Talk:Darth Plagueis

Back to page

123,688pages on
this wiki

This is the talk page for the article "Darth Plagueis."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

This talk page has archives.
1· 2


Darth Plagueis is a former featured article. Please see this article's entry on the Inquisitorius page for the reasons why it was removed.


This article was showcased on Wookieepedia's Main Page from 14 July to 20 July 2008.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
30 November 2007 Featured article candidate Success
7 December 2007 Featured article
September 13, 2011 Featured article review Removed
October 25, 2011 Former featured article
Current status: Former featured article

Lineage of Bane? Edit

Also it the Darth Lady teach Darth Plaguis it could have happen.--GRANDMASTERJEDILORD 22:34, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

How much is known about Darth Plagueis's master, and his/her master before him/her etc..? Who are the missing links in the lineage of Darth Bane?--GuiSausage 08:31, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

All revealed in the Plagueis novel...--Darthtenebrous 03:53, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Plagueis' Role in Anakin's Birth Edit

If Plagueis was killed between 52 and 46 BBY as the article states, then how is it possible that his experiments resulted in the conception of Anakin Skywalker (born 41.9 BBY)?

Answer: It's revealed in the new novel (I have an advance copy of the novel). I hope I'm not revealing too much by saying neither of your statements is exactly correct. I don't have permissions to change the full page yet, but somebody should remove the years of death (or at least put question marks in place of the year of death) because it's simply wrong and misleading.--Darthtenebrous 03:48, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


One of those concept arts (3rd from top left downwards) for his face in The Force Unleashed looks like Anubis from Stargate SG1.-- 19:01, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

you are right but is this really the right place to talk about this? 01:36, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nice nameEdit

Darth Plagueis, hmmm, nice name, but why couldn't he sense Palpatine's attack Unsigned comment by Bennett777 (talk • contribs).

  • We don't know, and this isn't the place to discuss such matters. --Imperialles 20:28, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Labyrinth of EvilEdit

I have read the book several times and have never seen any mention of Darth Plagueis, nor is he mentioned on the page of said novel. Darthkenobi0^(talk) 05:11, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • It's in chapter 26, page 167 of the hardcover: "Of his youth, Sidious had offered little these past thirteen years; of his Master, Darth Plagueis, even less." - Lord Hydronium 05:24, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Darth problem Edit

In most articles, like "Grevious" and "Dooku", it leaves out the sith name that they are called. For example, "Count Dooku" is "Dooku" and "General Grevious" is "Grevious". So shouuldn't we move this article to "Plagueis" instead of "Darth Plagueis". Darth Platypus 02:00, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Dooku and Grievous are at those locations because "Count" and "General" are titles, which our naming policy states aren't to be included in article names. "Darth", on the other hand, behaves like part of a Sith's name, so we treat it differently. - Lord Hydronium 01:27, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Lightsaber Form Preference? Edit

Is it mention anywhere if Mr. Plagueis had a preferred Lightsaber combat style? I would assume his would be mentioned somewhere but I can't find it. I believe it'd be a great addition to the article! Deussol 23:13, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • Do you see it stated in the article anywhere? No? Then it isn't mentioned anywhere. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:17, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Fate of his master Edit

Should anyone edit the article and mention that he kills his master? The publisher's summary that has been released says he does. 07:54, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

  • It would be best to wait until the book is released, when we know the full story of his biography. CC7567 (talk) 04:50, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
    • Does this official release of the publisher's summary mean that the name of Plagueis' master and how Plagueis kills his master will be revealed in the novel? 08:31, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I have an advance copy of the book. I can confirm that Plagueis kills is master. I don't think that's spoiling anything because Sith by their very nature kill their masters (Rule of Two and all). I won't reveal who that master is or how he gets killed because I don't want to spoil the book for anybody.--Darthtenebrous 03:51, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Death Edit

