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)

Coming back to this months later, we have established a strong precedent for naming articles after their true names. Unlike the Wookiee renaming tradition, Mitth'raw'nuruodo's use of "Thrawn" was to make life easier for Basic-speaking non-Chiss. I suggest we move this to Mitth'raw'nuruodo. --SparqMan 21:27, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:08, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't. In the manual of style, it is conflicting with itself within this article. It says to have newer names and what they were best known as, which would be Thrawn, but it also says real names over nicknames, which would be his funkalicious Chiss name.  We need to decide, but I think Thrawn would be better.  On Grievous, we chose Grievous over Queen Jack Sh**bag or whatever it was (sorry to be so blunt).  For Twi'lek names, (namely Aayla Secura) we use their core basic names.  We should do the same for the Chiss.  Have we heard anbody but a Chiss call him that?  If they're the ones who said it was a nickname, it may be more because of patriotism (the Chiss are very prideful).--Vladius Magnum
 * My humble opinion is that the title should be the real name, with redirects of course. But the usage in the article should be the common used name. As a bad example: read the article Tyber Zann. "Mitth'raw'nuruodo" and "Jabba the Hutt" are named in one textblock. Normally "Jabba Desilijic Tiure" should be used instead of "Jabba the Hutt". But I think it is better to use the names "Thrawn" and "Jabba the Hutt" in articles' texts. My main point is to avoid the who-the-Dark-Side-is-this?-effect while reading the article. Additionally these names are normally easier to write and read. What do you guys think?--TeakHoken84.173.21.222 11:36, 27 November 2006 (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)
 * All I remember them ever saying about possibilites of conflict with the Yuuzhan Vong, was (rough translation)"He said there were things in the unknown regions that could be far worse than the Empire or anything else. Maybe he was preparing the New Republic for this."--OompaLoompa of DOOM 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In Outbound Flight he mentions that he has incountered "Far Outsiders." I don't remember the exact passage, but it was pretty clear he was revering to the Vong. -- Din's Fire 997
 * Now we know that, since Outbound Flight came out. As you'll notice, the discussion originally ended on April 25. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:52, 3 June 2006 (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) in "Summary", check "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Star Wars copyright", and upload it. --Master Starkeiller 18:06, 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 "Browse" and browse for the pic or just write the filename, add a description and a or a  or a  or a


 * While the image is a bit tacky, I think we should find a place for Image:Thrawn.jpg because it represents the only canon, non-illustration image of Thrawn. The ugly Mara Jade, Talon Karrde and Corran Horn "real person" images have made it up. I think this image should too. --SparqMan 02:19, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Could we also get rid of that horrible cg picture of him. It looks like somebody got bored, and decided to make a skin of him for some computer game. The piture is also horrible quality. Darth Benobi 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it is horrible, it shows Thrawn at a time frame that we have no picture of him in, so I say we keep it. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could someone at least look into getting a better screen shot? I've seen other screen shot pictures on this site, and they don't look that bad. Even a background would help. Darth Benobi 12:05, 25 April 2006(UTC)

Personaly I like the one from "The New Essentail Guide to Charictres". it's a very nice full body Image and would be perfect for the lead image tnu 2:48, 29 April 2006(UTC)
 * Could you upload it for us? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

http://pluto.spaceports.com/~lms/tmis6.html

this one's a really nice one.... sorry i was so late getting it here i had to take care of stuff over the past few days

User: tnu
 * Well, first it would have to be uploaded. But I don't think it should be the main image. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 16:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not Praytell?

[User: tnu]
 * That's not a really good image of him. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the next best thing would be the Image used in the Comand Style section of his Article

Galaxies
Isn't he in one of the Galaxies expansion packs? Kuralyov 14:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never played the games, but I remeber reading something about a Captain Thrawn somewhere. I'll get back to you on that. -- SFH 20:18, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * My brother actually has a screenshot of Captain Thrawn back from when he used to play the game, so yeah, he's in it.--Spanky The Dolphin 23:59, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you post it here? Kuralyov 00:59, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC, he hangs around the Emperor's Retreat on Naboo. QuentinGeorge 05:06, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Well really the Next best thing would be the Image used in the Comand Style Section of his article. [[User:Tnu}}

