Talk:Grievous/Legends

3 spoiler tags? --SparqMan 17:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Two should be enough for any article, since we only have two kinds of spoiler tags. I don't want to check it out on my own, though. -- Aidje 17:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Grievous's Lightsabers
What is the source of Grievous getting Foul Mondoma's, Roron corrb's, Sha'agi's, Tarr Ceiar's, and Even Piells lightsabers?--wattamb2000
 * Well I know for a fact that he took Roron Corobb's, as that's specifically mentioned in Reversal of Fortune; and it's assumed that he takes all of his victims' lightsabers. MarcK 14:20, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * and please put new comments at the BOTTOM of pages. Its rude to put them in above full pages of comment. Durnar 14:23, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * When in Reversal of Fortune? I cant find the part.--wattamb2000
 * Strip 83, and now that I look at it it actually mentions both Corobb and Moudama's sabers being taken:


 * Moudama and Corobb fought well, but Grievous was too strong. He took their lightsabers and the Chancellor and left in his ship.


 * So as I said I think it's safe to assume he takes them off of everyone he kills. MarcK 14:38, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * If Greivous has 3 dozen sabers, he must of took some from the killed jedi on geonosis. That would make 32 sabers. *Was Even slashed on the chest? How was he killed?--wattamb2000
 * Please stop asking how people died. Nobody cares. And if you are that desperate to find out in detail, go read the original sources. Durnar 14:55, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont think there is a source for the replicas of Qui-Gons and Sidious's. Is there?--wattamb2000


 * Well, i do think that Grievous is quite unorthodox when it comes to strategic thinking. On Hypori, he takes out five Jedi while using two lightsabers. And on Coruscant, he uses his four-armed mode to take out TWO Jedi. Seems pretty odd to me, i would have used four sabers on Hypori if i were him. User:General Secura


 * I believe the explaination for that would be that Tartokovsky didn't know that Grievous could do the four arm thing when he did the Hypori battle for the cartoon. ALSO, what is the official source that says that Grievous killed Even Peill?  I've not found anything to support that. Joser_Kyind


 * Why does it say on the article that Ki Adi Mundi was defeated by General Grievous when he was killed by his Clones on Mygeeto? I don't understand how Grievous came into possession of his lightsaber. User:General Syrus Satirus
 * On Hypori, they battled, and Ki-Adi-Mundi lost his lightsaber before escaping. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:41, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * The main article implies that it is unclear why Grievous collects Lightsaber's but judging by his character and what he says in the Silent Hand, it appears that he's collecting them as trophies. -- TheDarkArchon 10:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Title
Keeping in mind our "no titles in article name" rule, should this be at Grievous? QuentinGeorge 04:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one, as he is never refered to in any literature as anything but General. Hmmm. Count Dooku is the same way. I'm torn on this one, it may be the exception.--Eion 05:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Dooku is referred as just "Dooku" when talking about his pre-Sith days, however. He only reclaimed the title when he left the order. QuentinGeorge 05:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but I still think this may be the only exception. Though, I will wait till I see EpIII to judge.--Eion 05:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * With Grievous alone not sounding like a name, I'd say settle with the exception. I would revise Dooku, though.--Gen.d 18:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be that General Grievous is a name he took on after being sealed into his metal body. In that case, "General" appears to be a part of his proper name, and should stay. The only thing that would make sense otherwise would be if a source refers to him as "Grievous" was still a full Kaleesh. --SparqMan 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Coming back to this, it seems clear that this article should be titled "Grievous". --SparqMan 15:01, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree --Beeurd 00:23, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Nobody calls GG "Grievous," not even Sidious. It's part of his name. For the Lord Nyax article, will it just be "Nyax"?--Erl
 * That's different. Lord Nyax is a mythical story, General Grievous is a living being with a rank/title. And please date your comments. --beeurd 16:17, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, when the escape pods are launched in ROTS, Obi-Wan does say, "Grievous!" QuentinGeorge 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should this be at Qymaen jai Sheelal? QuentinGeorge 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is kind of a mouthful. And if that's his real name, how did he come by the name of Grievous? -- SFH 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume it was after he was borged. Or, perhaps it was a name given to him during the wars - like "Butcher" QuentinGeorge 00:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * isn't Qymaen jai Sheelal the name that Supershadow made up for him?
 * You're thinking "Grievous Shakar". &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Grievous post-ROTS?
In the new expansion pack for the SW: Galaxies online game, you apparently get to fight General Grievous in a post-ROTS environment! Now, I know this might be just game-mechanics and they are never a part of official continuity, but I believe he comes with a back-story that details his revival after ROTS, complete with an artificial "gut-sack" (to replace the one that blew up on him in the movie). And backstories in games are actually a part of continuity. What do we do with this information? VT-16 11:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Lord Patrick 08:23, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * *groan* He's dead; let him die. I can't believe they're going to try and bring him back. argh. (I'm sure my complaints are very helpful to you.) – Aidje talk 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Has he appeared yet? If not, I would wait. If he does, then I would only use material that is something you could a transcript of, such as game material, cut scenes (does SW:G even have these?), StarWars.com blurbs or other material. Just saying that he appears wouldn't really be worthwhile. --SparqMan 00:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Come on- The guy literally burst in flame - even out of his eyes! I have serious doubts that even Darth Vader would have survived this. --Gen.d 15:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Will they be giving him an artificial brain-sac too, because that puppy was fried up like a meal from the cookbook of Hanibal Lector. God, I know I've seen GG fighter in ads for the SW:G expansion, but I really hope they don't put him in...--Eion 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty terrible plot-twist, considering Grievous’ vital organs were incinerated. At least Boba Fett was still mostly in one piece when he was brought back. I hope this information ends up as no more than a note in the 'Behind the Scenes' section. --Fade 15:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Judging from people who played this, it´s not Grievous, but a droid built after his specs. Apparently it´s called N-K Necrosis. Funny, sounds almost like necromancy, "raising the dead"... Maybe I´m just grasping at straws. ;P VT-16 19:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's probably entirely intentional --Fade 21:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * After some snooping around, I can confirm the NK Necrosis. It is located in a cave on Kashyyyk, surrounded by an army of lesser droids. It uses a double-bladed red lightsaber, and seem to be completely mechanical (as opposed to Grievous). --Imperialles 21:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just a really poor rip-off then? Or a 'homage' if I'm being kind :P --Fade 09:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, Galaxies is S-canon
 * Well, if Grievous survived the shuttle crash that caused him to be a cyborg, perhaps there was a chance that his dead hulk was recovered and repaired to be completely droid, which meant all of Grievous's surviving "living" parts could have been scraped and been replaced by droid parts. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:19, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