Someone needs to edit the article to reflect Luceno's book. Plagueis did not create Anakin, as the article claims, and Sidious did not kill him out of fear of being replaced by another apprentice. Furthermore Plagueis dies during The Phantom Menace, shortly after Palpatine is elected Chancellor. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Move Edit

I think this page should be moved to Hego Damask. In addition to being a Sith Lord, Plagueis was a galactically renowned businessman and political lobbyist. As with Palpatine and Dooku, Plagueis maintained dual intentities, and died without renouncing either one. According to policy his article title should be the name that he was known by publically, rather than his secret identity. Jayden Matthews 20:22, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Now that the book has been released I'd like to officially propose moving this article to "Hego Damask" per the reasons given above. Jayden Matthews 15:00, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
This is kind of an inconsistent issue on Wookieepedia, so I'm not sure of the best way to proceed. While some (ie: Revan, Sidious, Tyranus, Vader) do indeed redirect to the true names of these people, there's also a glut of others (ie: Malak, Bane, Maul, Caedus) which do not. I'm not especially partial to one direction or the other, but I think we need to establish a greater level of consistency than we have now. -- DigiFluid 15:40, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
True. But Maul and Revan have no other (known) name to begin with. As for the others you cited... well, I don't know. I think the question was: "were they ever publicly known as Darth XXX?" I believe it was the point that was being debated, at least for Dooku and Caedus. LelalMekha 15:46, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
We actually do have a consistent policy on this matter. It's not a simple matter of birth name versus assumed name, but of the name they died under, eg: Darth Caedus instead of Jason Solo, Darth Bane instead of dessell etc. If a person maintained dual identities, as Plagueis did then the title should reflect the name they were known by publicaly. On contemplation, this appears to be a fairly simple case of being BOLD, which I will do. If anyone has any objections we can discuss it further. Jayden Matthews 15:55, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
I won't discuss that. Anyway, I personally believe real name is always "better" (I mean, more encyclopedic) when we know it. But I should say, we do have a policy about that, but it's a rather tacit one. The naming policy page says nothing about it, does it? LelalMekha 16:01, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that this debate is, at least for now, all said and done, but I want to get my two cents in. I oppose the move to Hugo Damask for a number of reasons. Firstly, I personally oppose the idea of an overall policy regarding article naming conventions, and instead believe everything should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Secondly, the name "Hego Damask" is unique to the novel Darth Plagueis, every other source in which Plagueis has been mentioned, its always been as Plagueis, and it's practically guaranteed that this will continue to be the case, with "Hego Damask" receiving little more than an addendum, if that. Palpatine is known as Palpatine because that was the first name by which we became aquainted with his character, and the name by which the vast majority of sources refer to him, and the name by which he refered to himself at the time of his death. Plagueis, in contrast, always refered to himself as "Plagueis", even if others didn't, and so did Palpatine, and he will always be refered to as Plagueis in the media, which in this case is what I think we should go by. If we go by what name a character was widely known by at the time of their death, than we might as well refer to Darth Bane as "Sepp Omak". I fully expect plenty of people to disagree with me, but I just wanted to get my say into this. Jensaarai 08:19, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jensaarai on this one. I've always believed the best test of what an article's title should be is what the subject is referred to after their death; i.e.: how they were remembered. Every work that mentions Plagueis after his death refers to him as "Darth Plagueis," not Hego Damask. Regardless, this should be taken to a vote—this is one of our most popular articles, so the move should not have been decided by such a small number of users. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 08:39, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
      • I was going purely by what the naming policy says on the matter: "Whenever two or more names were used by the character simultaneously (adopted names included), use the most commonly known of those names (for example: both Palpatine and Dooku were commonly known under their official names, which they continued to use alongside their Sith titles, so those names are preferred for the respective articles."

