'd like for it to stay, it does not comply with notability guidelines.TheNobleSith (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Here is the proper sourcing information. Please add complete sources and end this damn argument.
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Betrayal | Aaron Allston | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477354 | 496 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Bloodlines | Karen Traviss | Del Ray | ISBN: 78-0345477514 | 416 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Tempest | Troy Denning | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477521 | 416 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Exile | Aaron Allston | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477538 | 368 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Sacrifice | Karen Traviss | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477415 | 512 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Inferno | Troy Denning | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477552 | 336 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Fury | Aaron Allston | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477569 | 384 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Revelation | Karen Traviss | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477576 | 448 Pages
- Star Wars: Legacy of the Force: Invincible | Troy Denning | Del Ray | ISBN: 978-0345477460 | 320 Pages
- All the ISBNs and page counts are from Amazon and are for the paperback editions, except for Invincible, which is from the hardcover. Now fix this please. RaidonMakoto (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the proper sourcing information. Please add complete sources and end this damn argument.
[edit] Invincible
Invincible's out, need to finish the article so Jacen can die in agony. Yay! Bye bye JINO!Katana Geldar 01:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