i hope he survives and is made of something like CORTOSIS!!!
 * What a profound statement. Another reason why we should only allow registered users to edit. -- Doo Doo 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

reference to blasters after his death?
i suppose that this is not the right area to post this, but i seem to remember Obi-Wan saying something like 'Uncivilised' about the blaster that he kills Grevious with, can somebody please confirm this, also, does Obi-Wan say something about the blasters used by one of the characters in ANH??? --82.35.168.60
 * In RotS Obi-Wan tosses away Grievous's blast saying "So uncivilized". I think what you might be refering to in ANH is Obi-Wan telling Luke that lightsabers are of a "more civilized age" and not as "clumsy or random as a blaster". --Beeurd
 * thanks
 * My impression (and Matthew Stover's) is that "So uncivilized" refers to Grievous

refering to the blaster


 * It also my be refering to that grievous was uncivilized and had and uncivilized death by his own blasterLt.sarge
 * Or, it might mean something completely different. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:46, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought that it was about the blaster, because he appeared to be looking at it, and in ANH, he says "not as clumsy or as random as a blaster...a weapon for a more civilised age."--Xilentshadow900 22:04, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that A New Hope was made before RotS here. There is always a chance, but it doesn't have to mean Kenobi referred to Grievous's blaster, even though he said that line in RotS. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:20, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it just seems like the kind of line Lucas would throw in to bind the movies together. Its like a hobby of his.--Xilentshadow900 22:27, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:41, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wheel Bike
This article needs to include a link to his Tsmeu-6 personal wheel bike.
 * Wrong, I have some comfimed evedince from the revenge of the sith dvd that the name of grievous's wheel bike is called "the dread speeder".Although this might have been in early production and could have been changed to the Tsmeu-6Lt.sarge

Age
Do we have a source for Grievous' birthyear of 60 BBY? I haven't seen anything official on GG's age - Kwenn
 * I seem to recall reading something stating he was in his 40s when he became Grevious... Although I forget where I read this, I shall scour my resources searching for something to back this up. --Beeurd 00:22, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Coughing
Is it ever stated explicitly why he coughs? From what I've read elsewhere, it seems to me that it is merely assumed that he got the cough thanks to Mace's force-crush at the end of Clone Wars. Granted, I haven't read Labyrinth of Evil, so maybe it's explained there. Kuralyov 00:48, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * He didn't wheeze or cough before Mace crushed his chest plate in, so I imagine its safe to assume that as the cause. --65.96.185.195 01:32, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * He didn't cought before the crushing, and he started coughing a lot as soon as it did happen, even for the brief time in the cartoon after it happened. – Aidje talk 05:09, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Somebody decided he should cough in the movie to prove to dumb movie audiences that he's not a robot. --24.141.193.190 02:28, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * In Deep Forest (one of the Visionaries stories) Greivous does indeed have a hacking cough. Rob Coleman says that the coughing is due to his organic body not taking well to the cyborg shell. Mace's "crush" simply aggravated an existing problem. Tam 14:19, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

his chest plates were force pushed by mace

Chestplate Confusion
I believe that Grievous gets his chestplate crushed by Mace in both Labyrinth of Evil and Obsession... so which one do we put down? --Demented Smiloid 14:07, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * And don't forget Clone Wars. :-) – Aidje talk 15:33, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Just say Mace did it, and don't specify where. QuentinGeorge 23:40, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Definately wasn't on Coruscant like Clone Wars says, it would contradict the movie which shows him undamaged. Obsession is the best explanation for it.  --Lowkey

The First Vader?
In fact, according to Dark Lord, the selfsame droids which reconstructed the dying frame of Darth Vader into the cyborg we know and love to hate also reconstructed Grievous a decade before. This also locks down when Grievous suffered his shuttle crash to 29 BBY. Gothymog 20:51, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you ever think that Grievous could be like a Vader before Vader.I'm mean like look at the facts; burtally injurned in a freak accident, half cyborg, wants revenge on the jedi, it all makes sence!Purplesaber 42
 * I believe the cyborg-life-support-after-brutal-injury parallel is intentional, if that's what you're asking. – Aidje talk 19:23, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's like Lucas accually wants us to beleve that,but I don't think alot of people reconize it.I think you have to watch Clone Wars to figure it out.Purplesaber 42
 * Does it specifically say "a decade before" or does it say "around a decade before"? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:57, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I cannot recall the exact wording as I do not possess the book, merely have read it. I'm pretty sure it says the former, though someone with the book will have to check. Gothymog 13:58, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

C-i-C
Like Asajj Ventress, Sev'rance Tann was not the C-i-C for CIS forces either. --SparqMan 22:26, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, she was. The New Essential Chronology states that she held more sway with Dooku than Grievous did until her death. It doesn't make sense if she held more sway than Dooku, but Grievous had a higher rank. Therefore, she was the first Supreme Commander of the CIS. Please don't reedit the article again. If you have a problem with it, it's too bad, it's a fact.
 * There is a difference between sway and rank. There are tons of instances in the real world of non-governmental officials holding more sway with Heads of State than actual members of their Cabinets or staff. -- SFH 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a source where it says that Tann wasn't CiC. All of the sources (besides maybe Visionaries, which has iffy canon status) only say that Grievous was CiC after Tann's death, since Tann was invented first. Also exlain in SWGB why Dooku refers to her as his finest General
 * Exactly. He doesn't refer to her as Commander in Chief; only General, whereas Grievous has been specifically named as the Supreme Commander - Kwenn 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And Dooku may have been allowing his biases to sink in. Tann was Force-sensitive, Grievous was not. Tann looked Human, Grievous did not. Tann was fully organic, Grievous was not. There are reasons that Dooku would have prefered Tann to Grievous, but the fact remains that General Grievous was the Supreme Commander of the Droid Armies, not Sev'rance Tan. -- SFH 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, someone doesn't know that. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why did Asajj Ventress and Durge fight with Grievous over the CiC position in the Clone Wars cartoons? That suggest that there was a position to be filled, one made empty by Tann's death. You even have her as THE top military officer in the CIS on her page.
 * That event did not occur in the cartoons at any stage. QuentinGeorge 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I might be thinking of a comic or something, but Iread about that somewhere.
 * It's in the Databank on Grievous and Ventress' articles. -- SFH 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Grievous being CiC of the Droid Armies doesn't perhaps mena as much when one consideres there was the Confederate Navy (assuredly a different unit) as well as organic forces. Kuralyov 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps Tann was the Supreme Commander of the Confederate Navy. But, there's no proof for that. But the point is, Grievous was the one-and-only Supreme Commander of the Droid Armies. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First name and more
Confirmed by Abel G. Pena himself on TFN, Grievous's first name will be revealed in Star Wars Insider 84 in his article The Story of General Grievous. Also included will be his origins as an organic Kaleesh, the war with the Huks, and the blood transfusion from Sifo-Dyas. :D -- Riffsyphon1024 19:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's great! The history of Greivous to be revealed. That will be one article I can't afford to miss. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:10, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The new Insider is out. Can anyone reveal Grievous' real name? - Kwenn
 * Wasn't in this issue. Hopefully it will be in 85. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:15, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