True, most fans know him as Darth Plagueis, but in-universe he is best known by his birth name, and as our articles are written from an in-universe perspective the title of the article should reflect that. Remember that Palpatine alone knew that his master was the famous Magister Damask, hence the lack of future references to him by that name. Furthermore, I don't see why the number of sources should have any bearing on the matter. Canon is canon at the end of the day. Jayden Matthews 10:18, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, canon is canon and Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force indicates that the galaxy as a whole, not just Palpatine, remembered his name as Darth Plageuis, so that should be the title of the articles. -- 10:44, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, Jedi vs. Sith, as well as (if memory serves) the in-universe The New Essential Chronology and The Essential Atlas all refer to him as Darth Plageuis and are all supposedly written around 40 BBY, if not later. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 12:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
      • Like I said above the rest of the galaxy had no choice but to remeber him as Darth Plagueis, as they did not know that he and Damask were the same person. I have no issue whatsoever with the article being named Darth Plagueis, but the naming policy is quite clear on this matter. Ammend it, or scrap it entirely, but there is no point in having it if we just ignore it when it suits us. That's my way of looking at it anyway. Jayden Matthews 13:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
        • As much as I hate to bring this up, but does this mean we should move, as Jensaarai pointed out, Darth Bane to "Sepp Omek"? Although he died as "Darth Bane" (just as Damask died as "Darth Plagueis"), his Sith persona was only known to Zannah and Cognus; in public he was just "Sepp Omek". JRT2010 14:24, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
          • It's been some time since I read DoE, but if I remeber correctly Bane was not famous on a galactic scale, as Plagueis was. He posed as a merchant, but Sepp Omek was not his real name. Hego Damask is Plagueis's real name, and the name he best known by. Jayden Matthews 14:39, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
            • The only significant difference in this case from Plagueis is the fact that Sepp Omak was an assumed name rather than a birth name, but that is still the name Bane was widely known by, and the only reason he wasn't remembered as Sepp Omak is because no one knew he and Darth Bane were one and the same, same with Darth Plagueis. Sepp Omak's fame has no bearing on the arguement, and neither should Hego Damask's. Jensaarai 21:10, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave my opinion on this matter. It's people who come to Wookieepedia to search for information, not in-universe characters. As such, I think the article should be named Darth Plagueis because that's how the character is known as in most sources and by the public. Alexrd 00:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

  • Amen.
    But, even if this article remains Hego Damask, at least we debated this as a committee rather than letting a select few make the decision. Jensaarai 06:29, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
    • If someone types "Darth Plagueis" into the search bar they will arrive at this page regardless, so that's really not an issue. As I've said, the current naming policy (which was voted on by the community) says to use the name that the person was publicly known by at the time of their death. I'll admit, I'm not all that familliar with etiquette standards on this wiki, but are we really supposed to vote on whether or not we follow our own (previously voted upon) policies? If what we are discussing is actually an amendment to the naming policy itself then perhaps we should move the debate to a more formal setting, as this isn't really the appropriate place. Jayden Matthews 11:42, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
      • Personally, I agree with the assessment that the page should be titled "Hego Damask" instead of "Darth Plagueis." For starters, the Jedi High Council, and presumably any Jedi actively in the Jedi Order did not learn about the Sith until after Qui-Gon Jinn discovered Darth Maul, and the public certainly wouldn't have known about the Sith, either, especially given when most of the Empire wasn't even aware that their own emperor was a force-user, never mind a sith lord. Not to mention, even after learning about the Sith's reemergence, the Jedi Order still didn't seem to realize that Palpatine is a sith lord. If they weren't able to pick up that Palpatine was in fact Darth Sidious until really late into the Clone Wars, and even then not even live to tell about it, its highly unlikely that the public at large or the Jedi Order would have known that Hego Damask was a Sith, so we really should keep it at Hego Damask. Plus, unlike Darth Vader, he didn't even redeem himself at death and cast aside his Sith persona. Weedle McHairybug 12:48, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll be damned. Maybe if Darth Plagueis, first mentioned in one of the most successful films of all time as Darth Plagueis and star of a novel called "Darth Plagueis" can stay under "Darth %$#@ Plagueis," there's hope for Wookieepedia yet. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 11:56, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • So should the Darth Bane article be moved as well? -- 12:08, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2's arguement: it's probably the most compelling reason Darth Plagueis should stay Darth Plagueis and not Hego Damask; movie outranks everything, and it called him Darth Plagueis. Jensaarai 07:47, January 15, 2012 (UTC)


