Talk:Mitth'raw'nuruodo/Legends

Name
Now just how many people are actually going to search for him using his real name? The title is fine as it is. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * While most fans refer to this character as "Grand Admiral Thrawn", titling the article by his full name (or at least just Thrawn) and having "Grand Admiral Thrawn" redirect would seem more encyclopedic in nature. This is a larger issue overall, but this seems to be a popular article (and a popular character), so why not start here? --SparqMan 06:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Move it to Mitth'raw'nurodo. We should name char articles by their name, not rank or title.--Eion 07:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I definitely think articles should point to names, not rank and names. People change ranks all the time, including our mains (should we be searching for Captain Solo or General Solo?).  Thrawn's a touchier issue; I'd normally say go with full name, but Thrawn is FAR better known by his core name than his full name of Mitth'raw'nuruodo, and anyone who would know to type *that* into a search engine (and pull it off without misspelling it!) already probably knows as much about the character as the article. ;-) JSarek 07:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have Redirect pages. There is already one from Thrawn to Grand Admiral Thrawn. We shouldn't consider popularity in article names, only whether the name is correct.--Eion 07:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the name IS correct; it's a legitimate form of his name, and the name under which he served in the Imperial Navy, the time when the bulk of his known biographical data is from. JSarek 07:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, plus the whole Chiss public/private name thing; I see where you're going. Agree. Thrawn is the correct choice.--Eion 07:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are two spoiler tags necessary in one article? --Fade 13:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * maybe not his full name, but why not remove his rank. We also knew him as a commander, and captain--Eion 14:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. JSarek 18:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about keeping the article at his full name, and instead have plenty of redirects? That way, anyone searching for Thrawn gets redirected to his full name. --Imp 18:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No opinions? --Imp 22:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say. He took the name "Thrawn" and used it himself more commonly than his full Chiss name. By used I mean that he must have introduced himself as such to his subordinates, or they would not call him "Grand Admiral Thrawn". When characters choose to alter their name (like with Lumpwaroo or Lumiya), we have to decide which name to use. My mind isn't made up in this case and it may warrant community discussion before setting a precedent. --SparqMan 03:24, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Focus
The current state of the article is a good example of shaky encyclopedic style. For example, instead of saying," About ten years later, Luke Skywalker and Mara Jade discovered that, hidden on the planet Nirauan in the Unknown Regions, Thrawn's most devoted followers held a fortress called the Hand of Thrawn" it might say "Thrawn used the Spaarti cloning technology that support his campaign against the New Republic to create a clone of himself. Although it was destroyed by Luke Skywalker and Mara Jade before enter animation..." etc. It can be difficult, but we must write the article about the topic, not merely its relation to major protagonists. --SparqMan 00:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Chronological Order
Shouldn't the article be written in chronological order of Thrawn's career and life rather than in the order of his appearances in Lucas-owned media (i.e. Heir to the Empire information comes before TIE Fighter information, yet the events of the PC game took place before the novel)? I could rewrite it to be such, but I wanted to make certain there wasn't a reason the order in which the article is currently.--SOCL 13:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The current order is probably a remnant of the older 'out of universe' perspectives. Either way, it should be in chronological order (as you would expect in a biography). Just make sure you proof-read if you do change it, as you seem to make lots of little mistakes here and there.--Fade 14:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking of chronological, as I touched on above, should it mention his establishment of the Hand of Thrawn before his campaign against the New Republic, rather than when we discovered it?--SparqMan 20:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding right then yes, as I gather that you're referring to a plot device meaning that it was secret from everyone else until a certain point, which would have no bearing on the fact that it actually happened/was set up before it was discovered by protagonists. --Fade 15:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like some comments on the timeline here: http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Thrawn/Temp - I think there are some pieces missing from SparqMan's review.Prime 02:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your link was broken,, the correct link is http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Thrawn/temp -- Riffsyphon1024 02:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please add anything you find missing on the outline I made. I plan to rewrite the article to include a chronological flow (acknowledging the discrepencies on when he was promoted to Grand Admiral), and pull out a section on his strategy and personality. --SparqMan 15:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redo
I put up the bare basics of a rewritten article. It is missing many smaller references, in part because I didn't have them on hand, and also due to the difficult chronology of Thrawn's story. If you feel comfortable, please add in details. --SparqMan 15:36, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Succession box
I have removed that "Emperor" succession box. At no point did Thrawn claim the title of, style himself as, aspire to be, nor receive proclamation as tthe Emperor. Let's keep that kind of fan expansionism out. --SparqMan 17:46, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * True; however, it could be argued that during what has been referred to as his "shogunate," he was Emperor de facto if not de jure.Thanos6 18:18, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but would a shogun show up on a list of Emperors? jSarek 18:20, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Arguably, if the Imperial throne was vacant (as it was), and the shogun was the highest-ranking ruler left (as, when Thrawn reappeared, all of Isard's support as Empress disappeared).Thanos6 18:24, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, the Imperial throne *wasn't* vacant, as Palpatine had been reborn on Byss by this stage. QuentinGeorge 21:27, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * But Palpatine wasn't RULING THE EMPIRE, nor did he until the events of DE.Thanos6 22:19, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Warlord Zsinj possessed a sizeable fleet while no one sat on the throne, along with several other warlords, moffs, et al. The people that could you could argue for inclusion on that list beyond Palpatine (original and clone) would be Sate Pestage and perhaps Isard. --SparqMan 21:36, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The warlords, though, did not have the support of the Inner Circle on Coruscant (as Pestage and Isard and, yes, Thrawn did). And the grand moffs, the other legitimate arm of the government, supported Trioculus and Kadann.  Anyway, I suggest a compromise: list Thrawn as "Emperor (de jure)".Thanos6 22:19, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * That is still incorrect. Thrawn had no role in the political workings of the Empire, nor any political or independent financial support. He was a Grand Admiral, and commanded the fleet remnants made available to him. Nothing more. --SparqMan 22:43, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yuuzhan Vong
Do we know for a fact that Thrawn encountered the Yuuzhan Vong, or is that a revisionist theory? -- SFH 16:20, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we've seen an IU confirmation of that, but Zahn has said it's what he meant, but couldn't reveal NJO information at the time. That too could be revisionist. --SparqMan 17:29, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New Picture, Please?
Could we please for the sake of everything that is good and pure get a different picture for Thrawn, other than the one that looks like it might as well be some dip in a Halloween costume? I'm just begging on the grounds of decency...--Spanky The Dolphin 03:12, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with it. It's the only photo we got of him, it's the same one the Databank uses, so we might as well keep it. --Master Starkeiller 07:26, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a pair of pictures that look much better than the one we have in the article, including one that's format matches the same drawing style as the one used for the other grand admirals...I just don't know how to upload pictures...--SOCL 16:31, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Go to the "upload file" option at the toolbox, or through "Special Pages". Then click "upload", browse for the pic, add a description, a or a  or a  or a  and upload it. --Master Starkeiller 18:06, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)