This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Darth is the exception to the rule —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so this page [[1]] says naming concensus is best-known, full name without titles. The Darth article says Darth is a title. Yet Malak, Bandon, Nihilus, Sion and every other Sith Lord I bothered to check has Darth in their article names. Now, I refuse to believe this has been overlooked by everyone, so there must be some internal logic or policy I'm not aware of. Explain.DarthMRN 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Those articles should be moved to Malak, Sion, etc. If we're going to be stingy about policy, then let's at least keep it consistant. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No need to interpret policy that strictly. There must be some common sense. - Sikon 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Nay, common sense is banned. Only canon and policy guides our desicions here. Just like a true beuracracy(sp).DarthMRN 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Nooo! But seriously, it was like part of their name, not just a title. Chack Jadson 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Current policy was fiercly debated, and as such should not contain inconsistencies. Common sense is banned, only canon and policy rules. Therefore common sense should not be used in the interpretation of policy, only in its creation. Vote below:DarthMRN 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Amend current policy to exclude all titles, except the Darth title[]

1. Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
2. "Darth" is much more than a title... it's an identity. --Azizlight 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
3. "Darth Vader" itself IS a title. His Name is Anakin Skywalker. For Sith Lords that we don't have a real name for should be kept under their Sith title. Lonnyd 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
4. KEJ 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Maclimes Zero ^(talk) 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
6. OuroborosCobra 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
7. This should be moved to CT. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
8. See comment below. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
9. It's not just a title! Chack Jadson 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
10. "Darth" is NOT a title. It is an assumed name. QuentinGeorge 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
11. It's a title and an assumed name. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
12. It's a part of a Sith Lord's full name/title; see below. jSarek 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
13. "You can't win Darth". It's part of his name. Leave it alone. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Riff's got a point. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Valin Kenobi 07:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Per Riffsyphon1024. It's like Caesar: a titleish name. --Wildyoda^{-talk-contribs-} 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
17. JMAS 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Most definately, Darth basically becomes part of their name when the fall. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename Sith Lord articles to exclude Darth title, in accordance with current policy[]

1. DarthMRN 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
2. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
3. No, Darth used to be a name, before KOTOR fluffed it all up. .... 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments[]

• Making a policy exception for the Darth title is not only unprofessional and messy, it is biased as well. We are supposed to be neutral in all things, remember?DarthMRN 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then what would we title articles for Sith, whom we don't know the real names of? Muun Sith Lord? In article: "This Muun Sith Lord took the title of Darth Plagueis." Oh, wait. Sith Lord is also a title, so it would just be Unknown Muun.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Under our current naming convention, which is Most commonly known name in universe, sans titles, with later names preferred to earlier names, and full names preferred to partial names or nicknames., the article would (should?) go under "Plagueis". StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Jeez! KEJ 08:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed, guys. Viewing Darth as anything more than a title (followed by a Sith name, Lonnyd) shows great bias. If devoting ones life to a title is that special, we should exempt policy for any character who spent their entire lives doing the same job, and was greatly influenced by it. Which is to say, just about any character with a steady job.DarthMRN 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Darth is more than just a title. It is a re-naming. They abandon the old name, and take a new one. The word "Darth" is both a title and a name. Therefore, it is appropriate to leave the articles titled by the Darth name. Maclimes Zero ^(talk) 15:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the source for this claim? Unless all Darths have the same first name, it is far more reasonable that the new name is Maul, Vader, Sion etc. Not Darth. Didn't Palp say Lord Maul, Lord Tyranus and Lord Vader in the movies, perhaps? These are the Sith names you mention, not Darth. And if anyone has sources for the contrary, then name them, so we might edit the Darth article.DarthMRN 15:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Lord" is certainly a title. But when addressing someone with a title, it is customary to use only their last name. (General Madine, for example). So just because he's "Lord Vader" does not mean "Darth" is a title. Maclimes Zero ^(talk) 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Anakin, for example, was "knighted" Darth Vader, not just Vader. Vader without the Darth is just a shortened version of his Sith identity. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, what I see here is that people prefer the most common name for the Darths. Indeed, just like the rest of you, I think of "Vader" simply as short for "Darth Vader". It is his "name", in our collective consciousness. But if you read our very own Darth article, as well as Wikipedias version of it, you will find they both support it being a title, and nothing more. Sure, neither of them are canon, but that goes for your claim to Darth as a personal name as well. And seeing as we are sworn to canon, and exterminate all fanon, no matter how commonly held, I am beginning to doubt that this can even be decided by a vote in the first place. Which begs the question: Why did we decide to leave titles out of article names to begin with? The Darth in Darth Vader is as natural to me as General is in General Grievous, yet his article is named simply Grievous.DarthMRN 20:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I know this isn't a definitive answer, but the General in Grievous could change. He could be demoted to Colonel Grievous, for example. To me though, the Darth name is permanent - once a Sith, forever will it dominate his destiny. —Xwing328^(Talk) 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Darth" is not a title in the usual sense - it is the first word of an assumed name. It would be like calling Anakin Skywalker "Skywalker". QuentinGeorge 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Smells of fanon to me. But I guess some fanon is just too deeply rooted in the public subconscious to escape. You will have your way, it seems. Who wants the honor of reflecting this view in our Darth article?DarthMRN 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Saying "Darth" is an assumed name in addition to a title is not fanon, DarthMRN. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll admit I had never heard of the term assumed name before it was posted here. The dictionary compares it to an alias, a temporarily assumed name in lack of the real thing. How is an assumption not fanon?DarthMRN 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the way I look at it. Either the "Sith name" IS indeed an adopted name, in which case Darth is the first part of it, or the Sith name is merely a title . . . in which case Darth is the first part of it. Either way, the Darth is not a separate piece to be cut away in a formal article (though I don't think Sith names should be used at all if a real name is known). jSarek 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm remaining neutral, because honestly I can't decide which is correct. Riff's point is flawed, as one can be addressed solely by their titles. For example, General Grievous has been addressed as "General". But I believe "Darth" is an identity. I won't go any further for fear that I will appear to contradict myself.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Real-world encyclopedias frequently list people under some version of their noble or royal titles. Maybe we should exclude military titles (which change with promotions, demotions, and resignations of commission), non-noble political titles (like Chancellor or Moff), and academic titles (like Doctor), but include more stable noble titles and Sith titles? Of course, we'd still use the "most commonly used" form, so it'd be "Count Dooku" rather than "Dooku, Count of Serenno" (he's never referred to in that way), "Lando Calrissian" instead of "Lando Calrissian, Baron-Administrator of Bespin" (he was only in charge for a while), and "Emperor Palpatine" rather than "Darth Sidious." —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• I like our current way of doing it - see, Palpatine was "Senator", "Chancellor" and then "Emperor" Palpatine, but he was only EVER "Darth" Sidious, not Viscount Sidious or Grand Mufti Sidious or anything like that. That's why I don't see "Darth" as being a title on its own in the traditional sense. QuentinGeorge 12:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided, but I thought that I would bring up something that I don't think has been mentioned yet: can we be certain that "Darth" is really a title if it does not denote rank? Both superiors and subordinates can be Darths simultaneously. -- SM-716 talk? 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. Valin Kenobi 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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