Muuns don't have noses... should the fact that he does be mentioned in Behind the Scenes?The Wise One, Gnost-Dural himself!. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. 19:54, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Definately, if not in the actual article itself. Jayden Matthews 20:34, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
  • The Muuns in TCW micro series had noses, including San Hill, it could just be artistic licensing.--Rune Haako 19:20, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • San Hill had nostrils, as did TCW Muuns. However, such prominent noses (as only seen in a few of his pictures; the rest lack entirely) as his are unheard of.The Wise One, Gnost-Dural himself!. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. 21:02, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
      • San Hill having a nose in TCW is non-canon, as the films clearly depict him without one. Plagueis was, as far as I can tell, an oddity among Muuns. Not just because of his nose, but also his eyes, which Palpatine notes were sunken into their sockets. Jayden Matthews 21:07, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
        • The eyes could be construed as a Dark-side aberration. However, since the Dark Side doesn't give people nose jobs, I'm guessing that it didn't appear as a result of overuse of Force lightning. However, not all of his images have him with a nose. It's... different. People can't keep things canonical... or even straight, for that matter.The Wise One, Gnost-Dural himself!. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. 15:19, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities Edit

Someone should really edit his powers and abilities section.--Emperordmb 13:08, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Featured statusEdit

This is just an idea I am throwing out there, but I am willing to contribute sometime to promote Plagueis to featured satus. This will probally take a while, and any help would be appreciated if I ever start it. 501st DogmaRepublic emblem(Comlink) 23:33, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Main quote change Edit

The main quote is not about Plagueis, but more about Sidious in relation to Plagueis. Plus, it's huge. It needs to be replaced. The best quote I can think of is this: "Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself." I actually changed it at some point, but it was promptly reverted, so I assume I inadvertently stepped onto some toes and broke some rule or another. Is a vote needed if some editor finds the main quote inappropriate? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 12:10, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Vote to change main quote. Edit

Vote to change the main quote of this article. Voting will continue as long as needed per consensus policy.

Yes, change current main quoteEdit

  1. Yes. See above. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 14:09, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Although I think that the current quote should still be included in the article, albeit shorter perhaps. nayayen★talk 23:36, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
  3. The current is way too long, and I personally feel movie quotes are best if they work for the situation. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 20:08, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Current one is aesthetically hideous. The proposed one is much more meaningful and telling, whereas the current one has more to do with his relationship with Palpatine. Less is more, sometimes. I second R5 and nayayen. Stake black msg 01:09, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

No, keep current main quoteEdit

  1. I like it. Speaks to Darth's evilness. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 22:21, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Nothing wrong with the current one, IMO. — DigiFluid 16:04, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


The quote I propose is this:

Source:  Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

It's ironic.... He could save others from death, but not himself.

The current quote ought to be on the Rule of One page as well, by the way. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 00:19, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Improvement of the articleEdit

Hello, I'm from the Spanish Star Wars Wiki and I've almost translated all the article from here to there. So I'm looking for someone who had read Darth Plagueis, The Tenebrous Way and Book of Sith: Secrets from the Dark Side (and all other important source about Plagueis not included yet on the article) to make an improvement to both articles: the one from here, and the one from the Spanish Star Wars Wiki. Obviously, it isn't important if that person doesn't speak Spanish, because we are going to work first here and then I'm going to translate the improvents to the Spanish article. As I always say, sorry if this is not the place to put this message, but I don't know very well how things works here.----Skenar Jedi Order (Talk) 11:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Hey for those of you guys out there looking for a new challenge wiki-wise, there's a new wiki for the classic movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." Check it out, i could use some help.