its General Grievous Skaker It wasn't in 84? Disappointing... - Angel Blue 451 15:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read SuperShadow, my poor anon. And when are we going to learn that name? -- SFH 15:10, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we'll find out the real full name in the next Insider, or the next, etc. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:15, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, hopefully it will be in another issue. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:14, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It is confirmed to be in 86, along with an article about mandalorian culture written by Karen traviss. An issue we can't miss!--Xilentshadow900 16:08, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally, an end to Grievous Skaker. Finally, Grievous' first name and his history will be revealed! Indeed, we cannot miss this. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:39, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't "Albert", I'll be happy. - Angel Blue 451 17:46, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would it be? That was only a suggestion for Palpatine's name. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:50, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, just trying to make a joke. - Angel Blue 451 18:03, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I know. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax 18:12, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. Seriously though, I hope that they do include it in 86. - Angel Blue 451 18:25, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's actually been confirmed, it should be in it. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:27, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, I just hope they don't delay it again. - Angel Blue 451 18:32, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe Abel G. Pena ment Insider 86 instead of Insider 84. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:35, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, he just kept on getting pushed back by KAren Traviss's stuff. Now they're in a mag together. Check his blog on the subject. It has many edits on it.--Xilentshadow900 19:00, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. At least it's coming out. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:36, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Tis possible, I suppose. - Angel Blue 451 18:51, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Weird
Yeah um, maybe its my computer or something but the text of this page have been replaced with links and stuff and words overlapping other words. But its just this page not others.
 * It's the same with mine, too, and probally the same for everyone else. What could be doing this? How can we fix it? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:53, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It was edited by some misunderstood person pretending to be Wikipedia:User:Linuxbeak. &mdash; Silly Dan  22:57, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It's a lot better now. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:24, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

wattamb2000
 * How many times do we have to tell you, wattamb2000, Greivous DOES NOT KILL Shaak Ti! The official death of Shaak Ti is in the Jedi Temple. She got slaughtered by Anakin Skywalker!! Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:33, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Matt Wood, who attended the 2005 SFX Convention in Toronto, made a statement that might indicate this scene being restored to the film. Or he could have been joking. (Most likely) VT-16 15:25, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It has to be a joke, even though it was planned that way, because the Episode III Visual Dictionary clearly states that Shaak Ti fell victim to Vader's fury in the Temple. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:05, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at the Wikipedia article on Shaak Ti. It states Grievous killed her!--wattamb2000
 * Wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source. Any piece of information has been added by a fallible user, just as is the case here&mdash;so saying "Wikipedia says X" is no better an argument than "Wookieepedia says X"; in essence, it's about the weakest argument you could give. – Aidje talk 18:15, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Plus, the EPISODE III VISUAL DICTIONARY IS A MORE REALIABLE SOURCE!!! Wattamb, if you're so desparate in making it seem you're right, which you aren't, how do we know that you didn't write that little bit yourself!!!! Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:02, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

i have a picture of grievous killing her i don't know how to post them she was defeted by greivous twice
 * The scene was cut, it's no longer canon. --beeurd 13:47, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

6 BBY?
That date is incorrect. 6 BBY was during the rule of the Galactic Empire, so how could Dooku, Durge, and Grievous all be around after their deaths? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:30, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I meant to write 6 ABoG and got confused. The correct date, from Clone Wars Adventures: Volume 3 is 22 BBY. --Master Starkeiller 21:10, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Grievous Resurrected?
It says that Grievous was resurrected after the Galactic Civil War. What are the sources for this? Unit121 21:11, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Galaxies, but it's not canon. And even if it is, that wasn't Grievous. It was a droid called N-K "Necrosis" that seemed to use Grievous' shell. --Master Starkeiller 21:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed the nonsense text. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:50, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Abel Pena is covering this in an upcovering article. :) Tam 13:38, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

His Voice
I noticed in Episode III, Grievous had one voice, but then in the Clone Wars, he had another voice. In the sega, did Grievous aways have that voice from Episode III, or did his voice change when Mace crushed his body at the end of Clone Wars Chapter 25?
 * John Di Maggio did his voice in his first appearance, at the episode with the battle of Hypori. In the second season, Richard McGonagle provided his voice. Matthew Wood did the movie voice. It's all their in the article. -- SFH 23:59, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how Obi-Wan, Anakin, Padme and everyone else also have different voices, its hardly an issue. QuentinGeorge 01:01, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But in some ways (not all ways), even after the fact there's diferent actors, Obi-Wan talks the same way and sound like Ewan McGregor, Padme talks like Natalie, the same thing with Yoda, Palpatine, Dooku, Qui-Gon, Mace and the Clones, but John Di Maggio and Richard McGonagle don't sound like Matthew Wood, they don't even talk in the weird accent that Matt use in Episode III.
 * Wood's inclusion in the film was a last-minute sorta affair, Tartakovsky simply didn't know what Grievous would sound like, and guessed. Tam 13:37, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Corpse
"The corpse of General Grievous lay on the Utapau landing platform with a charred ring around it, and even the Utapaun birds of prey would not touch his remains." Nice wording (almost Tolkienesque) but could we get a source on that? -- SFH 23:40, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I also thought that was a bit... strange. It doesn't really add anything to the article, so I say remove the "...and the Utapaun birds of prey would not touch his remains" part and add what's left to the previous paragraph. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:43, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think its intent was to show that Grievous had become so evil that even nature itself wouldn't take him. However, there wasn't much left of his body left to begin with, nor was there after his death (that has to have been the most violent death I have ever seen in a Star Wars film). -- SFH 00:17, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * The line comes from the Revenge of the Sith novel. As Obi-Wan makes his way to Grievous' fighter, he notices that his corpse is still there and that not even the birds can stomach him. TIEPilot051999 00:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's an official source. I'll add it back in. -- SFH 00:48, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just finished reading it the other day. TIEPilot051999

Audiocast Not In-Universe
Should the audiocast section of the article really be considered In-Universe? In the audiocast himself he's saying Halloween phrases like "Trick or Treat" (since the purpose of the audiocast is to play it with your Halloween dioramas outside your door on Halloween). It also doesn't mention anything about the Holonet. This part should be added to Behind the Scenes.

