This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was keep page as Sith Emperor. 1358(Talk) 18:56, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
Per the reasons I outline below. Also, our naming policy says to use the name that characters are known as at the moment of their death, which is the Sith Emperor. The policy also says to use the most commonly known name if more than one name is applicable to the character, hence why Darth Caedus is not named Jacen Solo despite his being referred to as such in later works. CadeCalrayn 04:17, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
In reality everyone I know (who plays SWTOR) calls him the Sith Emperor. I think this is the way to go. Commander Code-8G'day, mate 05:23, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Now that Cade has checked, that changes everything. As promised, I change my vote in favor of Option 2. Sorry for the delay, but I thought it was reasonable objection, no matter what others may say. --LelalMekha (talk) 20:26, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Per my reasoning in the commentary below. Although it's unusual to use the article in a page name, it's not]] unheard of if the subject requires it (think of "the Force" or "the galaxy"). I'm through with Cade's arguments, but technically, that character's name is "the Sith Emperor." --LelalMekha (talk) 12:48, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Either you're desperately trying to save Rokkur from a well-deserved curb-stomping, or this is a cruel joke, but either way this is just silly. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 16:35, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
I've been wondering for years why on Earth you've been allowed to ridicule the opinions of other people with impunity. --LelalMekha (talk) 16:50, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
I say what everyone else is afraid to, and I'm usually right when I do. But for the few who don't see why option 2 is obvious and option 3 is obviously wrong, I'll elaborate. The essence of the Naming Policy is to avoid the definite article unless absolutely necessary. "The" is not capitalized in any instance of "the Sith Emperor" other than at the beginning of sentences which obviously shouldn't count. I'll grant in the case of "the Force" and "the Galaxy" that it is not capitalized in their references, but "force" and "galaxy" are common nouns, and there is no other modifier for them, so "the" is required to disambiguate them from other galaxies and other forces. The Sith Emperor is the Sith emperor, and there is only one (unless you count Palpatine, who is arguably a Sith Emperor, but he's "Palpatine" so that's a non-issue). Using the definite article in the page title would be superfluous, so much so that I consider it silly, and I consider this whole option an attempt to cloud the issue. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 21:23, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
I do not think you have to worry about it anyway, since that third option obviously won't garner support. I never had any negative interactions with your, but the style of your remark, despite its undisputable relevance, lacks elementary courtesy. Instead of politely expressing your disagreement as we all should do, you called my intervention "silly" and made accusations. I can't see how this is supposed to be taken positively. --LelalMekha (talk) 21:29, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
While I don't find Lelal's suggestion "silly," I wonder if we're running into a language issue here. In my reading, Culator's original comment was tongue-in-cheek, so I hope you two can shake hands and leave it there. Back on topic: wasn't Darth Krayt a Sith Emperor, too? Just trying to make sure we have all the candidates in the discussion. ~Savage 18:19, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall him beimg addressed by that title very often, but that's why I have included Krayt in the Youmay at the top. CadeCalrayn 05:51, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I'd go for Sith Emperor (Cold War), or something. But I'll leave it to someone else to add the option (or just stay out of the vote). ~Savage 11:09, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
This assumption is largely incorrect. Both Palpatine and Darth Krayt may have been Sith and also Emperors but they were hardly called "Sith Emperors". They were in fact referred to as Galactic Emperors, that was their title. In the end, "Sith Emperor" is really not an official title, it's just how Vitiate, the leader of the Sith Empire, is better known as. So yes, he's unique. Winterz (talk) 13:08, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
If Krayt has never been called "Sith Emperor," then I'm ready to change my vote in favor of option 1. This would also help restore a climate of civil peace. In all honesty, I thought that Krayt also bore the title because I trusted other users' statements on the matter. Cade himself included that Youmay. However, I would reiterate that, if Krayt has never been called "Sith Emperor" in canon, I'll change my vote. --LelalMekha (talk) 13:22, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
I'll run through Legacy real quick to check. Do you mean option 1 or 2? I read your previous statements as leaning more towards option 2, but I might be wrong. CadeCalrayn 13:50, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
I said "hardly", it's possible (but still unlikely) that he was referred to by that once or twice. However, my point is, if they ever did refer to him as "Sith Emperor" it would be referring to the fact that he is Sith and that he is Galactic Emperor, and in no instance was he ever "Sith Emperor" as in leader of a Sith Empire. Winterz (talk) 13:54, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. I meant option 2, of course. --LelalMekha (talk) 13:58, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
From what I can see, Krayt isn't referred to as the "Sith Emperor" per se—there's a lot of "Emperor," "Sith Lord," "the Sith and their Empire," but no Sith Emperor. CadeCalrayn 20:20, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
This is the deal-breaker for me. I've struck my objections and my vote. Does this mean that we should in fact do away with the Sith Emperor (disambiguation) page as it is now technically incorrect? Rokkur Shen (talk) 02:26, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
The Codex of The Old Republic explicitly states in the entry "Galactic History 30: Rise of the Sith Emperor" that "No record of the Sith Emperor's original identity has survived, but he was quickly accepted as the leader of the almost-shattered Sith Empire."
