Talk:Darth Vader/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Portrayals

in this section this guy belives there is no mention of jake loyed...but this web site suks so dont use it really it doesn't really work....i hope u like wut i have to say peace out'''' In this section, there is no mention of Jake Lloyd who played him as a child in Ep1 TPM, and of Sabastian Shaw who played him when Vader's helmet is removed in Episode VI RotJ. I'm not positive of these names and spellings, but if no one else ads these two actors, I will come back and do it once I've had a chance to research this.

No those two actors portrayed Anakin Skywalker not Darth Vade. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it seems weird that both actors are shown in this very article.--72.20.146.98 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rank

Is it worth mentioning that he is the (at least according to "The Book of Useless Information [in my house somewhere!]) only character in Star Wars not to have a rank? --Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't he Military Executor? --maru (talk) contribs 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

after ANH, he became supreme commander of the navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourdotelipsis (talk • contribs)

Source? I don't think anyone ever called him anything other than Lord Vader. EVula 07:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? What does what they call have much to do with anything? That's his Sith title. Anyway, Wookieepedia also backs up the Executor and Supreme Commander ranks, and I believe they are sourced from the novelizations, and the Imperial Sourcebook. --maru (talk) contribs 07:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No real point other than that I didn't recall anyone calling him anything else. :)

As long as there's a solid source for it, hey, add it in. I was just asking. --EVula 07:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't really feel like adding it in because I don't remember exactly where that's said, I just have a vague memory that that was his rank, and those books are associated with that memory. So I'm fairly sure it's right, but I can't really reference it. --maru (talk) contribs 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my question fits best under this category: I thought that in any regard, Darth Vaders is second in command of the entire Empire, right underneath Palpatine. In the Episode III novel, Palpatine definately seems willing enough to make him second in command.

Loss to Obi-Wan

The "loss to Obi-Wan" section seems to be comprised mostly of original research. It seems to be merely to expand the paragraph summarizing the Mustafar duel with no new information and tiresome dimestore psychology. That, and it's pretty poorly written ("The fault was not in his training, but in his mind"?) I would recommend shortening it or taking it out. Kiddre 20:23 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

There are lots, and lots, and lots of extra images, mostly of the same thing. I'm pruning some. _-M ^o P-_ 21:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The top image has got to change. It's not representative of Vader at all. Anybody got a more characteristic one? Bcarlson33 02:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An unregistered user has made numerous edits to the article, increasing the displayed sizes of pretty much all the articles, as well as changing the header image (I agree, the picture of Vader marching on the Jedi Temple isn't especially effective). I've reverted the article now. EVula 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Bcarlson33 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I rather liked that picture and thought it represented Vader much better than the mechanical man with the head bowed so publicly displayed. Sorry if it offended you, but I'm putting it back up again. Any input would be valuable. Thank you.

When people think of Darth Vader they think of teh suited one not his Anakin form. Also he wasn't even completely transformed into Darth Vader, that didn't happen until Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader Jedi6-(need help?) 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it looked nice up there, seeing as most pictures of the Sith on this site depict them with hoods and as rather menacing. With your permission, could it be allowed to stay? If you don't like it, I'll replace it with something more suitable. Personally, I've been attempting to copy some good pictures of the suited Vader off of Wookiepedia. However, they wouldn't show up, so I decided to go with this one. Looks rather menacing and hooded, don't you think? (No offense on that last comment.)

Yes but thats not Darth Vader, thats Anakin. That picture should be of the Darth Vader everyone thinks of, the suited one in the classical trilogy. Remember, technically the fact that Vader is Anakin is a spoiler. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, wasn't the moment he was renamed by Palpatine as Darth Vader, the moment that Anakin Skywalker died? We all know that throughout the original trilogy there was still some part of Anakin Skywalker left, so do we still call him Anakin? Furthermore when he marched onto destroy the Jedi Temple, that was after he was renamed Darth Vader. Even the pictures state that. What about some form of split picture, depicting him in his non-suited and suited form? Mista Tee001 16:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader is far more well-known as the armored version (though I do think there should be a better image than the current armored one). --DrBat 17:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; technically, that is Darth Vader marching on the Jedi Temple, not Anakin. That doesn't change the fact that Vader looked like that (hood at al) for about one day, as opposed to the twenty-plus years he was in the black suit. The current picture does a far better job of illustrating the character. EVula 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What does everyone think of Image:Darthv.jpg for the image?--DrBat 18:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to post about the image in the infobox, Is this the right discussion? Anyway, Image:Darthv.jpg should go in the infbox in my opinion. What is the point of the main image just showing his head, when the rest of his body is just as important. Cvene64 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it because... uh, I don't have a particularly good reason. I just think its a weak picture (for the infobox). I don't think it's especially important to show a person's body (in this case, just their upper torso) in the infobox picture, especially since we've already got two full body shots in Image:Vadertantive.jpg and Image:Vader complete.jpg.