Respiration system ? Edit

Should it be mentioned in the info-box or article that he used a respiration system in the years after the attack made on him during larsh hill's induction into the order of the canted circle ? Taneth08 06:55, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Nose, again Edit


I smell something fishy... no, wait! I can't smell anything. Or can I?

Plagueis Has A Nose

I can. It smells like Magikarp in here.

Watch out, Harry: he doesn't have a nose! I know the subject of the Muun nose has already been debated here, but I think no intelligent conclusion has been reached. It's obvious there is a problem with the recent portrayal of Muun as far as the nose in concerned. When San Hill appeared in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, he didn't seem to have a nose at all. But The New Essential Guide to Alien Species states they have a tiny one, which seems to imply that Hill's was just too small to be seen. On the Japanese cover of Jedi Trial, Pors Tonith has a nose, although a discreet one. But if we watch more recent sources like The Clone Wars or Plagueis' likeness shown in "The Tenebrous Way", it seems the Muun have a hell of a *big* nose. Nothing "tiny" here.

The question is: is TCW retconning the anatomy of the Muun, or is it still considered artistic licence? By the way, how would adding an organ qualify as a matter of artistic licence? N.B.: For what it's worth, the most recent depiction of Darth Plagueis by Joe Corroney doesn't feature the infamous nasal appendage. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:22, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

  • He does have a nose in that picture. The two slits there, above a philtrum, mark it. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 18:26, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, definitely. Nice caption, by the way, Naru. ;-) But it does not really solve the problem: we still have NEGAS mentioning tiny, flat noses, and TCW showing the likes of Mak Plain with big, Human-like schnozzles. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:47, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
      • I think it might, actually. The human noses seen in "The Tenebrous Way" and TCW seem to be aberrant. Whereas, with the Zygerrians, the physiology was fundamentally different in TCW, so much so that there was no way they could be reconciled, in the case of Muuns they at least tried. Everything but the nose is pretty much right. Since TCW, they've followed the NEGAS description in both the new card game and the The Essential Reader's Companion, in a picture drawn from a perspective where the slits would not be visible. Since the subject of both those pictures is Darth Plaguies, and if TCW were not involved, we would take his slit nose as canonical over "The Tenebrous Way" and its human nose, I'd say that until another source shows the Human nose we should go with the slit nose. We should treat the TCW nose as artistic liscence. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 01:13, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
        • Just a quick thing I thought I might throw out there: nobody seems to be considering that perhaps the nose isn't a problem. Perhaps some Muuns have a tiny nose (San Hill) while others have a notable nose (Darth Plagueis). Now, I'm not saying that we can list this suggestion or anything of its like as canon, but I just thought I would propose that idea.--Master Tej (talk) 01:30, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Affiliation sectionEdit

Should the Damask Clan and Order of the Canted Circle be included? 10:23, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Backwards WritingEdit

I have just gotten my own copy of Book of Sith: Secrets from the Dark Side (real-life book), and when I read through the teachings of Darth Plagueis on the science of the force, I noted a chart showing the relationships between the aperion, anima, and pneuma, which he believed were the essential manifestations of the force in the physical life. The chart includes aurebesh writing, which I came here in order to use charts to translate.