Done and doneTIEPilot051999


 * "You fool! A real villain has no use for candy!" :) Erik Pflueger 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay... Admiral J. Nebulax 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You see, Jack, that was from the Halloween audiocast, and I thought it was funny and uh... uhhh... Yeah. Erik Pflueger 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Images
This article is far too image-heavy, and too light on actual text. Can we get this sorted? QuentinGeorge 04:56, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How about that? I think the problem was mainly that the images were bunched up together. I spread them out and got rid of two of them. --beeurd 13:57, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

i like the new pictures. they need to stay Seriously though... ELEVEN images? ELEVEN? Spast, that's only two shy of Luke friggin' Skywalker, whose article is literally over TWICE the length of ol' Qymaen's here. Eight of Grievous's images are practically touching each other. And I spot four-- right off the bat, without needing to think twice about it-- that are completely redundant. I don't think there's enough text here to justify this much imagery. Take that for what it's worth. SM-716 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They are staying. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:25, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Grievous and Terak similarities?
Has anyone ever noticed the striking similarity of Grievous to Terak? I mean, similar voices, similar ways of death (both were burned alive from the inside due ro an attack. Adamwankenobi 13:44, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * They are similar. But was that needed, really? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:21, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but I thought I might point out (for those who have never noticed) the strange similarities between the two. :) General Kenobi 08:41, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Image:GRIEVOUS SABER COLLECTION.jpg

 * What's wrong with it? It's not any less visible than the other pics... --Master Starkeiller 13:25, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see two lightsabers, but the rest of the image is completely dark. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:27, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see it clearly in both my computers, just checked it in the other one. Your screen might need some tweaking, I dunnow... Anyone else who can't see it? --Master Starkeiller 13:29, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind; it must have been a glare. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:30, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Better now? I brightened it. --Master Starkeiller 19:54, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * A million times better.
 * Excellent. Thank you, Starkeiller. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:43, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Master Starkeiller 22:11, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I know I might be asking too many questions, but could you make it a tad bit lighter? It seems darker all of a sudden. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:37, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the lightest I can go. --Master Starkeiller 12:03, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you anyway. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:32, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope this is better. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:21, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually worse. It's too bright and stands out in the article as an anomaly. --Master Starkeiller 13:36, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; it is too bright. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:08, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Better now? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:44, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Much better. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:37, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Mesa agree. Much-much better! --Master Starkeiller 14:29, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't act like Jar Jar, Starkeiller. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:38, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Mesa no acten like Jar-Jar. Mesa spake like Jar-Jar. Mooie-mooie, mesa loven takin' like Jar-Jar! --Master Starkeiller 15:44, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Just... stop. Please. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:47, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, you got something against Gunganspeak? Jar-Jar is fun when he speaks, he's only annoying when he acts like Goofy. --Master Starkeiller 15:49, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything against Gunganspeak; just a whole lot against Jar-Jar. But this is no place for a discussion about a Gungan. If you want to continue this, post on my Talk page. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:52, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Okie-dokie. http://forums.starwars.com/share/img/emoticons/devil.gif --Master Starkeiller 15:56, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Kalee
Does anybody know if theres' pictures of the Kaleesh without masks? I'm curious about what General Grievous looks like without his cybernetic body or his warlord mask.......-Stoll 7234

No such pictures exist, to my knowledge. - Angel Blue 451 04:30, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Grievous Resurrected...
Hey,why can't I make it where grievous can be resurrected? I mean,There isn't no law against fanon,so why can't I add something without you people deleting it,huh? -Stoll 7234
 * Actually, there is a law against fanon here. Unless it is canon, don't post it here. -- SFH 02:00, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Image
--DannyBoy7783 01:52, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Hi all, I just uploaded this image, it's San Hill transforming Grievous. It's from The Eyes of Revolution. Wouldn't this be great to add?--Themelle444 16:31, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesomne pic, just added it. --Master Starkeiller 17:46, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I had to move it a bit, since the one before it and this one were side-by-side. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:48, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sifo-Dyas Blood Transfusion
Grievous getting a transfusion of blood from a Jedi would've made him Force-sensitive (which we know to be untrue). The information comes from a source that is widely acknowledged as day dreaming with pictures (Visionaries). Should it really be in the Biography section? I say it should be relegated to the Behind the Scenes part of the article. --AdmThrawn 01:35, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because he got Sifo-Dyas' blood doesn't mean he became Force-sensitive. However, having only a rudimentary knowledge of the biology of the humans in the GFFA, I cannot say anything for certain. -- SFH 01:39, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that force sensativity is held in the blood cells?--DannyBoy7783 01:41, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, everything in Visionaries except Old Wounds is considered to be canon. And if getting Force-sensitivity were as easy as a blood transfusion, I think we'd be seeing a lot more make-your-own-Jedi running around.  - Lord Hydronium 01:44, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, an reptilian alien getting a blood transfusion from a human is ridiculous. Secondly, getting a blood transfusion from a Jedi would make you Force-sensitive. Midi-chlorians. Plus, that is excatly what the comic is suggesting. That the blood transfusion is what is responsible for Grievous' abilities (not his cyborg body). --AdmThrawn 01:45, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Go read the article on midichlorians AdmThrawn, it's in all the cells, not just blood cells. We don't know how force sensative Syfo-Dias was to begin with but it is likely that his blood alone wouldn't provide enough midichrlorians for Grievous to become force sensative. Also, the connection that his abilities are from the blood is vague at best. I have Visionaries and that story barely makes that connection. They simply say they are giving him the blood. They never say why. You are assuming.--DannyBoy7783 01:52, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * AdmThrawn, considering Humans don't give blood to aliens in real-life, we can't tell what would happen in Star Wars. Perhaps Grievous's blood is compatable with Human blood. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:52, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Either way, Abel G. is going to explain it in his new Grievous story. It said so on his blog, so this is not worth arguing over.--Xilentshadow900 14:12, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Until then, however, we argue. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax 14:45, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