However, I'm adding it under the "Armor and cybernetic enhancements" heading (albeit with a weak-ass caption; I couldn't think of anything better). It's not a bad picture, I just feel it doesn't make for a good infobox picture. EVula 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I put the picture up in the first place. Please don't block me again. I've been attempting to improve the picture quality of this website. If you want me to deal with the text only, then that would be fine with me. I'm just warning you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.154.242 (talk • contribs)

Don't threaten me. If your edits are worthwhile, they won't be reverted. However, when you make significant edits without any discussion, expect to be overruled. EVula 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This page should be merged with Anakin Skywalker,there is no need for 2 pages about the same person. 4/13/06 8:22 PM EST

Read the archives. This topic has been brought up before. The Wookieepedian 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree they are the same person, the article was too long; hence why it was divided into two. --DrBat 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the pages of Anakin and Vader must remain separated. They are physically, mentally and emotionally different, making them two diiferent people. Leader Vladimir

Vader was still phsically the same as Anakin Skywalker before he was in the suit,you have ot remember that Vader is still Vader with or without the suit. Anakin clearly had Vader like emotions in AOTC. Dudtz 4/30/06 3:14 PM EST

As Obi-Wan said, when young Skywalker became Lord Vader, he killed Anakin. They deserve two separate articles. It's better for spoiler reasons as well (though who doesn't know they're the same?).

Physically: Vader "is more machine than man, now".

Mentally: Vader says he isn't Anakin anymore.

Emotionally: Anakin is a loyal servant to the light, Vader is loyal to the dark side.

They thus are two different people, from a certain point of view. So two articles. -Xol 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

DON'T merge per Dudtz's comments. The Wookieepedian 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
DON'T merge per my comments above. -Xol 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
DON'T merge. We have distinct articles for Superman and Clark Kent not because they're different people, but because Superman's a goddamn huge article and we need more room to write about such massive pop-culture fixations. -Silence 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is moot - a lengthy vote transpired four months ago that, for various reasons, clearly favoured two articles over a solitary one. And, given the development of each article since then, there's even less reason now to forego that decision. Let's get on with it ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the articles, they are nearly identicle. This gives us a clear path to differentiate them from each other, without protests to recreate one article. The last lengthy vote didn't win my that much of a majority, either.

I'm unsure what the point of the above is, but the results of the prior vote were clear and also affirmed by a Wp bureaucrat. If Wikipedians would spend more time editing and differentiating and less time treading over old ground yet again, we'd all be better off. And, regarding this, I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine's Face

"The Jedi Master deflects the lightning with his lightsaber,scarring and deforming Palpatine's face into a wizened mask of wrinkled skin."

Palpatine could have chenged his face on purpose to help convince Anakin and the senate that the Jedi were plotting to take over. dudtz 4/30/06 #:19 PM EST

Wasn't it really the Dark Side energies he used that scarred him? This could be supported by the Knights of the Old Republic video games, or the SW RPG, were "Darkness" has this sort of effect. It is also said in the novel "The Courtship of princess Leia" that excessive use of the Dark Side deforms the face. Or does this just apply to Nightsisters?

I was under the impression that Siddious's dark powers drained his youth. Wrinkles maybe? Not scars? -Shadow the Edge-hog 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dooku a Sith apprentice??

Under the section talking about the transformation into vader it states the following line:

"Anakin neatly sears off both of the Sith apprentice's hands"

I was not aware that Dooku was actually a Sith apprentice, and in fact he was around during the time that Darth Maul was around as well. While it is common for there to only ever be 2 Sith (A Lord and their apprentice), it does not exclude there ever existing other Sith. I was under the impression that Dooku was an old Jedi who turned to the dark side of the force and while he may have some connection is definately not a Sith apprentice. --Enigmatical 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Dooku was definitely Palpatine's Sith Lord (note: not "Dark Lord") apprentice. The sequence as I understand it is Dooku leaves the Order, Maul dies on Naboo, and then Palpatine contacts Dooku. The lightsaber and novelizations alone confirm this. --maru (talk) contribs 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader's Head was made off of an ancient sith droid?

Does anyone have a source for this? I would be interested to find out more.

-Admiral Chamrajnagar

I'm not sure if it was actually made off of onw...I know it is loosely referred to as what one would look like.

Darth Vader vs. Anakin Skywalker

Before I say anything I'll begin with the fact that I actually support two articles for Vader/Anakin. But my problem at the moment is that this article and Anakin Skywalker recount the same events. My proposal is that the Anakin Skywalker article be rewritten to focus only on Anakin, with a short paragraph discussing the events of Darth Vader. And this article be rewritten to focus only on the life of Vader, with two short paragraphs on Anakin, one focusing on his life before Vader and one focusing on his short time after his redemption. Thoughts? The Filmaker 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of editing the articles to eliminate most of the overlap; I think this will help eliminate the constant calls for the two articles to be merged. EVula 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I was hoping to get more supports in the last couple days, but I haven't gotten any objections either so I am going to go ahead and start the revmap here and then I'm going to revamp Anakin Skywalker. The Filmaker 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They probably saw the "Darth Vader vs. Anakin Skywalker" line, figured it was another damn attempt to merge the two articles, and promptly ignored it. ;) EVula 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I almost did ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. And thanks, EVula, I didn't see it, as I just copied what I typed on the Anakin Skywalker talk page. Thanks :). – Xolatron 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Call, schmall, I've been doing just that. I've trimmed the history, shortened the prequel plot summary, and am still working on Anakin-specific stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As definitively stated by George Lucas in his featurette, "The Chosen One", the personae of Vader-Skywalker should not be parsed separately. The SW saga is in essence the story of his metamorphosis, redemption (by his son), and ultimate fulfillment of the prophesy. The "rebellion" and backstory, while packed with Sci-Fi eye candy, function only as the backdrop for this classical drama. Much credit goes to Irvin Kirshner who "rehabilitated" V-S as a tragic hero of Oedipal dimensions. In ESB the awe and majesty of his slow pan over the Imperial Feet (deployed in orbit around Hoth) is cast into relief by the line of shadow transiting the fleet. CUT to the bridge where Vader paces the catwalk. At that instant we glimpse the complexities and subtleties of his character, a far cry from Governor Tarkin's enforcer of "A New Hope" --OmarFirestone 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)--OmarFirestone 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the merit of this argument... I disagree. Each character (for lack of a better word) can easily have FA-amounts of content in them; to have them both combined into a single article would push the bounds of what is generally acceptable in article size. I know there's some WP policy on splitting articles along clear breaks to avoid having mega-articles (I'll trust that someone else can find the link; I'm feeling lazy), and Skywalker/Vader is one of those breaks, hence the cut. And unless Lucas specifically stated in the featurette that "the Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader Wikipedia articles should not be separated," his opinion on the matter doesn't much matter (hell, even if he did, it wouldn't). EVula 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Lucas wants these articles merged, he can merge them his own self, frankly. These articles are separate not because anyone is alleging that Anakin and Vader are separate characters, but because there's more than one article's worth of things to say and this is one reasonable way to split them. A similar case is how the Superman and Clark Kent articles are separate: nobody is claiming that they're separate characters, but there's a great deal you can say about one that doesn't generally apply to the other. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Archetypes and role models for Darth Vader