After staring confused at the letters for a minute, I realized that Plagueis wrote backwards in his personal journal, both writing letters, and words in aurebesh backwards. I believe this is made to reference Leonardo Da Vinci, both in his backwards writing style and in his journals, which look like the journals of the artist. I can't make this edit because I don't know how to put notations in sections, and believe that it might be met with skepticism and removed. If needed, I could scan my copy of that particular page and post it here.--Master Tej (talk) 01:44, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

  • It could be a reference to Leonardo Da Vinci, but you need confirmation from an official source that it is indeed a reference to Da Vinci before adding it to the article. DarthRevan1173 Revan Headshot (Long live Lord Revan) 01:47, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, aside from that reference in of itself, I was just noting that A: I have a source for this edit, it is not false information, and B: I don't know how to add notations, althought I will attempt it when I add this information. However, I will also search for confirmation on the Leonardo Da Vinci reference.--Master Tej (talk) 03:37, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
      • While it would be a mistake to assume it is a reference to Leonardo, it would be proper to say there are similarities. --LelalMekha (talk) 12:25, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Nose, yet again Edit

Muun profile

A Muun nose, mesdames et messieurs.

I see a paragraph noting the nasal debacle has been added. I'd like to note in turn that the part about the movies contradicting the nose is inaccurate. The description we get in the novel, of a nose flattened like that of an athlete who was hit by a ball in the face, accurately describes Hill's flattened facial feature between eyes and mouth seen in the films. The Tenebrous Way illustration simply makes it more human-like by adding distended nostrils. But it's not accurate to say that film Muuns are noseless. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 23:08, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, if that's so, could you please fix the BtS part I added? --LelalMekha (talk) 09:50, January 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • Yup.--R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 23:10, January 25, 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. This schnozzle affair has often been discussed, but I guess now everyone is satisfied! :) --LelalMekha (talk) 22:48, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
        • I took care of it. the slits are the nostrils, so just saying the nose was flat is enough. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 07:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Revising the intro Edit

I don't like to make edits on wiki's much anymore but I believe the introductory paragraphs before the biography section begins needs to be revised.

In The Phantom Menace Ki Adi Mundi clearly states that the Jedi High Council (or at least he) believed that the Sith had been "extinct for a millinea". If that is the case, Darth Plagueis woudn't be "an elusive figure" as mentioned in the last paragraph of the introduction. While Hego Damask may have been at best a recluse for twenty years prior to TPM, "Darth Plagueis" was a virtual (nay a total) unknown to the Jedi. 11:47, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

2.8 Updated references Edit

The image labeled "A young Darth Sidious trains under Darth Plagueis" is in fact from a book I have called "Star Wars: Jedi Vs Sith" and is of Palpatine training under his master!Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Yes. I have that book as well. What is the problem here? The image has been sourced correctly.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 06:13, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Plaguesis "The Wise" did not have a humanistic nose! Edit

To Whom It May Concern,

   Darth Plagueis, was a Muun!! Meaning he did not have the humanistic nose as portrayed in his main profile picture! So therefore, his profile picture should be changed to an Muun-anatomically correct picture(with out the human nose)! Misguided, the artist was! 16:02, September 8, 2013 (UTC)David S71.48.20.179 16:02, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

3.1 Corrected spelling/grammar Edit

This is a small request, but one of grammatical nature.

I was caught stuck in my gammer mode to the following incorrect possessive apostrophe in the text of this article. It is the text with an image of Plagueis' urn. It read "Sidious's" when it should read Sidious'.

The possessive use of 's is used only when the word in question does not end in the letter "s" (Vader's mask) or if the word is plural which it would take an "es" as in Jones' home (singular) or The Joneses home (plural).

In the case where the word doesn't end is the letter s like: That Stormtrooper's helmet is dented; the plural s' is used as in Those Stormtroopers' helmets are not uniformly correct issue (plural).

It is as important as using it's for it is and its for possessive. As we are moving toward auto-correct hell with smartphones, these distinctions should be reinforced.

If you want to trick your phone type: "Yeah on my iPhone it's gonna happen; it's it's curse. See what it did to its?"

DCEpicPoet (talk) 04:06, December 22, 2013 (UTC)DCEpicPoet

Our Manual of Style, reinforced by this community decision from 2008, permits editors to choose either form provided that the usage is consistent through each article. —MJ— Training Room 04:11, December 22, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki