Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 13 October 2006

Film GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Star Wars GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Star Wars To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles. Citing sources : Jedi, Sith Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..." Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs Other : * See the things to do page Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

Template:FAOL

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Darth Vader has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Darth Vader received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Clarification

It might be easier to edit this article if it were made clear what parts of it were overlong, confusing, or ambiguous. Treybien 19:36, 26 September (UTC)

Vader vs Ben Kenobi

If Obi -Wan were actually trying to fight Vader in Episode 4, would he have won? They are both old but I'm pretty sure Obi-Wan could have won.--suit-n-tie 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben knew he would lose. McDonaldsGuy 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense.--Atomic-Super-Suit 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Misplaced Pages project. Agne 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personification of evil

There have been several reverts over the last week or so about this appellation. I think the difficulty stems from the difference in viewing individual films (such as ANH), and watching them as a series.

The Anakin Skywalker of the prequels, has developed a three dimensional quality, which can make him seem, "understandable", the tragic character, such as one might find in King Lear, or Hamlet.

However, the Darth Vader of the first movie, was very clearly designed as a personification of evil. See: Star Wars sources and analogues, for examples. The design of the character's look, including the use of WWII paraphernalia, and the "not-quite-human" sense to the character, shows this rather clearly. Some citations from both sides of the debate would obviously be helpful.

For now, I'm putting the category back on the page, but commenting it out, until we have more direct citations of this (which is directly related to the request above). - jc37 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate- if he's the "personification of evil" in Episode IV, then why is he taking orders from Tarkin? In every film in which he appears, Vader takes orders from others- hardly seems like a "personification of evil" to me. Also, that "Sources and Analogues" page doesn't cite a single reference- it smells strongly of OR--DarthBinky 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What does being evil have to do with being under someone else's thumb? : )

Vader isn't "vile", he's "evil". - jc37

Because he's not really a "personification of evil" if there's someone more eviler than he. You could even take the "he's just following orders" defense (not that I subscribe to that...). Also, several of the villains in that "category" I would argue don't belong there. Sauron wasn't the personfication of evil in Middle Earth- Morgoth is (and he is, in fact, in that list). Arawn isn't even considered evil, yet he's on the list. I suppose it depends on exactly what is meant by "personification of evil"- when i think of it, I think of it in the sense of being the embodiment/incarnation of evil, like Satan or Morgoth. --DarthBinky 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not every evil person is a personification of evil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but neither is Vader "every evil person". Check out the category. Vader is on equal or greater standing with several of them. But that aside, we're looking for citations at this point : ) - jc37 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The characters in that category are actual personifications of evil in their respective fictional universes. Being designed to represent evil and being designed to be evil itself are two different things. If we went with the former interpretation, we might as well save the time and merge the category with Category:Fictional villains. Interrobamf 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vader was the first Sith Lord introduced into the Star Wars storyline (if you consider EP IV the first story). He was designed to personify evil, whilst Luke personified good over-coming evil. By the beginning of Ep VI it has become Sidious who personifies evil, Vader/Anakin Skywalker symbolises a corrupted being. Jasca Ducato 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR. -Silence 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Silence has a good point. Please come up with reliable sources describing Vader as a "personification of evil" (or a "war criminal," since user:Treybien keeps sticking that cat on this category for some reason). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (especially since I mentioned it above : )
I think it might be a good idea for us to go through the categories on this page and have citations for them all. I know on CfD, that's one of the things we look for is whether an article has an explanation/citation for category placemement. - jc37 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is mentioned by GL on one of the DVD documentaries that Vader was orignally meant to personify evil. i'll check tonight to see which one exactely. Jasca Ducato 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your nerds haven't the slightest clue how to write do you?

The first paragraph is most crucial to an article. It should be concise, interesting, and a good read.

Instead, you tell people what they already know: Darth Vader is a character in Star Wars. Duh!

And then you go on to list, monotonously, all the films he's a big part of. It's an orgy of nerdy blue text.

If you want to improve this article, start from the very beginning and work your way down.

I'm not getting involved, because I know what vicious little peckerwoods Star Wars geeks can be.

Chris 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well your the one complaining, you "vicious little peckerwoodgeek"! The whole point of this wiki is to inform and explain. Some people might not actually know that Vader is from Star Wars, he could easily be a Star Trek character or even a cartoon character. The fact that he's from Star Wars needs to be shown!! Jasca Ducato 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Since you've presumed to judge the rest of us in our writing ability, I thought I would take a moment to look over yours. I think I'll limit direct analysis to just the opening header (between the equal signs), since you seem interested in introductions. And I'll presume you don't mind since you've already set the standard for mutual analysis : )

• First, "Your nerds" - Should I presume that the "r" is a typo? Or is it that you don't know your possessives? (If "your" is correct then it should be "do they", else "you" and "do you".) I suppose I'll consider it a typo, since I presume that you weren't suggesting that anyone here has their own supply of nerds : )
• Oh, and you should have placed a comma after "write".

Besides that...

Your sentence structure is choppy to say the least. Normally I would understand this as most people are unaccustomed to the professional written word (as most on Misplaced Pages are), but since you've proclaimed yourself an expert, I really might have expected better.

I also might add, after you've vented your opinion upon us (us, in this case, includes all Wikipedians who are editors of this article, of which, I am one), you decided to "ring and run" (to quote the character C. J. Cregg), through this sentence: "I'm not getting involved, because..." I didn't include your reasoning behind the statement because, after reading the initial statement of the sentence (that you refuse to help), I lost interest.

Part of assuming good faith of an editor is presuming that they will be able to accept constructive criticism. I hope you will. And I do hope you change your mind and join us in the attempt to improve this article. Just please remember that choices come about by concensus here, and not by any one person's imposed point of view : )

I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• And to add the jc37's comments. Your message would fit into a single paragraph correctly, you did not need to space out every single line as a new paragraph. Thank you. Jasca Ducato 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The point remains: the opening paragraph of this article is a worthless block of blue text. Chris 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, the new point is that you can't write proper english. Jasca Ducato 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cute, chief, but I'm quite sure that I can. The difference between you and me is, when I see that's someone's made a simple typo (You vs. Your), I am not so shallow and feeble-minded that I have to resort to attacking that minor point, rather than dealing with the arguments put forth.

At any rate, there's a reason that 'Darth Vader' is marked as needing clean-up. You nerds can start with the 1st paragraph, that's all I'm saying. Chris 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• GA-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Star Wars articles
• Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
• WikiProject Star Wars articles
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Old requests for peer review