This section has become a list of characters or historical figures which resemble Darth Vader, and is more or less original research.

Removed text:

In the German Nibelungenlied that is also considered an inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the evil hero is Hagen von Tronje, a vassal that serves his king faithfully and cruelly, killing friend and foe alike for the sake of the empire, e.g. the hero Siegfried, or the son of Attila the Hun, by decapitation with the sword. According to Thidreks saga, he had no human father, and fathers a son on the last occasion to do so. In Richard Wagner's Götterdämmerung, Hagen eventually turns against his king, killing him. In movies, theater, opera and sculptures, Hagen is often portrayed as tall, menacing, battle-scarred, with a blind eye, dressed in black with a distinctive helmet. Also, Hagen is considered as one of the last representatives of the "old religion".

The old myths inspired many authors, and also the Nazi propaganda. The faithful and fatal Nibelungentreue, associated with Hagen, also was part of the SS ideology, quoting the Treue on their belt. The sight of a member of the SS, wearing their black uniform, the German World War II-era Stahlhelm helmet painted in black, and possibly a gas mask, certainly was a very real menace, even without additional Stormtroopers dressed in regular grey or white (winter) uniforms.

A resemblance has also been noted to the Lord of the Nazgûl, also called the Witch-King of Angmar, from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings; both Vader and the Witch-King were formerly good men who were corrupted by evil, dress in black, have a supernaturally fearsome presence and a hidden, pale form, are kept alive unnaturally, and serve at the hands of Dark Lords.

The scene in which Vader is surgically fitted with cyborg limbs resembles the creation of the monster in the 1931 film Frankenstein; like Frankenstein's monster, Vader lies on a table to be rebuilt, the table is tilted vertically (as in Bride of Frankenstein) to allow the creature to arise and, as in numerous later Frankenstein movies, the monster breaks free of its bonds by force. The spectacular destruction of various equipment at the end of the scene, also recalls the impressive storms that usually accompany Frankenstein 'creation' scenes as well as the other cliché of the Monster destroying the laboratory (Bride of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man etc.)

Unless someone can offer a reliable source indicating that any of these inspired or were inspired by Darth Vader, they don't belong in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew featured article

Could someone who speaks Hebrew take a look at the Hebrew version of this article and see if there are any good ideas there that could improve this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vader Killed Anakin

The artial states: "In A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, Vader is the epitome of pure evil - a mass murderer and war criminal who holds an entire galaxy under the sway of an evil empire, and, on a more personal scale, the killer of Luke Skywalker's father, Anakin Skywalker." I don't want to start a Anakin vs Vader fight but I think this should be cut out. As we all know Vader told Luke "I am your Father!" - LCpl 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. This fact is mentioned below, under the {{spoiler}} tag. I've been trying to rewrite this so that there aren't any untagged spoilers, and part of that includes not giving away the dramatic revelation in ESB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Un - Cited

There are two many uncited statements on this article now so unless something is done by say a weeks time it will have its GA status removed. --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it, I'm working on it. Right now, I'm busy working on redundant material and lousy prose first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

K --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with A Man In Black (two items)

I'm not trying to get bitchy, but I disagree with a couple of A Man In Black's recent edits.

1. He has repeatedly removed the succession box from the article, stating that it is for real people only. I looked at the talk page and saw absolutely nothing that states the limitations of the template; I have posed a question to the people who manage the template, asking them what they think of it. I see no reason why it should keep getting removed, especially since it is used elsewhere on Wikipedia for fictional characters (for example, Palpatine).

After all:

Death is a concept
Stockholm is a location
Greek drachma is an object
Frodo Baggins is a fictional character
Helsinki is a location
Freyr is a mythical character
Sandinista National Liberation Front is a political party
Bologna is a location
King Arthur is a fictional character
Reykjavík is a location
2008 is a year
Kraków is a location
Lugh is a deity
Graz is a location
Baby boomer is a... uh, concept, I guess. Not a real individual, though.
Madrid is a location
Scrooge McDuck is a fictional character
Rotterdam is a location
Odin is a deity
Jean-Luc Picard is a fictional character
West Berlin is a location
Jack Ryan (fictional character) is a fictional character (go figure!)
Turin is a location
Hulk (comics) is a fictional character
Embryo is a stage of life
Cork is a location
Lille is a location
James T. Kirk is a fictional character
Éire is a location
Canadian Alliance is a political party

I think that's enough evidence that the succession box is not restricted to real people.