N-K Necrosis and Grievous's Canonical Death
Say, was the Droid "Necrosis" really a droid ? If he is, then why is he listed under Cyborgs? Also about Grievous, I heard on Wikipedia that SuperShadow stated on his website that Grievous was executed by Darth Vader during Palpatine's purge while we can clearly see Obi-Wan Kenobi killed Grievous in the Episode III movie...So,Who is Supershadow really trying to fool ? -Stoll7234
 * SuperShadow is an infamous BSer. As a rule of thumb, don't believe ANYTHING he says, unless it's also stated by a reliable official source. JimRaynor55 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Real Name

 * Grievous' original name was Qymaen jai Sheelal. See here. QuentinGeorge 00:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I got all the redirects done...That was more redirects than I ever thought possible. Oh, Imperialles...WAIT FOR CONSENSUS NEXT TIME. -- SFH 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, consensus. Right. Sorry! :P --Imp 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's ok. If Thrawn is at the Chiss' real name, this should be too. QuentinGeorge 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I never thought his full name would be so... different. Of course, "Grievous" isn't exactly an actual name... Admiral J. Nebulax 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They had to make sure it was completely different from whatever SuperShadow was calling him, I suppose. 8) &mdash; Silly Dan 01:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the infobox title say "Qymaen jai Sheelal", then? Or going with the Thrawn pattern, "Qymaen jai Sheelal (Grievous)"? - Lord Hydronium 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His transformation is pretty extensive, more so than Anakin's tranformation into Vader... -LtNOWIS 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone went ahead and changed it. Does anyone else think "Grievous" should be at least mentioned there, like "Qymaen jai Sheelal, aka Grievous"?  I can picture someone arriving here, seeing the infobox first and thinking, "Wait, isn't that a picture of Grievous"?  Granted, it is in the first sentence, but the infobox title is even more prominent. - Lord Hydronium 06:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. QuentinGeorge 06:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I put it in as "Qymaen jai Sheelal, the feared General Grievous". If someone wants to reword it, they can, but I just wanted you to know it's in there. -- SFH 06:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it to display as "Qymaen jai Sheelal (General Grievous)". Adamwankenobi 06:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we replace that awful CG infobox picture with the pre-borg picture from Eyes of Revolution? --Imp 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Adamwankenobi 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The split between Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker is not only a function of the vast difference between the two, but also a product of the sheer amount of information available on the two. Sheelal/Grievous wouldn't warrant a split, IMO. --SparqMan 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion that we should merge those two, but oh well. QuentinGeorge 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Grievous' Kaleesh Elite
They're the Izvoshra. http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b10003/21238198/p13/?320 Rune Haako 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is correct, then it can be added. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote from "Clone Wars"
"Jedi. you are surrounded, your armies decimated. Make peace with the force now, for this is your final hour. But know that I, General Grievous, am not completely without mercy. I will grant you a warrior's death. Prepare."

- General Grievous to Ki-Adi Mundi and several other Jedi during the Battle of Hypori

Can we add this in somehow? Kalas Grengar 09:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Clone Wars section, perhaps. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first appearance section would be nice. I'll also add it to Quote:Grievous. -- SFH 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work, too. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Huk
" The Huks are actually aliens that you've seen before in a Star Wars film, it's just that nobody knew they were referred to as Huks." - Joe Corroney. Source: http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b10003/21238198/p14/?337 Rune Haako 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So why is this here? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They were Grievous' enemy. Rune Haako 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is talking about the Huks. There is a separate article for that. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

SuperShadow stuff
If Qymaen jai Sheelal is his real name, why does the bio say "Grievous Shakar"? Me smells Supershadow fans a-lurking!
 * Reverted it. Stupid anons don't give up. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

List
I propose changing the "Lightsabers" list to a list of Jedi Kills in general. I've got Unknown Soldier in front of me and I'd like to add info from that list, but it doesn't specifically address whose sabers he took. Anyone have a problem with that? CooperTFN 01:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. -- SFH 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Enough for me. CooperTFN 02:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for him taking all the sabers from Geonosis? That seems incredibly unlikely, and US certainly doesn't help its case. CooperTFN 02:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in LoE. And I also agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we make it "Jedi Kills and Lightsabers appropriated"? Since then we can add that he had Darth Zannah's... QuentinGeorge 08:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thelightsaber
What info on this page came from thelightsaber.com? Because not only is that site not official, it's also well-known for posting dubious amounts of fanon (e.g. Dara Jade and Darth Nemesis) - Kwenn 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the Behind the Scenes info. But the site really isn't official, and I apologize for putting it back in. And just a note: I didn't put it in in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Title (again)
As has been done on the wikipedia page, why is this article not titled Grievous or General Grievous? Isn't the policy supposed to be on the most recent name? Are we interpreting General Grievous as an alias or as a real name that he took on, such as Vader, Zannah, and Lumpawaroo? Cull Tremayne 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We're treating this the same we have Thrawn. QuentinGeorge 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The real name should be the title, but there are exceptions. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How are we treating it as Thrawn? Mitth'raw'nuruodo is the full name of Thrawn. How is Qymaen jai Sheelal like that? Why is Grievous the exception? Shouldn't he follow the same rules as Darth Bane? Cull Tremayne 00:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Qymaen jai Sheelal is Grievous's full name. Mitth'raw'nuruodo is Thrawn's. Both articles are titled as such.--DannyBoy7783 00:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Qymaen jai Sheelal is not Grievous' full name. It is his name from his life before his disfigurement and time as a cyborg. That is what I was trying to convey. Grievous is not a nickname of Qymaen's as far as I know. It is his assumed name after becoming a cyborg. If this is the case, then shouldn't Darth Bane's article be titled Dessel? Cull Tremayne 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be at Dessel. --Imp 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lumiya too? To quote Sparqman

