Talk:Darth Vader

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDarth Vader was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 14, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 2, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 19, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 30, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Darth Vader vs Anakin Skywalker[edit]

Look, I understand that Darth Vader is the most iconic version of the character however shouldn't this article be titled 'Anakin Skywalker', as that was the name he was born into and died under. Darth Vader was really just an alias. (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME. You're also using an in-universe rationale. Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective. ~~ DocNox (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Takeshi Martinez has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 29 § Takeshi Martinez until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of cultural impact section[edit]

I recently requested a peer review of the "Cultural impact" section of the article. I posted my request on the WikiProject Film page. Below is the resulting thread. Here is the version of the Darth Vader page that existed at the time I made the request.

Hi, I'm hoping to get some peer review for one section of an article I'm working on. I'm posting here instead of going through the formal peer review process because I only need help with one section, not the entire article. The section in question is "Cultural impact." I've been looking at WP essays and how-to pages about how to write a cultural impact section, but I've learned all I can from those pages at this point, and now I need an actual person to look at the section and give feedback. I've been editing the entire page a lot, but have hardly touched that section because I'm not sure what it needs. Therefore, most of the content in the section was created before I started editing the page. I've done a little trimming, but that's it. I'm aware a few of the segments are unsourced. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section is, not to put too fine a point on it, atrocious. It starts out with misrepresenting the scope of the AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains list and it's all downhill from there. IGN is an okay source but should by no means be treated as an authoritative one and is given outsized WP:WEIGHT the way it is used here. What follows is a random assortment of references in media without any sourcing to back up that these are significant ones, let alone the most significant ones. A species is named after Vader—sure, species named after popular culture items are a dime a dozen. The same thing applies to astronomical objects, by the way. Architecture inspired by Darth Vader might be relevant here, but architecture that is just compared to Vader almost certainly isn't. Darth Vader being a kind of shorthand for "villain" is probably noteworthy... but merely listing examples isn't enough, that kind of overarching analysis needs to come from WP:Reliable sources making that exact point. The borderline personality disorder thing is in the wrong section—that's in-universe character analysis. And so on. In summary, it's all an arbitrary collection of trivia. The way to fix it is to start over from scratch using sources that actually cover the overarching topic—(the cultural impact of) Darth Vader. That's the only way to ensure that the section is compliant with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies. In particular, we need sources to tell us what's an important WP:ASPECT and what is not so we can treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply! Unfortunately I'm not the person to re-write the section at this point in time, because I'm still getting my head around everything you said, and I don't feel confident in my abilities to discern between important information and trivia when it comes to a section like this. At least not yet...I'm learning and growing as an editor every day. Should I just leave it as-is with the clean-up tag, or should I remove some of the most atrocious bits? Wafflewombat (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The basic idea of relying on sources on the overarching topic is that editors do not have to (and really, are not supposed to) discern between important information and trivia—the sources do that for us. This is admittedly oversimplifying things as there is a bit more to it than that, but merely identifying quality sources on the topic and covering the same things as they do in roughly the same WP:PROPORTION will get you most of the way there. If you have already located quality sources in the course of working on other parts of the article, I would encourage you to give it a shot by removing the entirety of the current section and starting over. It's not like it can get much worse than it currently is. TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflewombat (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I created a section called "Profile" to share a succinct version of Vader's life story. Before, his story was split between the lead and other sections. Right now, the Profile section is sourced from and from the films (as primary sources). Is this acceptable sourcing, or do I need different or better sources?

Zmbro, would you mind sharing your thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know too much about sourcing regarding fictional characters. I would recommend looking up some fictional characters whose articles are either FAs or GAs to get a better idea.
(A quick look at Homer Simpson sees it uses both primary and secondary sources). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


So, about the archives for references in this article, I think we can use them to prevent any potential WP:LINKROT in the future. Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]