2. Why can't we have EU references in the article? Specifically, he seems to be opposed to mentioning that the group of stormtroopers that board the Tantive IV with Vader is the 501st. Why shouldn't it be mentioned there? Its easily verifiable (I've got the evidence sitting on a bookshelf in my living room), and would be a bit out-of-place to mention in passing in the article body, but works well enough as a caption.

So... yeah, that's about it. EVula 02:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Two thirds of those things are real things; I didn't mean to imply that sboxes are limited to people, just nonfictional things. I've been cleaning up sboxes in articles about fictional people/places/things as I come to them; I just can't be in every place at once, and it's not something that has been particularly strongly enforced. (I was just doing it now since I was working on this article.) It particularly irks me that there's an sbox for a fact that isn't mentioned once anywhere in the article (and, as such, is wholly unsourced).

The reason I keep removing the reference to the 501st Legion in that screenshot of A New Hope is that it isn't once mentioned in ANH. EU references are fine and dandy, but we have a whole section of the article devoted to EU references. I was planning to even make a subsection of EU retcons/backfills of the events in the movies; this is exactly the sort of thing that would go there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the problem is with fictional characters using the succession box; its purpose is to show transition from one thing to another, which is utilized in fiction, just as it is in the real world. You've got me on the unreferenced bit; I know that Vader had a high-ass rank (official term) in the Empire, but I don't know what it is. After some research, it looks like his title is Executor (source). If I added the comment to the main body of the article, does that mean you wouldn't object to the succession box anymore?

If the information is going to appear elsewhere, great! At this time, the caption seemed like the only place for that info to go, so I objected to it being removed. Complaint withdrawn.

One issue down, one to go. ;) EVula 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nyerk. If the ONLY reference for Vader being the "Military Executor" is the fact that a character in Dark Empire picks up this previously unreferenced (and subsequently-ignored) title, then I don't think that there needs to be a succession box anyway. That neatly bypasses the point of contention about sboxes in fictional contexts, assuming there are no objections.

Hey, what WAS the source on that 501st Legion thing, anyway? I don't see where you mentioned what it was, merely that you knew of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. In Star Wars: Battlefront II, it is revealed that the 501st was in charge of, among other things, raiding the Tantive IV (I'm really familiar with this fact, since I'm still stuck on the bloody mission...); basically, anywhere that Vader went, they went. Their Databank entry covers the entire single-player aspect of the game. EVula 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a retcon in Battlefront II? That's...um. Why are we mentioning this in this article at all, instead of 501st Legion (Star Wars) (which should be linked here in the EU section, at least in pasing). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 501st is Vader's personal group of stormtroopers. I think that deserves a mention, at least in passing (which is all I'm going for; I think it would be downright silly for them to have their own heading in this article). EVula 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The interest in the military executor title is that it formalizes and names Darth Vader's well-known high position in the military establishment. --maru (talk) contribs 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Why not just mention that he's the Emperor's right hand man (instead of using some obscure title mentioned in one comic series to refer to an entirely different character), and recieves orders directly from the Emperor? (In fact, that should be mentioned right in the intro. I'll do that.) There's no need to give undue weight to obscure EU works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's such a neat title! And it's easier to say "Military Executor (supreme military commander) of Imperial forces" (or whatever) than to hem and haw and say that various sources are unclear and he's really important but nevertheless can still be overruled by the likes of Tarkin (but only 'cause Palpatine really liked Tarkin!) and Emperor's Hands and... see where I'm going? --maru (talk) contribs 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a bit to the intro stating that Vader serves at the direct order of the Emperor. I don't think that's controversial, and I still don't think a sbox for a fact mentioned in passing in one single comic book is appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

To whoever keeps reverting my changes to the Darth Vader article: KNOCK IT OFF!! You are of course welcome to make changes, but undoing someone's work wholesale just because you can is, frankly, petty and immature. Treybien 19:07 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just being I can, it's because you're reordering the article again without comment, reinstating a lot of plot summary about and references to Anakin Skywalker, and undoing some discussed edits without discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anakin

I understand that you want this article to be more about Darth Vader than his former persona of Anakin Skywalker, but I think the "Prequel trilogy" section needs more detailed biographical information and better editing. For example, more information on his relationships with Palpatine, Obi-Wan, and Padmé would, I think, make it a better article. Treybien 18:37 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is over 40K, and we already have an Anakin Skywalker article, as well as individual articles for each of these movies. How many times do we have to duplicate the same plot summaries? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

There is a germanic/nordic language (the name eludes me at the moment) but it may be worth noting that in this language the word "vader" translates to "father."

Yes, "Vader" is Dutch for father. It is already in the "Behind the Scenes" Section. Aericanwizard 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox images

Both of the images that have been in the infobox lately suck, but for different reasons. Image:DVader.jpeg is high-quality, but not terribly illustrative; it doesn't show chest detail at all, conceals a third of the face, and is photographed at an angle that without being obviously so unless you already know what Vader looks like. On the other hand, Image:VaderESB.jpg is a better illustration, with a straight-on view of the face and a view of the shoulders and chest detail, but it's obviously cropped from a not-so-great DVD screenshot.