''I thought that when faced with two semi-equal names, the convention was to go with the one the character used last, similar to using the last held rank/title. She began as Shira Brie, but became Lumiya. Is that incorrect?'' Just replace the Lumiya parts with the Bane or Grievous scenario. But then again maybe he's mistaken? Cull Tremayne 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC) No. As an encyclopedia, we should have the actual name as the title, even if they did change their name.
 * In that case, Lumiya and Darth Bane are correct, since that is their "latest" name. This page, however, in that case should be at Grievous (since he abandoned his original name). QuentinGeorge 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it all boils down to the question. Is Grievous an alias, or did Qymaen actually change his name? QuentinGeorge 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In The Eyes of Revolution, Qymaen cuts down his fake Ivoshra and yells, I AM NOT A DROID! I AM GENERAL GRIEVOUS! If this isn't forsaking his former identity, I don't know what is. Cull Tremayne 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the page should be at Grievous, if we're sticking to our policy....and our article seems to indicate that, since it explicitly says he abandoned his name BEFORE he became a cyborg. QuentinGeorge 05:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So is it good to change it? Is this consensus? Or perhaps we should wait a bit longer for further opinion? Cull Tremayne 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's hold off for a while. Our policy seems all over the place (based on comments here, and at Darth Bane's article), so I'd like to get an explicity statement of the consensus so everyone understands. QuentinGeorge 05:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool Beans. (What does that even mean?) Sure wish we had a consensus policy. Cull Tremayne 05:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Articles should be at their original name, no matter what, unless a character's original name is unknown. Darth Bane and Lumiya should redirect to the proper name. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See the Talk: Darth Bane page, QG has said that the policy is that article names belongs at the most accurate version of the last name they held. For Qymaen it's Grievous. However, still being debated I see. Cull Tremayne 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because this is an encyclopedia. All entries should have their title as the actual name, as it is here with Grievous. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What? They don't do that with Marilyn Monroe do they? The fact of the matter is that when they change their name that becomes the title they are addressed as in encyclopedic articles. For Qymaen, that name is Grievous. Cull Tremayne 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to agree with Tremayne: Samuel Clemens' Wikipedia article is at Mark Twain, Charles Dodgson's is at Lewis Carrol, William Jefferson Clinton's is at Bill Clinton, Russel Jones' is at Ol' Dirty Bastard, Bruce Wayne's is at Batman, etc., etc. I think this should be moved back to Grievous, and Darth Bane's should stay at Darth Bane. &mdash; Silly Dan 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No way, Grievous is an adopted name. Our palpatine article is the same as the Darth sidious article. And Grievous still retained his other personal memories, as can be shown with his face mask, his Magnaguards, and his hatred towards the Huk. Nope, this is Qymaen jai Sheelal, not Grievous.--Xilentshadow900 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He changed his name before he became a cyborg, so him retaining memories doesn't matter at all. Cull Tremayne 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He was Qymaen jai Sheelal. He used the nickname "Grievous" even before he became a cyborg. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this addressed to me? What am I wrong about? I said that exact same thing. Cull Tremayne 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to say right. But nonetheless, he was born Qymaen jai Sheelal and lived a life as a warlord with this name. He later change it to Grievous, became a cyborg, etc. He was Sheelal before Grievous. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, confused me there for a second. Cull Tremayne 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article should be under Grievous. After all, that's the name he's more commonly known as. I don't quite like this new idea of placing characters under their real names, especially under the case of Mitth'raw'nuruodo who is more commonly known as Thrawn to Star Wars fans, as well as being his lastest name. I think we should just stick to the previous policy of naming the characters under their LASTEST and MOST well-known names. Divinity 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal: The way I see it, this will cause more anons to add the fanon Grievous name if it's moved back. I know that we might still get it here, but this shows his real name and proves SuperShadow is a complete fraud. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's a good reason. CooperTFN 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that sarcasm? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. CooperTFN 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checking... ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a good point there Jack.--Xilentshadow900 22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as the more popular version of character's names redirect to the relevant article, I don't see why we can't use birth names. The text always explains the name change anyway, so there won't be any confusion - Kwenn 22:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Kwenn. You could search for Grievous, and thanks to redirects, you'd get the exact name of him. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think that Supershadow should influence our decision. Is that the only reason that we should keep it as his obscure former name? Since when have we been afraid of anons anyway? There's always a huge group of people here willing to switch it. Cull Tremayne 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The SuperShadow thing would be a bonus; the multiple actual reasons for leaving it here have already been stated - birth name, name used longer, no proof of a "legal" change to Grievous, Thrawn precedent, redirects take care of the confused, etc. I wouldn't lose any sleep if this were at Grievous, but I don't think Mark Twain and Batman on Wikipedia are a convincing enough reason; this wiki has a different function than the primary one. Wikipedia also begins all its GFFA articles with "...was a fictional character in the Star wars universe", so obviously precedent there ≠ precedent here. CooperTFN 02:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It does convince me, however, that people writing an encyclopedia in the GFFA would probably put his article under Greivous, so we probably should as well. (People in the DCU would, of course, have separate articles for Batman and Bruce Wayne. 8) ) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. As an encyclopedia with all of these characters, an article should be at the original name. Now, if that means moving half of the articles to another name, I'm with it. If someone goes looking for Grievous's real name, they're most likely to type in "Grievous", and they'll be able to see his real name, since it would be the appropiate title of the article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that we are going to place characters under their ORIGINAL names, should we do the same for the other articles, such as moving Padmé Amidala to Padmé Naberrie, Leia Organa Solo to Leia Amidala Skywalker, as well as Tenel Ka to Tenel Ka Chume Ta' Djo? Since these are technically their original names. Divinity 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, would Leia have been called that? Padmé didn't take Anakin's surname, because their marriage was a secret. So Leia would not have been called Skywalker. But yes, I believe we should move those pages, again, as long as there is an explaination within the text - Kwenn 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, even thought Leia was born a Skywalker, she did not know that she was one until ROTJ as she was taken shortly after birth by Bail Organa, and therefore due to that adoption, Leia's surname became Organa. So which means moving Leia Organa Solo to Leia Amidala Skywalker ISN'T really such a good idea because Leia had never called herself by her birth name. Even after discovering her heritage, she still continued to use Organa as her name, and later Organa Solo after her marriage to Han Solo. As for Padmé, yes I know that she did not took Anakin's surname, but since she was Padmé Naberrie before she became Amidala, we should move her article to that name since that was the original name she used before entering politics. Divinity 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Leia could stay where it is now, I suppose. And Padmé should be moved. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still say that if we're going to have a "real" look to the wiki then we should have it look like an encyclopedia. Real people have their last known name as the title. If someone wants to know Grievous' real name they'll type in Grievous, come to his page and in the first sentence they'll see born Qymaen jai Sheelal. It's just seems backward to have it another way, it's like keeping the Iron Fist at Brawl, it makes no sense to me. Also as Divinity said, if that's the precedent we're going to set, better remove all assumed titles then as well. No Solo for Leia Organa, no Skywalker tacked onto the end of Mara Jade etc. Cull Tremayne 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, Cull Tremayne! Anyway, before we move those pages, I think we should discuss this further and come to a consensus before we can do anything about it. Cause I don't quite like this idea of naming the articles by their real names. If the character is more commonly referred to another name other than the original name, in the case of Grievous, we should just stick to that name, whether or not they are original. If we want to include that Grievous' real name, we can just do so by - like what Cull Tremayne said - placing it in the article itself. Otherwise the whole thing does seem kinda backward, especially to many fans. Divinity 16:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. As an encyclopedia, we should have the actual name as the title, even if they did change their name. However, "Leia Organa Solo" and "Mara Jade Skywalker" are perfectly fined because they got married. If you search for "Grievous", as I said, you'll find the article on him with his actual name. Something like "born Qymaen jai Sheelal" is pointless when it could be "later known as Grievous" or something like that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I say we move this to Consensus Track, since it's getting quite long and has potentially far-reaching implications. CooperTFN 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Divinity 17:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, if we're still talking about Grievous, we should keep talking about him here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Too many characters to whom this discussion would apply (Darth Bane, Lumiya, Mara Jade, etc., have all been mentioned.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the discussion on Grievous could remain, right? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not like we're erasing it. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, but will the discussion for Grievous continue here or not? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a different policy on this field. President Roosevelt (not the Theodore) is under Franklin D. Roosevelt, not Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Same goes for Kennedy, he is under John Kennedy, not John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Bill Clinton is under Bill Clinton not under William whatever Clinton. - TopAce 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * TopAce, are you referring to using middle names in article titles? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree to moving it to consensus track. Jack Nebulax, is there a reason why you want it to stay at Qymaen jai Sheelal?

