Talk:Palpatine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 29 November 2005 and 24 August 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Palpatine/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Dmoon1 14:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

'Palpatine as a ruler'

I have moved this section into the Galactic Empire article, as it seemed to fit better there, and also seemed to settle both the length and fact as fiction issues raised about this article. Just letting you know. Treybien 17:20 21 July 2006 (UTC)

'Palpatine in popular culture' and 'Rule of Two' sections

There is no definitive evidence that any of the examples cited in this section were based on or inspired by the Palpatine character (at least, not that any of the writers involved in the various series have ever said.) Some may see simmilarities, but without evidence (like a writer or an actor's assertion that Palpatine was an influence) this entire section is entirely subjective and, therefore, original research. Also, just to let you know, I moved the "Rule of Two" section into the "Rule of Two" article; it seemed to fit better there. I did not delete it, I just put it somewhere else. --Treybien 22:39 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Mabuse?

While there may or may not be similarities in the two characters, no one — not Lucas, not Lucasfilm, not any of the actors involved — has ever mentioned Dr. Mabuse as an influence to my knowledge. As such, this comparison has no business being in this article. Same thing with the Louis XIV/Huey Long/Tom DeLay comparison. --Treybien 22:43 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber

Why is this section necessary? It just seems like filler to me; it doesn't add to discussion of the plot or to the character. --Treybien 22:35 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Just to let you know, I filed down the 'Palpatine as a Writer' section by limiting the description of the books to one summary sentence each, and shortened a paragraph in the 'Rule of Two' section. I did not delete any sections or paragraphs, but merely shortened them to cut down on the article's length. --Kiddre 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Bcarlson33 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rule of Two and Palpatine as a Ruler

"Palpatine and the Rule of Two" could be put into the "Rule of Two" article, and it would cut down this article's length. "Palpatine as a Ruler," meanwhile, could be put into the "Galactic Empire" article. How does that sound? Let's compromise, here. --Kiddre 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the rule of two move, but I think we should leave something of as a Ruler in Palpatine proper; we could add a see also template to that small section so it would point to a section in Galactic Empire. We'd probably want to confuse the as a Ruler section with whatever sections exist on the Empire's philosophy and ideological practices. --maru (talk) contribs 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles

I might suggest creating separate articles for some of the information included in this article, or including said information in other pre-existing articles. For example, separate articles could be created for "Palpatine as a writer" or "Palpatine as a ruler." As is, these sections merely repeat or expand upon what's already been said; is it really necessary to say more than "he wrote three books which were taught in universities" or "the Empire thrived on bureaucracy"? 80 kilobytes is absurd. --Kiddre 19:24 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is absurd. And as to why sections are not broken off into separate articles, go read the Palpatine as a Ruler AFD discussion. --maru (talk) contribs 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Political comparisons

The comparisons between Palpatine and real-life political figures have gotten out of control. Lucas himself said that George W. Bush was not an influence, and so he shouldn't be listed as one (and I say that as the person who wrote that part!) The comparison with FDR is simply out of left field, and seems to be little more than a thinly veiled attempt to bash on the New Deal. Go elsewhere with the propaganda, guys! --Kiddre 04:51 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you could put that on the article page and cite Lucas. (i.e. roughly "Many also drew parallels between Palpatine and President George W. Bush, but Lucas himself ... etc." -- Solberg 13:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

I'm really getting tired of this guy's edits. If he can back up the FDR thing, that's fine, but look at his editing history: He adds this FDR thing in, makes it sound incredibly POV, and deletes any comparisons to Lincoln, Nixon, or Bush without providing any explanation, and then he adds this after his FDR blurb:

"It is not opinion, but fact that Roosevelt manipulated everyone he dealt with, including the American people to gain more power. Go elsewhere with the political propaganda, you George Soros wanna be!"

Political propaganda, eh? Pot, meet kettle. His bad formatting managed to chop off everything after that point as well, dilapidating the whole article. Unfortunately, no one seems to have noticed this until now, and several edits were made since then. I'm reverting the article back to it's last state before 24.14.16.42 made his edits to it, which is 04:11, 9 January 2006 by 24.126.90.31. --Palpatine 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually he has stated Nixon but I think lincoln should be on there to as there are many many simialities. Jamhaw 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

We 've already had that debate (see archive). Closest historical similarities were Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler, all in regard of the way they rose to power, not on being evil etc. But of course if you look long enough, you will similarities with every politican there is. -- Nevfennas 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Vice President Cheney is a better comparison to Palpatine than Dubya,He served in GHW Bush Administration and has moved surreptitiously through both of them,much as Darth Sidious did in Valorum's era Sochwa 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• All comparisons with contemporary (or at least living) politicians should be removed from this section unless someone can immediately cite sources. A whole paragraph comparing a film villain with a series of politicians is excessive and (without sources) violates WP:NPOV. Who compared The Emperor with Bill Clinton? Where is it published that Hillary Clinton was an inspiration for Darth Sidious? Let us read the primary source(s) about "Darth Delano" -- who said that? Either cite your sources, or someone please delete these blatantly POV claims. 66.17.118.207 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, and that's why I added the 'unreferenced' flag to that section almost a week ago. Nobody has bothered to cite any of it, and I'm seriously considering chopping all except the McDiarmid "Literary" part (since it's actually referenced, sort of)- but I am waiting to see if anyone can actually provide citations for any of it. Cheers --DarthBinky 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarkin

The information on how Palpatine and Tarkin first became allies is included in Tarkin's article, and thus is just filler lengthening a piece that is already too long. Hate to be a broken record, but there it is. --Kiddre, 03:56 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Destruction of Alderaan

As, once again, this article is far, far too long, I think this section isn't necessary, as it could be put into the "Alderaan" article. --Kiddre, 21:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I find myself of two minds there- on the one hand, that section amply demonstrates Palpatine's manipulative ruling style and deep hypocrisy, but on the other hand it is a tangential matter. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate saying it, but it's starting to become painfully obvious that Maru isn't willing to compromise when it comes to editing his material. It's irrelevant at best, but he seems fixated on protecting anything he decides to "contribute" on a whim. Keep in mind that said article on a fictional character is currently larger than Wiki's entry on the United States. - AWF

Big deal. The Wookieepedian 07:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, when the "contributors" feel a fictional character is more important than reality. Wookiepedia has an enormous article on the subject and it works quite well. Wiki, on the other hand, is meant to be a serious project. - AWF

I don't think it is more important. I think it is interesting, and I enjoy writing the article, but I am not so foolish as to think that it is more important than other subjects one could name; apparently you are foolish enough to believe that of us. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

AWF, why is it your concern as to whether or not an editor chooses to edit one specific article over another? Why does it matter to you so much how long one may be in comparison to another? So some of us like to write articles on fictional characters. What's your problem with that? If you're so concerned about the article on the US, then go contribute to it. And I promise you that if you do, I won't question your motives, as it's really none of my business why you choose to edit what you do. And why do you compare the length of this to another article? They are totally separate from one another and wikipedia is not paper. The Wookieepedian 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So... when I say I am of two minds about a matter, that is evidence that "Maru isn't willing to compromise"? Wow. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt your talk will go beyond just that. - AWF

This is the Talk page. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Palpatine's mental state

While he certainly lacks empathy, he does not fit other criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder; he is not impulsive or shallow, nor does he exhibit random, violent aggression. Palpatine is EVIL, not to mention ABSOLUTELY INSANE!!! --Anon

don't forget crazy!!!! --Starwarsnerd 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The violence Palpatine commits is only what is necissarry for him to stay in power. He never destroyed innocent civilians. He attempted to crush the rebels, true, but the rebel alliance were terrorists and criminals. Insanity? Please. He's machiavellian and maniupulative, but he's not insane. He's obviously very competant. Besides, evil is a ficitonal concept. -Alex 12.220.157.93 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

I think perhaps we should be asking not after Palpatine's mental state, but yours... --maru (talk) contribs 07:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps User:12.220.157.93 is merely looking at it from the point of view of Palpatine. The Wookieepedian 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That and perhaps the viewpoints of those that support the Palpatinist movement. Personally I wouldn't say he was insane either. Pure evil, yes. Inhuman, yes; but you cannot deny that he was an extremely competant individual with a clear vision. --Exor 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, it's just a movie. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

'Search for New Apprentice' and 'Seduction of Dooku'

Are these sections really necessary? All of this information is available on Dooku's article, and their relation to the plot could be summarized in a paragraph or two. This article is too long as is.

Maru has, for reasons unknown, been contributing to an absurd amount of trivial information and threatening to ban any user who attempts an edit. It's become a source of constant frustration to several people and proposals to divide the article into subcategories are already in the works. - AWF

I see that from high-handed deletions and criticisms you have graduated to lies in your petty vendetta. Many users have edited Palpatine since I put it up for FA, and none of them did I threaten to "ban". It is only for your deletions that you've been warned (as per standards vandal procedure) that you might be blocked. As for the subcategory issue- you clearly do not know what you are talking about. An article like this wouldn't be divided into a category of articles, but rather sub-pages for the article, a proposal I not only seconded, but actually materially assisted in. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Number 1. You threatened to ban two of us after we tried shortening pieces of this article and, in one case, fixing a plethora of spelling and grammatical mistakes you'd made. You also threatened to block a seasoned veteran of Wikipedia after he attempted to change screenshots within the page, claiming it was "vandalism."

Number 2. When a subject has several different pages, it's typically referred to as a "category." The main piece exists, followed by subdivisions and subarticles. You've resisted this in many aspects, claiming, for example, that breaking the subject down into film and expanded universe categories "doesn't work" for Wikipedia. - AWF

First mention of the name of "Darth Sidious"

Since Lucas designed it to be a spoiler, as per Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, I moved the first mention of the name "Darth Sidious" in this article to the paragraph after the spoiler tag. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

All very well, but the "Position" of "Dark Lord of the Sith", infobox picture and 1st paragraph description of him as "the foremost villain, in the fictional Star Wars universe" seem somewhat spoiler-ish for someone looking for info on the esteemed senator from episode 1... --Stoive 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Should Palpatine be compared to modern politicans in the article

Comparing him to George W. Bush and Tom DeLay is a delicate issue, and Lucas stated that he didn't use them for influances on the character. JONJONAUG 20:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

... "Master, who am I?" What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

At 15:54, on November 26, 2005, Marudubshinki made an edit to the article, removing this image, citing that it "doesnae really add anything the others don't show." Considering that this was the only image in the article showing Palpatine from ROTJ, I'm uncertain as to how that justifies it. Now, the caption that was attached to it may not have added anything, but it was an important image to this article. I'm glad that DrBat later added this image in its place.