Can someone come up with a better-quality image that is at least as illustrative as VaderESB? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Possible interpretations of the Jedi prophecy" section

The Jedi Prophecy is a frequent source of debate among fans. In particular, Anakin's status as the Chosen One is regularly disputed. His role in the destruction of the Jedi was an ancillary one, as much of the plan was already underway long before his fall from grace. Still, Anakin's pivotal role is indisputable, ranging from his intervention in Windu and Sidious' duel in the Chancellor's office to the enormous influence that his progeny wield in the original trilogy as well as the Expanded Universe.

Many fans argue that Anakin fulfilled the Jedi Prophecy by bringing a new "balance" to the Force by nearly eliminating the Jedi. In this viewpoint, the Jedi and the Sith metaphorically represent two opposing weights on a scale, with an excess of either disrupting the balance of the Force. Adherents of this view find it particularly noteworthy that, by the end of Episode III, there is a precisely equal number of Jedi and Sith: Yoda and Obi-Wan, Sidious and Vader. Frequently cited as evidence for this interpretation is Yoda's warning to Obi-Wan that the prophecy "misread, could have been." In the Episode III DVD featurette "The Chosen One," Lucas summarizes as follows: "The Prophecy is that Anakin will bring balance to the Force and destroy the Sith. He becomes Darth Vader; Darth Vader does become the hero, Darth Vader does destroy the Sith; meaning himself and the Emperor. He does it because he is redeemed by his son." Lucas gave a similar explanation in the final VHS release of the original trilogy in November 2000: "[In] Episodes IV, V and VI,...Anakin's offspring redeem him, and allow him to fulfill the Prophecy, and bring balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith, and getting rid of evil in the universe."

It is presumed that the Chosen One of the Jedi prophecy must be of virgin birth (as Anakin was), since Yoda for instance, despite his historical number of midi-chlorians, is never regarded as a candidate for the prophecy. However, the exact text of the prophecy is never revealed in the films, so it may not be possible to conclude that the Chosen One must be born of a virgin. One possible piece of evidence supporting this theory comes from an early draft of A New Hope. A quote was originally to precede the "A Long Time Ago" text:

...and in a time of greatest despair,

there shall come a savior, and he shall

be known as the Son of the Suns.

Journal of the Whills 3:127

This gives a clue to Anakin's residence on Tatooine, which has twin suns. Indeed, at the conclusion of Episode I and Episode VI, a voice in the cheering crowd can be heard to cry out "The Son of Suns!", thus giving weight to this being a possible portion of the prophecy.

Also, Vader's story goes hand in hand with the old "Sithari" prophecy, which was briefly mentioned in the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, in which it is said that one Sith would destroy the Jedi, then lead the Sith to greatness, but, at the same time, ensure their utter destruction.

Nearly none of this is sourced, and I can't imagine how it could be encyclopedic even if it were. Does anyone want to redeem this mess, or just leave it out of the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

About Vader killing/being Anakin Skywalker

The other side of the argument is misrepresented here. The Behind the Scenes heading only talks about how some people don't think Vader was meant to be Luke's father in ANH. However, if you look at Sir Alec Guiness's acting when he explains his relationship to Luke's father, he's being evasive and it's obvious he's hiding something.

I think there's a difference between what a character says and what's going on in his head. Maybe Lucas didn't really know at that point where that would go, but the fact he directed Guiness to act that way means that he was at least considering something other than the letter of what Obi-Wan says. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. Jean seb 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

More unsourced junk

Lucas claims that, as a masked and suited Darth Vader, Anakin has roughly 80% of the power of the Emperor, making him still incredibly powerful. Had he sustained none of his injuries on Mustafar, he would have been about twice as powerful as the Emperor. That means that he has achieved just 40% of his full potential during his lifetime.

Please don't add this to the article unless you can source it. In fact, don't put it back in the article at all, please, as it's inane cruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession box (again)

Preceded by Darth Sidious with Darth Tyranus	Dark Lord of the Sith (under Darth Sidious) 19 BBY - 4 ABY	Succeeded by Lumiya, with Flint

So, why is the succession box being removed now? It keeps getting removed and added. A recent edit summary claims that it is "still unsourced, and still in-universe".

I'm not sure how exactly it qualifies as "unsourced", since the Star Wars films make it abundantly clear that Darth Vader was a Lord of the Sith, following Count Dooku. The Lumiya/Flint thing is perhaps what is raising peoples' ire, but even if that's the case, it doesn't justify removing the entire section (especially since a source is found as easily as reading the Lumiya article's "External links" [1]).

I also don't feel that it is particularly "in-universe"; we're addressing a fictional position ("Dark Lord of the Sith"), and Vader's placement in relation to other characters that have held that position in an out-of-universe perspective (which is in-line with the Manual of Style). I don't think anyone is claiming that the position of "Sith Lord" is real, and a simple succession box is not enough to suggest that either. EVula 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any source for Dooku being a Dark Lord of the Sith (Sith, sure), let along Lumiya/Flint. The years are blatantly in-universe. It places undue influence on the "in-universe" succession of Lumiya and Flint (a fact only ever mentioned in the Marvel Star Wars comic, I believe). It implies that Dark Lord of the Sith is a position, rather than a somewhat vaguely-defined title.

That's how it's unsourced, in-universe cruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Sidious is one of the two active Sith Lords; whoever his apprentice is is the "lesser" (my term, not official) Lord (making the order Maul, Dooku, Vader). Her Wookipedia article outlines her transition into a Sith Lord.