But that's wrong, an encyclopedia keeps it at the last known name if they changed their name.

However, "Leia Organa Solo" and "Mara Jade Skywalker" are perfectly fined because they got married.

Right, but that's not their birth name, their name changed, just like Qymaen jai Sheelal's did, so by your reasoning they should stay at their original birth names.

Something like "born Qymaen jai Sheelal" is pointless when it could be "later known as Grievous" or something like that.

I still say that seems backward, an encyclopedia doesn't do it like that. It's pointless to have it that way when all encyclopedic articles use the last known name and then tell the birth name in the article. Cull Tremayne 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a reason. Actually, reasons. First of all, this has been the name we've been waiting for for a while. I'd hate to see the article moved back to "Grievous" when we know his real name. Also, by keeping it here, it shows that this is in fact that correct name, and that SuperShadow is a liar, as I had stated above. Also, Grievous did have a life before becoming a cyborg, and during most of that life, he was Qymaen jai Sheelal, not Grievous. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * However, his name is Grievous. As much as I hate to admit it, Supershadow's site is not completely full of lies (just mostly, like adding Shakar as a last name). It really has no bearing on the situation that Qymaen had a life before his name change and becoming a cyborg. Mara Jade had a life before she became Mara Jade Skywalker, Leia Organa had a life before she became Leia Organa Solo, Shira Brie had a life before becoming Lumiya. It's unencyclopedic to keep it as his former name when he himself acknowledged himself as Grievous, others called him that, and he died with the name. Cull Tremayne 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There. How about continuing the debate here where more than three people will see it? CooperTFN 18:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually wonder how many more people will see it there. Probably all the people involved in this debate will be in that one. Anyhow, moving along... :P Cull Tremayne 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. While they are the same, Qymaen jai Sheelal and Grievous had many "different lives" under each name, as is the same with Shira Brie/Lumiya. While this might be a bad suggestion, how about having the article titled "Qymaen jai Sheelal/Grievous"? That way, both sides get what they want. The same could be done with Lumiya's. As for Mara Jade and Leia Organa, the only thing that happened to their names was that they received new last names when they got married. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, it seems to me that this is almost like the Vader/Anakin case. Is splitting it into two different pages too drastic a change for you? I guess I could live with the Slash between the two names, however unencyclopedic that might look to me. Even if the character has drastically different lifestyles under different names, encyclopedias keep it as the last name. Like I said with Marilyn Monroe, before she was an international sex symbol, she was called Norma Jean and had a drastically different life than when she was a famous movie star. Does that mean that the article in an encyclopedia will list it as Norma Jean/Marilyn Monroe? However, if that's as far a compromise as we're going to get, I guess I can settle for the slash between names. Cull Tremayne 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually thought that you'd be completely against it. I just thought about it, and decided to say it because we needed to end this here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there more to be said on this? We have agreed that this page should be at Grievous correct? I'll wait for further comments, but it seems to me that from the discussion on the Consensus track, that this page should be at Grievous. If no one replies, I'll assume you agree and change it tomorrow. Cull Tremayne 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I refuse to let this be moved. It would be a disgrace to have it as "Grievous" when we've waited so long for his actual name. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the consensus is to stick with their final most well known names. It doesn't matter if you "refuse" to let it be changed. Are you saying that you will not let it be changed to Grievous even when the consensus is that it should be at Grievous? Cull Tremayne 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not change articles like that. But, the name we have been waiting for for so long should be this article's title. I don't care about the rest of the articles. I care about this article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And? I also care about this article, and I would like to see it be as encyclopedic as possible. Whether or not I would prefer it to be at Grievous is not the issue and is not why I brought up the discussion. That's not what this should be about. It should be about being consistent and having the wiki conform to an encyclopedic standard. Also, I wasn't trying to insult your "editing techniques", but when you say something like you "refuse to let this be moved" I see an inability to compromise and a closemindedness that I didn't think you had. Cull Tremayne 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While we all have the better of the article in mind, I disagree with your point of view, Cull Tremayne. I speak to all of you and ask you to not move this article back because this article, as I see it, represents a great accomplishment. Under the title Grievous, we learned about an alien cyborg who was Supreme Commander of the Droid Armies. But when we learned his actual name, we learned his history before the Clone Wars. Before becoming a cyborg. Before he was a major enemy to the Republic. Qymaen jai Sheelal lived before Grievous, and I believe that the title of this article should reflect that. He was a Kaleesh before he became a cyborg, and a great warlord before he became a Separatist general. This is why I said I refuse for this to be moved. It's not "an inability to compromise" or "a closemindedness". Some still might say that this page can be under Grievous because his past history, as well as his name, will always be here. This is true. But whether or not he changed his name, Qymaen jai Sheelal's past remains Qymaen jai Sheelal's past alone. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very eloquently put I must say. However, I disagree with your analysis. Qymaen jai Sheelal was just a man before becoming Grievous, the destroyer of worlds. No one would care a lick in the GFFA if he stayed Qymaen jai Sheelal. He would have just been another outmatched warrior on a backwater planet. His love for Ronderu lij Kummar and his love for all Kalee is what made him change his name to Grievous. His passion and his sorrow for his home planet and his people is exemplified in the name Grievous. As Qymaen jai Sheelal he was a great warrior, but as Grievous he was the passion and ferocity of an entire world, of an entire species. As has been said, his cyborg nature may be associated with Grievous, but that was not the reason for the name Grievous. Jack, I understand the reasons for wanting it at Qymaen jai Sheelal, but when consensus is reached to change it to Grievous and you say something to the effect of "Who cares about consensus and consistency, I like this article the way it is." That's (in my opinion) being closeminded. Cull Tremayne 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire debate was started for this page only, which is why I did not follow it to the consensus track. I assure you, I am not closeminded. I believe that keeping the article at Qymaen jai Sheelal, no matter what the consensus track decides, would greater benefit this article than having it at Grievous. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you did go there and vote did you not? I'm just trying to say that there are valid reason for having it at either Grievous or Qymaen jai Sheelal. You and I have both given reasons as to where the article should be, but if your trump card to keep it at Qymaen is just because you think so, I don't think that's right. First because it insults my arguments and efforts to have the page changed, and secondly because it devalues the whole point for debate in the first place. Cull Tremayne 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "...but if your trump card to keep it at Qymaen is just because you think so...". No, that's not it. As I said above, I believe that keeping it here would greater benefit the article. But, I suggest that we wait for some other opinions here before deciding what to do with this article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I believe that keeping it here would greater benefit the article. Right, because you think so. I agree with you that we need some other opinions though. Cull Tremayne 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's my opinion. I'm not ordering it. I'm suggesting it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And I was not suggesting that you were ordering it, I was just backing up my first statement (the trump card one). Cull Tremayne 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully someone else will post their opinion soon. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally think we should go with Grievous, simply because once he'd become the Separatist general he basically abandoned his old Kaleesh name; "Qymaen jai Sheelal" meant nothing to him, just as "Anakin Skywalker" meant nothing to Darth Vader. --MarcK [talk] 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not compare this to Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, because they have two separate articles. I don't think we want the same done for this. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. Seems to me its the easiest way to solve this problem. After all, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader, psychologically speaking, are two different people. If we were to apply the same logic to this situation, then its pretty obvious that Qymaen jai Sheelal and General Grievous are not.TIEPilot051999 08:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why I said that we shouldn't compare this situation to Anakin/Vader. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've spent some time thinking about this, and I think I've come up with a way to solve this that will (hopefully) please everyone. Anyone interested?TIEPilot051999 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Something new or something already mentioned? I don't think we're going to be able to please everyone on this. Cull Tremayne 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not have one article for General Grievous and one for Qymaen jai Sheelal?--Rune Haako 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh God no. There's not enough information to do an article split. And whould you spit it out already, TIEPilot051999? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking that for the introduction, we could just refer to him as "Grievous", without any mention of Qymaen jai Sheelal. Then, in the "Early Life", we put something to the effect of "Although known to the majority of the galaxy as the cyborg General Grievous, he was born Qymaen jai Sheelal, a reptilian Kaleesh." We then refer to him as Sheelal until we get to the stuff that references "The Eyes of Revolution", where we mention the whole "I am not a droid" situation, adding that he "apparently abandoned his former life" or something to that effect.TIEPilot051999 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but how does that resolve the dispute over the title of the page? Cull Tremayne 18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it will allow the article's title to be "Grievous" without having people debate it.TIEPilot051999 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The introduction has to have his actual name anyway. That's not a good idea. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * At least I'm trying, here. You can't fault me for that, can you?TIEPilot051999 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, this discussion is about the title of the article, not the introductory paragraph. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * His birthname should be in the first sentence, even if we do put it back at Grievous. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the sake of ending this debate, move it back to Grievous and change the introductory paragraph accordingly. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, though wasn't really sure how to word the opening paragraph, fell free to change it if you think of something more appropriate. Cull Tremayne 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed opening sentence. And by the way, you're welcome. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D Cull Tremayne 00:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image