Counter-argument: as the codex is written surrounding the timeframe of the game approximately 3,500 years has passed in-universe with which information surrounding his identity could have been discovered. Darth Plagueis novel is proof of this. Rokkur Shen (talk) 04:33, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
While The Essential Reader's Companion does refer to him as "Emperor Vitiate" in the Dramatis Personae of The Old Republic: Revan, the book does not mention this title at all. The plot summary for the novel does not mention the name "Vitiate" once, and the Dramatis Personae for the book also erroneously identifies the Emperor as a Human.
As previously discussed given release date of The Essential Reader's Companion: further proof that this is how Lucasfilm is currently referring to him. Rokkur Shen (talk) 04:33, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
The TERC is but a quick reference book. If it contradicts (to some extent) something that the source (in this case, the Revan's novel) says, then the novel takes precedence. Plain and simple. As for the Lucasfilm (wut?) part, you'll need to supply quite a few sources/refs if you're to counter Cade's many arguments here presented. Winterz (talk) 02:04, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
The Star Wars: The Old Republic Encyclopedia refers to him as the Sith Emperor throughout its entirety, only referring to him as Vitiate while describing his history before the Ritual of Nathema (when he became immortal). From the Timeline section's entry on 5,113 BBY: "The child who will become known as the Sith Emperor is born."
Darth Plagueis is written from the perspective of a Sith Lord who has access to information and resources far beyond that of the rest of the galaxy, meaning that Plagueis could have discovered the name of Vitiate in his research into immortality.
The Journal of Master Gnost-Dural, page 57: "I was stunned to discover that the original identity of the Emperor is unknown to his subjects. To the citizens of the Empire, the Emperor's life before his ascendancy is not worth contemplating. There is simply no record of it." This is part of Gnost-Dural's research into the Emperor's history, using the databases of an Imperial vessel.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Praji, an in-universe article set in 104 ABY, refers to him as "the resurgent Sith Emperor." While this was published before Star Wars: The Old Republic: Revan revealed the name of Vitiate, it still overrides the Darth Plagueis mention in chronological terms.
As I outlined in the above linked discussions, this is a description of what he was, not a stating of his name per say. I therefore believe that this point is invalid in overriding Darth Plagueis in chronological terms. Rokkur Shen (talk) 04:33, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
The Old Republic: Revan, which is the first to reveal the name Vitiate, does not use it again other than when referring to the Sith during his life before the Ritual.
From the exact text of The Old Republic: Revan: "Their deaths also made him stronger than any Sith who had come before, and he ceased to be known as Lord Vitiate. On that day, the Emperor was truly born."CadeCalrayn 04:17, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
After reading your explanations, I think that the page should in fact be named "The Sith Emperor" and not just "Sith Emperor." I know it's completely non-standard to use the article in a page name, but I thinks it's mandatory in this case. Because his new, self-awarded identity is that of "The Ultimate Emperor," which means the article has its importance in order to differentiate him from the other Emperors, both in and out of universe. --LelalMekha (talk) 11:58, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
I also had proposed this as an option before the discussion hit a brick wall. I've changed the parameters of the vote to reflect this. I'd be quite happy to strike my vote supporting the move to Emperor Vitiate in favor of a move to The Sith Emperor as a compromise should sufficient support ensue. Rokkur Shen (talk) 12:41, April 9, 2013 (UTC)