However, I'm not sure why the years is such an issue. It is merely a frame of reference for occurrences in relation to other fictional events. "ABY" and "BBY" stand for "After the Battle of Yavin" and "Before the Battle of Yavin", respectively (sorry that I'm talking down to you; I'm sure you knew this, but I'm trying to illustrate a point), and giving event markers like that gives a frame of reference that is a lot more precise than "This happened between Episode 4 and Episode 5. The Dates in Star Wars article specifically states that, while ABY and BBY are used in-universe, the are also used for out-of-universe time demarcations. In that case, having the years in the succession box is not necessarily in-universe.

There is a precedent that a) succession boxes are acceptable in Star Wars articles, and b) ABY/BBY is an accepted method of marking in-universe events from an out-of-universe perspective. With that in mind, I'm restoring the succession box, (though I'm removing Flint; the precedent does not call for multiple people assuming the same position, and her pupil doesn't deserve a mention in the succession box) EVula 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Lord of the Sith draws a distinction between "Sith lord" and "Dark Lord of the Sith". There's still no source for calling Dooku (or Maul, WTF?) or Lumiya a "Dark Lord of the Sith."

I don't see any claim that "Dark Lord of the Sith" is a position instead of a vague title.

As for the years, if all the other issues are dealt with, can we please replace the years (which are gibberish to anyone who isn't steeped in the fandom) with fictional works? It would help with the sourcing issue, and the years are wholly meaningless to anyone who isn't really, really steeped in the fandom (keep in mind, most of the fictional works themselves don't even use these dates). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Short on time, so I'm just responding to the years: I've made the years a link to Dates in Star Wars. I think this goes a ways towards explaining a potentially unfamiliar concept to people who are new to the Star Wars timeline. Your argument is valid, and I think this addresses it well.

As for the "Dark Lord of the Sith" position vs. title argument, I'll get back to you on that one. I'm comfortable with "Dark Lord of the Sith" being interchangeable with "Sith Lord", but I obviously need to drum up some evidence first (and "I'm comfortable with" obviously shouldn't equate into "valid content for a Wikipedia article", although that would certainly make my editing much, much easier). EVula 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who most recently restored the succession box, unaware that it had become contested. Keep in mind that Darth Vader is far from the only Star Wars character article to contain a succession box using a fictional dating system, and Dark Lord of the Sith is not the only title to be found in those myriad boxes, so the precedent exists.

If I understand this dispute correctly, issue is taken with the use of fictional dates (BBY/ABY) in the succession boxes. I myself have no problem with this, for the reasons stated above by EVula.

The other half of the perceived problem seems to be with the position of Dark Lord of the Sith itself, as well as for whom it can be applied. Simply put, and as I believe is stated in the articles for both Sith and Dark Lord of the Sith, the Dark Lord of the Sith is the leader of the entire Sith Order. As seen in such sources as the Tales of the Jedi series and the Knights of the Old Republic video game, there can be potentially limitless numbers of Sith Lords (or lesser types of Sith) but only one Dark Lord.

When we get into the Sith of the movie era, however, things change, as we know there can be only two Sith at a time now instead of the limitless number from before. This order of Sith was begun by a Sith Lord named Darth Bane, who was created by George Lucas in his backstory for The Phantom Menace. After the "limitless" Sith were destroyed 1,000 years before the movies (hence the lines "The Sith have been extinct for a millennium," "I will not let this Republic which has stood for a thousand years be split in two," and "There hasn't been a full-scale war since the formation of the Republic"), Darth Bane reformed the Sith and made the rule stating that there could only be two Sith at a time, a Master and an apprentice. Both Sith Lords--Master and apprentice--were, according to Bane's rules, to hold the position of Dark Lord of the Sith. This was a holdover from the Sith prior to Bane's new order, where every Sith Lord and his Ewok was a Dark Lord (see The New Essential Chronology and the Jedi vs. Sith comic, among other sources). Hence, both Sidious and Vader were Dark Lords of the Sith, as were both of Sidious's previous apprentices, Maul and Dooku.

The final point of contention I would like to touch on is Lumiya, whom, it was claimed above, is said to be a Dark Lord (Lady, in this case) of the Sith in any source. This is simply not true. Lumiya originated in the old Marvel Star Wars comics from the '70s and '80s, in which it was stated that she had been trained by Darth Vader and, after his death, had taken up the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith. I will admit that there is a grey area of uncertainty where her two apprentices, Flint and Carnor Jax, are concerned. Lumiya's Sith are separate and distinct from Darth Bane's Sith (which included Palpatine, Vader, etc.), but Lumiya, at least at first, seems to have adhered to the Rule of Two. That is, she only took one apprentice (Flint), and didn't take another until Luke Skywalker had returned Flint to the light side. Jax's apprenticeship lasted seven years (from Flint's betrayal in the Marvel comics to Jax's death in Crimson Empire), yet Lumiya never took another apprentice in that time, meaning that there were still only ever two Sith at a time. Furthermore, Flint is identified addressed as "Dark Lord" twice in the Marvel comic issue "The Dream," so it is apparent that Lumiya continued the old tradition of two Sith at a time, both of whom were Dark Lords of the Sith.

I hope I have been of help in this debacle. Jon Hart 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. EVula 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I smell a ton of original research/fanon here. While Lumiya is indeed called a Dark Lady of the Sith (I broke out my Marvel Star Wars collection to check), I have a problem with this fanon-ish sucession of Dark Lords, where anyone who is the leader of the Sith being called a Dark Lord of the Sith (was Darth Maul ever called that? Dooku? The Emperor? Can we have sources?) Was Flint or Jax ever called a Dark Lord of the Sith? (I'm thinking no on this one.)

Part of the problem is that these titles are being offered in apparent retcons, with no source. We're deciding that "it is apparent that Lumiya continued the old tradition" when that tradition didn't exist when that book was written. Do we have any source stating that it's appropriate to call her apprentices Dark Lords of the Sith?

This is all way too fanon-ish for me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith. Darth Sidious' article doesn't state that he was a Dark Lord of the Sith (but does call him a Sith Lord), which lends credence to the theory that the two terms can be used interchangeably (in my opinion, at least). Further evidence is provided that Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith (as called by Palpatine himself), lending further credence that the title can be held by either a Master or Apprentice.

If "Dark Lord of the Sith" and "Sith Lord" are interchangeable, that also covers Dooku, as Palpatine calls him a Sith Lord at the beginning of Episode 3. No clue about Maul, but that's mainly because I'm not at home right now. EVula 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a vaguely-defined title...
- ...and it's an honorific only, as opposed to some sort of position with duties and responsibilities and powers and privileges.
Sourcing is always going to be difficult, and is going to involve primary sources and fan-oriented (albeit occasionally "official") sites only.
- It's a pain just establishing that Sith Lord and DLotS are or aren't synonyms!
This is going to always be describing an in-universe timeline, which is less than ideal.
- There's no mention in this article that Darth Vader is the first character to ever be described as Dark Lord of the Sith, and this sbox, which describes other characters created after Vader as coming before Vader, doesn't help.
Oftentimes this involves linking essentially unrelated characters (saying that Lumiya, a villain in one comic, is somehow the successor to Darth Vader in the universe in which I keep my stuff is inaccurate).
- And when the characters are releated (Dooku -> Vader), they're already mentioned elsewhere in the article.

As for the other articles, I'm aware of them; let's start with this one article with the most potential to become encyclopedic in the near future, then go from there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Palpatine is called a Dark Lord in several sources, such as the Revenge of the Sith novelization. As mentioned above, Dark Lord and Sith Lord aren't synonyms, at least not in the stories that take place before 1,000 BBY and after Legacy of the Force. The Dark Side Sourcebook lists the ranking system of the Sith in these time periods: Sith Minion, Sith Acolyte, Sith Warrior, Sith Lord, Dark Lord of the Sith. The sources for Dark Lords being the leaders of the Sith are multiple, but examples include the Tales of the Jedi comics, most notably The Golden Age of the Sith and Dark Lords of the Sith. There are also several sources that reference both the Masters and the apprentices of Darth Bane's order as being called Dark Lords of the Sith, including The New Essential Guide to Characters, the Revenge of the Sith novelization, and the Databank on starwars.com. All of these refer to either the Emperor or one of his apprentices as Dark Lord of the Sith. Flint being referred to as a Dark Lord in "The Dream" is good enough to prove to me that he and Carnor Jax should be referred to as Dark Lords as well, but I personally don't know of any other sources that address them as such, though there may be some in an old issue of Gamer or an RPG supplement or Hyperspace-exclusive or something. But since it's ambiguous, I can understand the argument for omitting the two of them from the succession. I also don't think it's inaccurate to say that Lumiya is the successor to Darth Vader. She was his apprentice and succeeded him as Dark Lord of the Sith, after all. Jon Hart 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the universe in which you and I live and where we keep our stuff (as opposed to any fictional universe), it's inaccurate to call Lumiya the successor to Darth Vader. Darth Vader is an iconic part of American pop culture. Lumiya is a character in an obscure, defunct, highly-underrated comic series. Does that help make my point clearer?

We're citing RPG books, third-party universe guidebooks, and various older magazines for off-hand comments that might imply that these characters are Dark Lords of the Sith instead of Sith Lords or whatever. Isn't that prime evidence that this is a poorly-defined honorific and that collating this trivia isn't within Wikipedia's purview? Seems to me that this is something we should leave to Wookieepedia, and this project should concentrate on characters' roles in the universe in which I keep my stuff. We even have a guideline stating as much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that guideline, you may be interested to see what it says about infoboxes and succession boxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary place the box until final decision is made.

It is decided. WP:WAF specifically states that you shouldn't use sboxes in fictional character articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I'd like to see it stay in there, the rationale behind leaving sboxes out is pretty sound. A few people (myself included) are starting to remove them from articles. EVula 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert quest (for AMiB)

In a recent revert, you removed a bit about Vader dueling Fett. Why did this get removed? I have the comic that it happened in; if the lack of a source is why it was removed, I can remedy that.

If it's another reason, I'm fine with it being removed (uh, well, as long as the reason isn't something like "I just felt like it"); I'm just making sure that it isn't something I could help with. EVula 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sauce plz ;D (Yeah, because it was unsourced.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found the source. I knew it was in one of the Tales compilations, and of course it was the last one I looked at... I added the section back in, while rewording the intro a bit to actually mention (and link to) the source. EVula 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, that particular Tales story is still entirely Infinities, and thus shouldn't be mentioned in the article except possibly as a "behind the scenes" tidbit or some such. Unless you can provide proof of its canonization? I admit I'm know expert at which bits of Tales comics have been inserted into mainstream continuity. Jon Hart 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon doesn't matter; this article describes Darth Vader in the real world, not a fictional one. I was pondering a rewrite of the EU section, and it would start with the largely-non-canon Splinter of the Mind's Eye, since it was the first appearance of Darth Vader outside of the movies.

That said, do we need to list every single comic short story Darth Vader has appeared in? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I should think that canon would matter insofar as the article is concerned with relating to readers the story arc and included exploits of the fictional character. Even fictional worlds have their own rules and laws, and if events in stories that are not a part of the official continuity are to be mentioned, the article should qualify them as such. Splinter of the Mind's Eye would not need such a disclaimer, for example, as it remains canon, unlike Vader's lightsaber duel with Boba Fett. Jon Hart 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity isn't something that really concerns non-SW-fan readers, and we're not here to tell a fictional biography but instead give an overview of Vader's use in fiction. I think we could probably summarize all of the comic appearances in a single paragraph. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I feel that noting a story's canonicity (or lack thereof) is perfectly in-line with writing about fiction in an out-of-universe way (I'm sure there is plenty of stuff here that doesn't concern non-SW-fan readers; it doesn't mean we should remove it). As for summarizing the comic appearances, I don't think that we should condense them all. The bit about him dueling with Fett is a very minor bit of information, whereas the section about Vader's Quest is fairly major (in regards to the character, and neverminding the fact that that article is slim). Just consolidate the barely notable stuff (similar to how Vader's appearances in Star Wars: Empire are mentioned in passing). EVula 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Darth's age?

I quote: ...revealing a scarred, sad man in his 40's, who,... Is Darth Vader really in his 40's at the time of his death? or at least, can this be cited in some way? Teh tennisman 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was roughly about twenty when he fell to the Dark Side, and Luke was roughly about twenty when the second Death Star blew... that said, it is entirely speculation. Changing it to "middle-aged man" was a good call. EVula 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Anakin was 23 in Episode III and Luke was 19 in Episode IV. Vader was 46 when he died, so he would indeed have been in his forties at the time. That's just FYI, though, the article reads fine as it is. Jon Hart 21:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cruft

Hopefully I won't upset the person who wrote this, but the following is much too crufty and as such I have removed it from the article.

Darth Vader is a brilliant strategist and one of the greatest pilots in the galaxy. Vader still possesses his former persona's amazing engineering skills, having overseen the design of the TIE/Advanced fighter and the construction of the second Death Star. His talent with the lightsaber is legendary. All of these skills, however, are secondary to his incredible mastery of the Force. He was born with the highest known midi-chlorian count in the history of the galaxy, surpassing that of both Yoda and the Emperor. However, Lucas states that his injuries on Mustafar cost Vader much of his Force potential. Even after his injuries on Mustafar cost him a measure of Force-aptitude, he remains incredibly powerful.^{[citation needed]} The loss of his natural hands are the reason he cannot create Force lightning, as Dooku and Palpatine could.^{[citation needed]} (Note: In the Star Wars comic book Splinter of the Mind's Eye, Darth Vader can be seen using Force lightning. )^[1]

His signature method of imposing terror is using the Force to choke people. This may echo Vader's own frustration at his injuries.^[2]

Vader also has great physical strength in his cybernetic limbs, which he demonstrates in his first and last appearances in the original trilogy: lifting a Rebel captain by the throat with one hand in A New Hope, and picking up the Emperor and hurling him to his death in Return of the Jedi. The Expanded Universe has shown him punching through the skulls of savage animals^{[citation needed]} and bludgeoning opposing Jedi to their knees with one blow.^{[citation needed]}

Anakin was trained in Form III lightsaber combat by Obi-Wan, one of the greatest swordsmen in the galaxy, and quickly developed incredible skill in the form. Despite this Anakin never really mastered Form III. Due to his aggressive nature his lightsaber skills took him torwards Form V lightsaber combat. However, his fighting style retained some elements of Form III lightsaber combat even after his fall to the dark side.^{[citation needed]}

In battle, Darth Vader lacked the mobility and ease he once had, but his bionic suit gave him great strength. His blows were forceful even when using only one arm to fight. He was calm when fighting, rarely using acrobatics. He struck to kill and used psychology and his appearance to intimidate his foes. When striking with both hands on the grip of his lightsaber, he was able to pound his enemies with an onslaught of strong but somewhat slow strikes. This fighting style contrasted with Anakin's style before his disfigurement, which utilized more speed and acrobatics.

All of this information is already in the main article, and if there is any sourced material that isn't, then it should be merged into the relevant section of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Please don't remove legitimate edits like the Criticism section. It seems like this page is a battleground for people who live in their parents' basement to argue over Darth Vader's superpowers. Darth Vader is a fictional character whose characterization has attracted criticism over the years. This page shouldn't just be a wank-off for fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattChaput (talk • contribs)

New Lede

I'm going to try a new lede on this article that strikes a better balance of alluding to the full depth of the Vader character, before the spoiler warning. Ivymike21 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand New Photos of Vader

I am not really sure as to why people removed brand new photos of Vader that I put here inside of this article
www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 06:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sith title

Quote from the article:Position Dark Lord of the Sith, Imperial Commander-in-Chief (Military Executor)

I do not belive Vader is a 'Dark Lord of the Sith'. He is just a Sith Lord, am I correct? Does this need to be changed? Superstarwarsfan 03:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny -- I'm more curious as to where this "commander-in-chief" stuff comes from. --EEMeltonIV 03:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, your not correct. He is a Dark Lord of the Sith and it shouldn't be removed. Commander-in-chief is his position as Commander of the Imperial Fleet. I don't know the source for that bit of info. Jasca Ducato 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)