 * Hi, I just uploaded this picture from Star Wars visionaries is good enough to add? [[Image:Grievous tank.JPG|thumb]]
 * I'd say it's good enough. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice pic. --Master Starkeiller 13:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unknown Jedi kills?
Can I add these to the list?--Rune Haako 14:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 26 Unknown Jedi - killed over Belderone
 * 1 Unknown Jedi - killed over Coruscant when Grievous ordered a disabling burst from the Invisible Hand on his shuttle and three pursing Jedi starfighters, destroying one of them in the process.
 * 1 Unknown Dark Jedi - killed on Dica or Necropolis

I went ahead and added them, if that's not ok someone can fix it.
 * It would helped if we knew their names. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there was an unknown kill above Dac, An Abyssin, in General Greivous Ruffles 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was above Dac, but you're right. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that Quarmall, or is it a different Abyssin?--Rune Haako 00:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be him, but I'm not sure. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't state his name, probably should leave it as unknown. Ruffles 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked about it on Quarmall's talk page. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If he's seen protecting the younglings, then I guess it's Quarmall.--Rune Haako 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did the name come from? It wasn't mentioned in the comic.Ruffles 01:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unknown Soldier: The Story of General Grievous. - Lord Hydronium 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "If he's seen protecting the younglings, then I guess it's Quarmall". Not really. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's definitely him; Unknown Soldier describes an Abyssin named Quarmall killed by Grievous whilst protecting younglings, and the Grievous comic shows an Abyssin (though not named) killed by Grievous whilst protecting younglings. It seems pretty ridiculous to think they could be two different people. --MarcK [talk] 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While it probably is Quarmall, do we have any proof to say that they were the same? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could Grievous have killed Master Ruati?--Rune Haako 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The constant vandalism on this page is beginning to wear on my patience. Seeing as most of the info on General Grievous is already here, can we lock this page?--Xilentshadow900 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What vandalism? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The changes to Jedi kills, among other things.--Xilentshadow900 11:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

his lightsabers used in the movie
The article lists that he uses replicas of ani's and obi's, and adi gallia's and ki-adi's.

but the novel lists that he uses the blades of K'Kruhk, Puroth, Nystammall, and Jmmaar. Master Secura
 * It's the handles that are Skywalker's, Kenobi's, Gallia's, and Ki-Adi-Mundi's, because they were just re-used for Grievous's, apparently. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Qymaen jai Sheelal (though he was actually going by Grievous then) killed any Jedi?
Of the 50 Jedi Knights and Masters that showed up on Kalee during The Huk War?--Rune Haako 18:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Grievous was a dangerous fighter, but his fighting skills were augmented by his transformation into a cyborg. As Qymaen jai Sheelal, he probably would have been killed, but he would have made the Jedi who did earn it. -- SFH 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Especially since most of those Jedi were ones he killed later (they reappear in the General Grievous comic) QuentinGeorge 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)