Forum:CT Archive/I'm going to get killed for this . . .

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 (see: Forum: Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader merger).–Sentry^Talk 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I know anyone who was here for the original vote is probably going to hate me for bringing this back up, but I'm wondering if perhaps we should hold another vote on whether or not Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader should be separated. It's really a unique situation where we have two articles on one individual, and since the community has changed and expanded since then, I'm wondering if we might not get a different result. Heck, I wouldn't even be opposed to having a Vader infobox in the combined article next to the area on his transformation, but having two separate articles just makes categorization and such a nightmare. Havac 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. I think it should stay as it is, and keep it as the one exception to our encyclopedic MOS. Because, really, if you try and put it all under one article, a whole other problem is brought up - what do we call it? Anakin Skywalker, or Darth Vader? Plus, Vader killed Anakin...from a certain point of view. So they're different people...from a certain point of view. ;) .... 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• If Anakin/Vader were changed it would be precendant for cases. Probably just a few. For Vader and Anakin skywalker, the movies treat them almost as 2 seperate characters. That's my take on it anyway.. -Fnlayson 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think it should stay as-is. - Angel Blue^(Holonet) 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Plus with the contest to choose Jacen Solo's Sith name, and the implications that he will go by that name for a significant time-period in the Legacy series of books, Anakin/Vader will not be a unique case for long.Tocneppil 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I dread that debate. - Angel Blue^(Holonet) 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • But does taking a Sith name mean you stop being that person? I just don't think it's very encyclopedic to split up one person's entry into two. Vader and Anakin are the same person -- Anakin doesn't get a mindwipe. He doesn't suddenly forget all his past. As Dark Lord has made clear, he doesn't snap his fingers and transform. I realize that Vader can be considered the "Bad Anakin" personality that "takes over" after ROTS, but should we have an article on "Post-Traitor Jacen Solo" because he's "like a new person"? Should we have articles on "Palpatine" and "Darth Sidious" kept separate because they're two different "identities" used by the same man? Should Luke-under-the-effect-of-the-Eye-of-Palpatine's-brainwashing get his own article because he's given a new personality? What happens when Darth Vader can't stay healed in SOTE because he feels joy? Do we shout "Anakin's showing through!" and add it to his article and excise it from Vader's? It's a clumsy system, and I just don't see it being sustainable. Havac 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I can see the problem, but as I asked before, what do we name the article? That's a biggie. .... 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Anakin Skywalker. Darth Vader was a name he took, but that whole issue is sidestepped by the fact that the died as Anakin Skywalker, making it his latest used name and therefore the one used under the MOS. Havac 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
              • OK, that is really going to cause trouble. Because he is best known as Darth Vader. And if Wookiepedia doesn't have a "Darth Vader" article...ooh, I don't like the look of this can of worms that's going to get opened. .... 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Most people now know that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker; if they get redirected from the former to the latter, it's not going to confuse them. For those rare few who would be confused, we would of course have in the very first sentence a reference to taking the name Darth Vader in bold so they'd know what's up. Anyway, my vote is the same as it's always been - merge them. jSarek 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm starting to have second thoughts on my position. A merger seems to make a little more sense than keeping them seperate. - Angel Blue^(Holonet) 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've thought about it, and yes, merge. We have to be encyclopedic, and since I've been whining on Talk:Palpatine about unencyclopedic content, I have to practice what I preach. .... 01:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's time to hold another official vote on this. Adamwankenobi 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll start a new vote with a more on-topic title. Havac 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. - Angel Blue^(Holonet) 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Done: check out Forum: Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader merger. Havac 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is now an immensely long article! Shouldn't information on Wookieepedia be easily accessible? With the articles merged, you force everyone that might just be looking for one little bit of information to drown themselves in a single enormous article to find info that would be much more easily accessed if the two articles were separated. - JMAS 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not as long as Palpatine or Luke Skywalker. We can hardly help it if there's a ton of information out there on something. Splitting articles up doesn't help anyone. That's what section headings are for. Havac 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's not turn this into a place to discuss the merger. It's done, it's over. Palpatine already is a FA and if I have anything to say about it, Luke will be too. I agree with Havac. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 23:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.