I don't want it to seem like I'm singling Marudubshinki out, so let's talk about the other images on this article. I won't argue that ROTS screenshots aren't cool, because they are, but if the only image of Palpatine from ROTJ doesn't add anything, then neither does an image showing Palpatine's and Vader's profiles looking at the Death Star, or a closeup of Palpatine's face while dueling with Yoda, or of him smiling at Anakin in the theater scene. More importantly, there's a fairly new policy (which I don't necessarilly like) limiting the number of screenshots per article. It even states this on the templates. Unfortunately, "limited number" is pretty ambiguous, but nonetheless, there are definitely images that I would consider unnecessary in this article. --Palpatine 03:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was always another picture from ROTJ in there, if only at the bottom (Vader and the Emperor on the second Death Star). --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not a detail of his face, which is by far his most prominent feature, especially in contrast to the prequels. That's what was needed, and it's there now again. Speaking of which, if this one wasn't any good, then what's your take on the new one? --Palpatine 01:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not disagreeing that a pic should be added- I only took pictures out because the FA people told me to, but since in their infinite wisdom they've seen fit not to approve Palpatine, their suggestions can be disregarded. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Praise the four-pointed star --Palpatine 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no other real image that focuses on him in his classic trilogy form.--DrBat 21:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The current header works incredibly well. However, I do have complaints about two of the screens in question. One depicting his battle against Mace Windu and another involving construction of the Death Star both seem unnecessary. They tend to create a crowding effect and, to be honest, neither is exceptionally helpful. - AWF

Darth Maul

Shouldn't this article have something more on Palpatine and Darth Maul. Also please try to reduce the amount of content. That was what the major objections on FAC were about.--May the Force be with you. Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If the article is too long, I think the last thing that should be added is more information on such a minor character as Maul. Maul has almost no dialogue in the movies, and aside from killing Qui Gon, was not very influential. I see at least 3 paragraphs with Maul in them, I think that's probably enough. Anything else can be written on Maul's own page, which is much shorter. --Solberg 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

although I agree with you that adding information on maul is unnecessary, maul is still an important character. by killing qui-gon, he indirectly saved the jedi order.

basically, if qui-gon hadn't died then, he could not have communicated with master yoda to reveal the secret of spiritual immortality. then, in turn, yoda would not have told obi-wan, who would have not been around to help Luke when he was in trouble. Luke would probably have ended up dying, or turning to the dark side. the same is probably true of leia. then there would be no jedi left to train or be trained.

so although maul didn't do much, he really saved the jedi. indirectly. still, dont bother adding him anyway. at least, not on this page. Kordos

Kyber Crystal

Is the Kyber Crystal explanation of Sidious' power supposed be canon or not? I have my doubts since it has not been mentioned (to my knowledge) in the movies, but I posit the question here anyway. For those not acquainted, the kyber crystal allegedly is a very powerful and exceptionally rare crystal that increases one's Force abilities. The only known copy was supposed to be in Palpatine's hands, and explains in part how he became so influential. I've read somewhere that the kyber crystal may have been one of Lucas' early attempts at accounting for Palpatine's might. But again, it seems dubious, so I was hoping for input on this. Solberg 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22kyber+crystal%22&btnG=Google+Search

More reasons to be cynical? The first hit is SuperShadow's website. Ugh.

I know that it played a role in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, but I'm not sure with Palpatine's role with the crystal. The Wookieepedian 12:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I am not familiar with EU books especially the much older ones. Maybe someone can create a redirect so that Kyber Crystal -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiburr_crystal ? The question of whether Palpatine had and used the crystal is still not resolved though it seems. Solberg 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

It is resolved. That my friend, is nothing more than refuse spawned from SuperShadow's deluded mind. Palpatine never once canonically came into possession of the crystal, which was never again mentioned or referenced to in any EU material following Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Instead, it is known that he had a massive Sith crystal excavated from Korriban in the Chancellor Palpatine Surgical Reconsruction Center that served as a "Force reservoir" used for Sith rituals and a source of Sith lightsaber crystals. Anyway, the canon Kaiburr crystal was nothing more than a powerful focusing crystal for lightsabers.

but it did increase one's force abilities. in a comic book story, taking place between episodes IV and V, luke uses it to heal leia's mortal wounds with the force. Kordos

True. I've always wondered what happened to the Kaiburr crystal, anyway. I recall Splinters as saying its power diminished as the distance from Mimban increased, so did Luke just leave it there? --maru (talk) contribs 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

His Lightsaber Combat Style

As far as i concern, there is no solid proof provided by licensed material which stated the form of Sidious' combat style. His style is merely "Fans expectation / estimation". And althought it looks like Ataru when dueling with Yoda, and resonable for him to master Form VII due to Maul, where can you find any proof about Sidious mastering Form V !!?? Darth Kevinmhk 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

i find it likely that, considering yoda has mastered all forms (despite SPECIALIZING in Ataru), that Palpatine has done the same. I don't think it can be decided as to whether Palpatine was then matching Yoda's style on Coruscant, or counteracting it with another. Kordos

Which source exactly say Yoda master all style? I have already remove that sentence from Yoda's article days ago! Darth Kevinmhk 04:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the statement made by Nick Gillard be taken into consideration? "Sidious is a master of every weapon and every style." - NG --Exor 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. It doesn't fall into any canon guidelines I know of, but then Gillard was in charge of choreography so he would be the one who'd know. --maru (talk) contribs 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That Nick Gillard statement seems to me as if it should be taken with a grain of salt. Although Palpatine is supposed to be a master swordsman, Gillard seems to be exaggerating somewhat there. The Wookieepedian 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For what reason would he have to exaggerate per se? It's not like he's a marketing strategist attempting to build up hype for a slightly less than popular character. Considering he choreographed all of the lightsaber duels, I wouldn't disregard it completely until further evidence disproves it. --Exor 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that Nick Gillard would be overly proud of his training of the actors, and/or it was a figure of speech. The Wookieepedian 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's sort of stretching it. Following that train of thought, Nick would have reason to say every character is a master of all forms of combat. Additionally, why would he pick Palpatine over say, Mace Windu? Personally I can't see any reasoning behind that. Nevertheless, I can't seem to decipher how that statement could be a figure of speech either. --Exor 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He was also quoted saying that pre-Jedi Purge, Jedi had studied all forms of fighting. I saw this on a documentary of the special features of my Region 2 Episode 1 disk. The characters in particular that he was referring to (Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan) certainly haven't mastered all forms of fighting. Deskana (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably exaggeration or a figure of speech. I don't see how anyone can be a master of every weapon. What are the chances of anyone even having encountered "every weapon?" To some extent you can generalize from past experience on how to use a new weapon, but there's only so much you can extend this experience. Definitely to be taken with a grain of salt as Wookiepedian said. Certainly Nick could not mean "master" in the sense that Yoda is a master of Form IV. --Solberg 10:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Length

I disagree with the notion that the article is too long. I was actually greatly impressed by its level of detail and focus. While it's sometimes useful to have a rule of thumb on advisable length for an article, every individual article will have a different appropriate size. This one seems fine to me. --Kasreyn 00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed material by 24.127.170.39

First of all, I really hated to do this. The analysis of Palpatine from the viewpoint of Greek tragedy was very well-written and I enjoyed it a great deal. I personally agree with many of the conclusions reached.

The problem is, the section was clearly, and entirely, original research. It's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia to publish original works. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We can only make clear inferences from the matter being discussed, and even that should be kept to a minimum. As a rule of thumb, if it isn't considered common household knowledge, it must be sourced.

24.127.170.39, please don't think I disliked your contribution. It's simply not right for an encyclopedia. Please, get your work published - somewhere else, that is - and then I'll be the first to support quoting your work as a source of analysis. Thanks. -Kasreyn 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

Might I suggest an edit and removal of several of these photos? We currently have 15 unnecessarily "clumped" together. --AWF

Well it is a pretty big article. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Big is beautiful!

Seriously though, you're not making a good case for removal- be more specific; which ones are just crappy screenshots or redundant? --maru (talk) contribs 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem with having numerous pictures is; the only problem (that I see) is that the pictures are clumped together poorly. I've improved the article (well, in my opinion) by shifting several of the images around. I did remove a couple that I didn't feel were relevant anymore, though. Hopefully it sits well with everyone. --EVula 04:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll just have to give us a damn good reason to remove them, and be specific. Yes, tell us which ones are skilled screens and which ones are crap. Weirdy 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)! @$$

Source for DeLay quote

"I am the federal government." - DeLay was responding to a government employee who tried to prevent him from smoking on government property. As reported in the New York Times [2003 June 13] --Thanos6 08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine head picture

I suggest changing the picture at the top of the article to Image:Sidsaber.jpg as it looks much nicer and shows Sidious wielding his lightsaber and which section of starwars.com was the Image:DSidious2.jpg image taken from? Please let us know.

I disagree. The Sith picture is too much of an immediant spoiler. If someone clicked random article and ended up at the Palpatine article they may not want it spoiled for them. But the Sidsaber picture immediantly gives away the spoilers without giving the user a chance to leave the page. I know it doesn't seem likely but we need to refrain from super immediant spoilers. (Is super immediant a term?) --Jedi6-(need help?) 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The picture of Palpatine shrouded by his cloak is much better, and a bit more telling of the character (hiding in the shadows). The lightsaber-wielding one is a bit uncharacteristic for him. Plus, as Jedi6 pointed out, it's a major spoiler, and a super-immediant one to boot (it's a term now!). --EVula 16:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I've just stumbled upon this page by accident, but I'll add my two cents, for what it's worth. I concur with the above contributors. The hooded picture is "classical" Palpatine and more traditional for the character, rather than the lightsaber one. Perhaps as a compromise, though, the lightsaber image could be included elsewhere in the article? Cheers. --SteveO 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Under Photo shots, it is suggested that the Palpatine article has too many pictures as it is. Sidsaber.jpg is a promotional-type picture; it has little to no relevance to the article that surpasses those of existing photos. That said, if it were displayed a bit smaller, I'd have no problem with it replacing the second picture under the Lightsabers heading. --EVula 18:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks we should go with the shot of Palpatine in the Senate? --maru (talk) contribs 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine1.jpg? Nah, not a big fan of it as the infobox picture. Even a different Senator/Chancellor pic wouldn't sum up the character as well as the current one. --EVula 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Soft redirect from Sidious to Palpatine?

There should be a soft redirect for Palpatine too. Like the Sidious one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.25.228 (talk • contribs)

Text cleanup

As I indicated in my edits, I have done some text cleanup. It is irritating to spend an hour fixing numerous grammar, spelling and usage mistakes and have someone revert them without apparently looking through the edits first. If you are concerned about a series of edits, discuss them on the article's talk page, or discuss them on my talk page. Reverting them on the grounds of "there are a lot of edits" is inconsiderate and inefficient. --Bcarlson33 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I reverted because you removed a lot of stuff, and apparently cluelessly. (For instance, you removed a note on Palpatine's office, but not the citation that backed it up! Which at the least is sloppy, and can mislead a reader into thinking that the previous sentence is reference by that work (when it is not)). And you also reverted my good changes in addition is "inconsiderate". --maru (talk) contribs 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, your "apparently cluelessly" insult is not only unwarranted - I did not insult you and don't appreciate your attitude - but it's also in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Assume good faith. Second, what I removed was hyperbole, sloppy writing, and information not relevant to this article. I pointed that out with each edit. If you had a specific concern with a specific edit, you could have changed that edit or discussed them on the talk page. You chose the least constructive course of action, and then defended that choice with childish insults and apparently greater concern that your contributions be protected than for the article to be improved. I am happy to discuss any of my changes with you, but I expect that you act in a mature and respectful way. --Bcarlson33 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the very first two objections I raise you ignore completely. --maru (talk) contribs 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not listening. If you had a problem with that edit, you could have easily fixed it without reverting several dozen other needed edits to this over-long and convoluted article. You chose to handle that issue in a disrespectful way. You continue to show disrespect and attitude when it is not called for. If you wish to have your ideas and issues respected, you will be expected to show respect to your colleagues. --Bcarlson33 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I bother discussing your edits with you, when the first two changes I take issue with, you won't even defend, but instead choose to attack me? And I can't revert merely a few, because you saw fit to make such a long series of individually minor edits, which make seeing what you did difficult and tedious. --maru (talk) contribs 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My edits were done so as to justify each change- something, incidentally, you complained about in your first entry in this discussion. You can't complain that you don't understand my edits and then complain that the edits should be reverted because they're documented extensively. You chose not to revert "merely a few" edits. Heck, had you asked me to fix the edit in question instead of calling me names, I would have done it myself. You will find that showing respect and civility to your colleagues will go a lot further than saying you won't "bother" to discuss changes with them. If you want your ideas respected, learn to show respect. --Bcarlson33 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightsabre image

How is that a screenshot? --Cvene64 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear

I don't want to enter an argument or incite an argument about whether or not Palpatine actually beat Yoda, I would simply like to know if Sidious, in ROTS displayed some small degree of fear when Yoda hurled him across the room and then blocked his apparent attempted escape?

What is the point? Even if an agreement was reached on the topic, there's no way we could include it in the article, being original research. -Kasreyn 09:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Unless you can point out a mention of such fear in official material (most likely it would be in a novelization) that we missed, it must stay out. --maru (talk) contribs 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'Writer' section

What do you think of taking out the "Palpatine as a writer" section and, in its place, mentioning the book titles (with links) in the "Senator Palpatine" section? That way, it cuts down on the article's length, and people can still read about the books if they want to. --Treybien 16:32 13 April 2006 (2006)

Not much. He wrote all his life; notice that the three books cited, he began on Byss after his ressurection. Incidentally, is your username from the French phrase? --maru (talk) contribs 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvement of Darth Sidious article

Could I be allowed to keep the changes I have placed on the Darth Sidious article? I am very proud of my work and I wish to keep my improvements to Wikipedia on the site. I have become very annoyed with repeated attempts to block me from editing the site. Gort, klaatu barada nikto. Away put your weapon, I mean you no harm!

I replied on your talk page. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Foremost villian?

The foremost villain of the Star Wars universe? Are we really sure about that? DJ Clayworth 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He was the one who corrupted Darth Vader, after all, and it's not like that was the only thing he did. --maru (talk) contribs 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

However Vader gets the screen time, and is the principal antagonist through all of episodes 4-6. Palpatine may have been the cause, but from the point of view of the movies, Vader is definitely the main villain. Plus we are putting a spoiler point in the very first paragraph. DJ Clayworth 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Palpatine is irredeemable, and Vader reformed- Anakin was more of a tragic hero than a "true" through-and-through villain, if you catch my drift. (I think Lucas even called Vader a tragic heroi, but I honestly don't remember the cite for that). --maru (talk) contribs

Just because Palpatine is the more evil of the two doesn't make him the bigger villain. Magneto is the foremost villain of the X-Men, yet he's probably the least evil of their villains. --DrBat 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's still Palpatine (and Magneto)who make the master rule-the-world plot, and orchestrate the events. Vader is still technically the 'Mystique' or 'Sabretooth' who is just there to enforce the bad guys plans, except with a more stirring, complicated backstory.

DelistedGA

I have delisted this from good articles because it seems to mix its sources. Incidents are described from different works (books, movies) without saying what works the incidents occur in. The result is something that reads way too much like it's trying to be a biography of a real person and not a fictional character. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.starwars.com/episodeii/bts/profile/f20020124/
  • In Palpatine on Sat Jun 3 22:05:17 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Palpatine on Tue Jun 13 22:38:48 2006, 404 Not Found

---

maru (talk) contribs 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Outbound Flight

In the novel Outbound Flight, it was said that Palpatine was taking over the galaxy to prepare for the invasion of a distant enemy (i.e. the Yuuzhan Vong). This may have been a trick, of course, but it does give an interesting spin on Palpatine's motives. Should this be mentioned some place in the article? Dustin 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey... I definitely think that verifiable bits like that should be in there, but I have no clue where it should go. The Palpatine article is already bursting at the seams... EVula 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sidious vs. Windu

Was Darth Sidious faking the duel and letting Mace Windu win? It seems possible because the way he fought Yoda chucking the huge senate pods compared to the office. He couldn't have been fighting his hardest in the office duel! And also it was pretty pathetic with the lightsaber choereography. The three Jedi with Windu should have lasted at least somewhat longer. I mean the first two didn;t even defend at all. They were just standing there like they wanted to die.

Because they didn't know he had a lightsaber, obviously. Oh, and the Palpatine/Windu duel was slower than the pod-chuck fight because the two dudes fighting were old guys, and the Palpatine/Yoda fight had a lot of CG.

Etymology of Sidious

insidious // adj. 1 proceeding or progressing inconspicuously but harmfully (an insidious disease). 2 treacherous; crafty. insidiously adv. insidiousness n.

[Latin insidiosus ‘cunning’ from insidiae ‘ambush’ (as in-2, sedere ‘sit’)]

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the in- morpheme that prefixes the word insidious, is peripheral in meaningfulness, and that the "sidious" element has its root in Latin insidiae ‘ambush’. So the word ambush should have some relevance in an etymological discussion. - CaptainSurrey

Fiction-as-fact problems and Birth/Death.

I added cleanup-fiction-as-fact a few days ago, and it was removed after a few changes were made. These were steps in the right direction, but by no means were enough to fix the problem. The article is still mainly written from an in-universe perspective. As an example, note the titles added to the beginning. Going to the "Biography", this probably needs to be nearly entirely rewritten or at least highly rearranged. For one thing, it is a Plot Synopsis, not a biography. This should be brief, and not be the bulk of the article. We also need much more information on out-of-universe issues, such as influence and influences, popularity, and so on. See WP:WAF for more information about this.

Apart from content issues like these, we also need to deal with the tone. Adding things like "In (film/novel/etc), Palpatine ..." doesn't fix this. We need to consistently use an out-of-universe tone. Again, WP:WAF has a very good explanation of this. Having birth and death dates, titles, and so on are all examples of this that need to be changed. They make the article seem like it is from an encyclopedia in the Star Wars universe. But it isn't - it's in Wikipedia. --Philosophus ^T 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the former Biography section, I see a few things that need to be done. Most of the information that is there needs to be removed, and a highly summarized revision needs to replace it. Nearly all of the information there is essentially duplicating the plot synopses in articles on the films/etc themselves. Instead of a detailed plot synopsis, we need information on where he appears in the series, probably organized by film/etc, and probably sorted by publication date. We need very short summaries of what he did in those, information on what the reaction of fans/etc were to him in each thing, and so on. --Philosophus ^T 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Dmoon1 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree. And good luck getting information on fan reaction that doesn't get slapped with a {{fact}} or removed as cruft. --maru (talk) contribs 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Out-right removal of information would be bad, obviously, but {{fact}}s can always be answered with actual sources, which is what we should be shooting for anyway. EVula 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read WP:WAF, you will see that following it will require significant removal of material. --Philosophus ^T 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, WAF is only a guideline. Secondly, nowhere does it say that an article must be only "out of universe"; you seem to think that information must be either in or out-of-universe and anything that is the former must be deleted. Indeed, WAF is really recommending in and out-of-universe information to both be included in an article. For example: "Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu." --maru (talk) contribs 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I think that there should be no in-universe tone. In-universe tone is the main problem in Star Wars articles. Articles obviously have to have in-universe information. They just shouldn't entirely exclude out-of-universe information, and shouldn't duplicate, at length, in-universe information that is already elsewhere. Why do we need detailed plot summaries of the films here when there are already summaries for each film elsewhere? We should have much shorter summaries here, and links to the main articles. --Philosophus ^T 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We may need to partially duplicate content because the movie article (justifiably, and probably rightly) may not treat the subject in sufficient detail as regards a particular character or scene. For example, the Jabba article goes into more detail on Jabba's place in the plot than do the ANH or the ROTJ articles. You can sort of think of it as summary style, except in reverse to what you're proposing. --maru (talk) contribs 00:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Solution to Long Article Size

Why not split Palpatine's article to Darth Sidious? There is an article existing so why won't we expand it? --210.5.92.199 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would really work. For starters, the two aren't different characters; Sidious is just the Sith name for Palpatine. One never really became the other, as is the case with Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader. Personally, I don't think the size of the article is a particular problem that needs to be solved. EVula 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no significant article size problem. By WP:WAF, the solution is that the now termed Plot Involvement section needs to be considerably shortened, probably to no more than a few paragraphs. Most of the information on there is also duplicated on the articles for the individual films/etc (surely there is a better word for these?). The problem is, I don't know much about the topic, and am only here to remove the in-universe tone, so I would have trouble doing this accurately.

At any rate, this needs to be discussed here. I'm not sure of the style and organisation that we want for the new plot involvement section. Perhaps we should create a sandbox to work on this. The shortening will need to be significant enough that the current section heading won't be usable. It may be that we will want to organize the section by film/etc rather than by in-universe time. We do need to do something, since the current article state is unacceptable. --Philosophus ^T 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me the most is the introduction: why is there an entire paragraph on titles? This seems a little silly; a better solution would simply be to put it in the infobox or perhaps sprinkle them throughout the article. --maru (talk) contribs 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea --Philosophus ^T 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entire titles section. I don't think they are a big enough part of Palpatine's character to warrant a mention, but I wouldn't be opposed to their mention within the context of what is going on (ie: mentioning "His Excellency" in the part about him suddenly becoming the Chancellor, "His Imperial Majesty" upon creating the Empire, etc.). EVula 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to sacrifice the mystery or suspense in Palpatine's identity? Why do we even need to sacrifice Wikipedia's rules? Why not merge Darth Vader/Anakin as to Palpatine/Darth Sidious? Why not erase the suspense in Darth Vader's identity as to Palpatine?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.151.54 (talk • contribs)

It isn't the mystery, in my opinion. Darth Vader and Anakin are essentially distinct characters who happen to be the same, in my opinion. --Philosophus ^T 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine, Anakin and "the original script"

I added a cite needed earlier because the article claimed that Palpatine, in this dubious "original script" was to tell Anakin that he had used that Sith technique to "create life", and created Anakin. Someone gave a citation, but that citation isn't very good.

It's just a blog, and it doesn't present any solid info either, referring to some "official star wars magazine", saying that it was to happen in the opera scene. But Palpatine hadn't revealed himself to be a Sith yet in the opera scene; that didn't come until much later, so that really doesn't jive.

Anyone got a more solid source for this information? Cheers --DarthBinky 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not "some" magazine; there's only one SW magazine: Star Wars Insider. Too bad that blog didn't cite a date though. --maru (talk) contribs 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but the blog didn't actually mention the name, just called it the "official magazine of Star Wars", which sounded a little sketchy to me. I'm going to put the citation needed back in there until something more solid than an (as yet) unverifiable blog post can be given. Cheers --DarthBinky 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

the title/position infobox at the bottom

I've noticed the box at the bottom being changed. It seems to me that the current version, with only five positions is the best way to have it (note that I was not the one who made that edit or the previous one; I'm just hoping to avert a potential edit war).

The other version, which included changes of apprentice, seems silly and unnecessary to me. Look at the boxes listed at the bottom of the articles for the various U.S. presidents, notably presidents who had multiple VP's (such as Franklin D. Roosevelt). The change of VP is not listed in the box, because he's still president. Same goes for Sidious- he's still a Sith Lord, regardless of who is beneath him in that hierarchy.

I could see adding one more level for "Sith Apprentice" and change the other to "Sith Master", or something on those lines; but having a change of rank for each change of apprentice just seems silly. Edit- Even Wookieepedia's article about him, which is linked at the bottom of this article, does it this last way, listing him as Lord with Plagueis and then as "Lord with various Apprentices". My $.02, --DarthBinky 16:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia; the latter is specifically geared towards Star Wars, so they have a LOT more information than is acceptable here. EVula 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. If they only have the smaller succession box, then why should Wikipedia have the larger, clunkier one?

Just to be clear- I'm advocating keeping the succession box as it is as of the edit by Deckiller at 05:07 28 July UTC. --DarthBinky 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears a minor edit war has started anyway. Since nobody has voiced opposition to it here in the talk, I am editing it back to the shorter version, without the pointless mention of change of apprentice. Cheers --DarthBinky 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a further change, to make it more similar to Wookieepedia's. Hopefully this can be a compromise that both sides can agree to keep. --DarthBinky 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your effort is appreciated, but the President/Vice President example given above is a bad analogy, as those are clearly two separate positions, hence their different names. In Star Wars, both the Master and the apprentice are called Dark Lord of the Sith. It is the same title, therefore, to be accurate, the succession box should name everyone who held the title at the time in question. Jon Hart 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but they aren't the same position. One is a Master, and the other is an Apprentice. So I think the President comparison is apt. When Maul died, Sidious remained the Sith Master. Same for when Tyranus was beheaded. His rank never changed. So I (and obviously others) see it as pointless to mention the change beneath him, as his Master rank remains the same. Besides, if you insist on being that nitpicky about it, you should include boxes for the periods where he had no apprentice (the couple years between Maul and Tyranus and then the week or so between Tyranus and Vader). Cheers.--DarthBinky 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes, articles about fictional characters should not have succession boxes. It may be a better idea to remove the succession boxes altogether, avoiding the need for discussions like this. Dmoon1 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; succession boxes weren't meant for fictional universe database navigation. — Deckiller 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, ultimately it should be that way, but most Star Wars related articles have a tendency to ignore the MOS. See the above discussion about "Fiction as Fact" problems... ;) --DarthBinky 18:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, things are slowly progressing. The whole idea of creating the Star Wars WikiProject was to reduct cruft and enhance the encyclopedic aura (or lack therof) of the star wars articles. I've been on hiatus working on the final fantasy articles, but I do have some rather extensive plans :-) — Deckiller 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that all the other Sith Lords (and some Jedi, like the Grandmasters) have those succession boxes too... --DarthBinky 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the succession boxes aren't quite priority one yet, but if someone wants to take the time to remove them now, that would be great. — Deckiller 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got a few minutes, I'll do what I can for now. There's gonna be some upset Star Wars editors though.... --DarthBinky 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just killed a bunch. I'll make sure to remove any others that I happen upon. EVula 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing official yet of the status of these Sith Lords. Why not use simple, ambiguous terms for a while. There is no official count of Darth Sidious' apprentices. Who knows? There could be between Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus. Especially in the Darth Plagueis article, is it sure that Darth Sidious is only the apprentice? There is also a vacant period between Darth Maul and Darth Tyranus or Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader, would you like to create boxes of these vacancies? If so, you might contribute to the long article size.

Um no. You may assume still factual data like Sidious' predecessor is Plagueis, which is doubly and surely confirmed.

Palpatine/Sidious Plot Spoiler

Many people have worked hard to prevent revelation of the Palpatine is Darth Sidious plot spoiler, without appropriate forwarning. For this reason, there has long been a seperate Darth Sidious page with a soft redirect to Palpatine. But, the current picture on this Palpatine page is obviously the Emperor/Darth Sidious from the original triology. Could someone please put up a picture of Palpatine from BEFORE the plot twist is revealed... Yes, most people know the plot twist, but its the right thing to do for those who don't.Ivymike21 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop Underminding this Character's Role

I've made several changes in some words of this article because there is someone who is re-editing what I had previously wrote by saying that the emperor feigh sorrow, feigh this and that. If I check this article again and see this words again, I will block you from editing. DarthPlagueis, Friday, August 18, 2006; 16:43p.m.

You are not a sysop; therefore, you can't block people. That aside, there's a major rewrite coming that's going to model this article after how it should be rewritten (per the star wars featured articles and fictional guidelines), which will be completely different than anything both sides have written here. — Deckiller 20:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Historical References"

I added the "Unreferenced" tag to this section because it makes many statements about Lucas using X, Y, and Z for his influences, and that Palpatine comes from a mix of X and Y words and so forth. Claims like that should be footnoted/referenced. Cheers --DarthBinky 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Extended Universe

I removed the line about not taking the Extended Universe seriously as it seemed to be biased and I could find no other examples of such being done on other pages. I checked what our standards for canon are, and the EU fell into such.--Squgie0308 August 20 2006.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Maxkelley2003 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Hey I’m an established registered user. May I be allow to edit this page please?

@Maxkelley2003: Welcome to Wikipedia! You will be able to edit this page once your account is at least four days old and you have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Kmax12649 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Kmax12649 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)I request to edit the Palpatine page. Can I be allowed to edit please?Kmax12649 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 13:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Kmax12649 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)I request to edit Palpatines pageKmax12649 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Kmax12649 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Hey can you please allow me to edit this pageKmax12649 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC))

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet changing the name to "Sidious"

Please be aware that there is an editor who has abused multiple accounts to change the name of the subject of this article to "Sidious" from Palpatine. The original account was User:Maxikelley62063, but they have also edited as User:Kmax12649, User:Maxkelley550, and User:Maxkelley2003. If you see this person return with another account changing "Palpatine" to "Sidious", please revert on the spot and ping me in case I didn't see it, and I'll block on the spot. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Something about the antagonist using multiple personas to wreak havoc seems somehow appropriate here. --EEMIV (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccunnin9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section header, but needs a trim

I threw a Critical reaction section header into this addition by User:Rosvel92. However, at passing glance, this seems like disproportionate coverage of folks' angst about Rise of Skywalker. The word fan also appears almost 20 times, which is an orange flag that maybe this isn't all so much critical response to Palpatine so much critical summation of fans' response to Palpatine. But, in light of the breadth of content in which the character appears, all these paragraphs are just overkill attempts to be exhaustive rather than merely compelling. We also don't need 4, 5, 6+ refs for individual assertions. I'm just a casual observer of this page, but it might be worth considering reverting the addition and revising it in draft space. --EEMIV (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@EEMIV: Rosvel92 has been notorious for inserting excessive and unnecessary paragraphs about fan opinions into Star Wars-related articles, and has been reverted on a number of occasions by more than one editor/admin. Most of the information on fan responses to Rise of Skywalker in this article they had also attempted to use in the Plot hole and List of retroactive continuities articles, if not more. If any of the included information is actually warranted, then it should amount to little more than a few sentences of prose at most. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Like I said, just a casual observer. I don't mind seeing that wall of text removed from the Holocron. --EEMIV (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Darth Sideous" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Darth Sideous and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#Darth Sideous until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

insignificant typo

in the phrase "Initially credited as the Emperor in the orignal trilogy films", the word 'original' is spelled wrong. also i don't want to create an account lmao 2A02:C7E:321A:1000:185E:8BA9:C564:8A4A (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)