Sorry wrong one

Lead in quote
This article needs a good lead in quote, but I can't think of one that is note worthy or descriptive enough. -- SFH 20:18, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest "But....it was so artistically done" ? Gothymog 20:45, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Quotes have to be about the person. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:47, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs a lead in quotation. Most quotations I can find refering to Thrawn are rather disparaging. --SparqMan 00:10, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we could always add in a quote from the New Republic or something&mdash;a quote to show how bad a threat Thrawn was or something like that. If such a quote exists. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:15, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The Final Prophecy has a brilliant line; someone wonders what Thrawn would have made of the YV. Wedge answers - "Ground Vong." Then takes a beat, and adds, "If he could have gotten hold of an example of their art, of course.... " --86.131.253.100 00:55, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How about the "just call me Thrawn" but from Mist Enconter? Of course I can't remember exactly what the Imperial said before that...That NJO quote sounds good, too. Kuralyov 01:00, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the quote need to be full of praise? He may have been worthy of admiration, but lets not forget that, in the end, Thrawn was a villian. But since I'm not able to think of a good quote myself, I'll take what I can get. -- SFH 01:12, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thrawn's villiany is debateable. Certainly he was the antagonist of the Thrawn trilogy, but being an effective and loyal Imperial officer doesn't necessarily make him a villain.
 * Also keep in mind SW seems to be trending toward ambiguity lately. Consider Darth Revan- when you compare Thrawn and Revan the similarities are striking, especially when you consider the Chiss and Thrawn's mini-Empire he seems to have built up in preparation for the Vong; Revan does much the same thing vis-a-vis the Old Republic and the Old Sith Smpire. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 03:04, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

--Master Starkeiller 21:52, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) "Grand Admiral Thrawn was undeniably one of the most capable, cunning soldiers the Emperor commanded. He was also one of the biggest enigmas in the Imperial military: a non-human given high rank in an intolerant, human dominated regime; a brilliant tactician who studied the customs and thought patterns of the peoples he conquered, yet whose own mind was unknown to those around him."
 * How's about, "When you understand a species' art, you understand that species." That at least sums up his strategic and tactical methods. --SparqMan 01:45, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. -- SFH 03:48, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer the The Final Prophecy one. --Master Starkeiller 11:14, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * What is that quote? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:22, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The Final Prophecy has a brilliant line; someone wonders what Thrawn would have made of the YV. Wedge answers - "Ground Vong." Then takes a beat, and adds, "If he could have gotten hold of an example of their art, of course.... " --86.131.253.100 00:55, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good, but we'd need the full quote, of course. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:59, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's a good line, but I don't think it works as a serious introductory quote about the character. Can anyone find the quote by Mara Jade from the original Thrawn Trilogy where she's explaining that the Grand Admirals were the best, and that Thrawn was the best of them?  jSarek 22:06, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll look for it. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:31, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this one, from The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook:

- Pollo Tipn, assistant to New Republic historian Voren Na'al

"This one is constantly thinking, analyzing, strategizing. He showed no fear, but was curious, studying me in turn."
 * That's perfect. I'll add it in. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:14, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It's far too long. It's also very boring and fails to sum up Thrawn in any poetic manner&mdash;it simply literally defines him. --SparqMan 15:36, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree it is a little long, I must disagree with your next points. Quotes are supposed to describe the person, as this one does. Whether it is boring or not poetic doesn't matter. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:54, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * All other quotes we have are either poetic or humorous. This is just a long dull paragraph. It sums Thrawn up perfectly, but still it's not right. --Master Starkeiller 19:25, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why quotes have to be poetic or humorous. It talks about Thrawn. But, since others disagree, I'll remove it. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:10, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a whole log entry from Palpatine about Thrawn in The Essential Guide to Alien Species, from which there are several possible quotes that are shorter and/or more humorous than Pollo's quote:

- Emperor Palpatine

"I am intrigued, to say the least. And I could see that he was as intrigued with me. I could sense that he did recognize me as a threat, but wasn't fearful of harm.  He simply studied me as a potential opponent."

- Emperor Palpatine

"I am amused. I believe I will watch his new career with interest."

- Emperor Palpatine


 * We should add all three of those in, along with or instead of the current one. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:41, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I really like the last one.TIEPilot051999 23:49, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if I had to choose, I'd say the first one, but I don't want to start a vote. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:50, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I know this really hasn't been talked about recently, but should we add the other quotes in somewhere? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is no disagreement, I'll add them in later. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if there is an appropriate place as a section head; we shouldn't have more than one quote in one place. jSarek 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't have that in mind. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ysalamir
While renditions of Grand Admiral Thrawn holding a ysalamir may be trivial, I think it deserves mention in the Behind the Scenes section. Because it is quite abundant actually, even when Joruus C'baoth was nowhere to be seen. -- SFH 15:53, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was actually going to add it back in after it was taken out, but I did not. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:56, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Are we going to add that Han Solo is usually shown wearing a white shirt, navy vest and navy pants? --SparqMan 17:46, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when have Ysalamiri been common fashion accessories? --Fade 18:04, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * SparqMan: If he is always shown with ysalamiri, it should be metioned. And as for your remark involving Han Solo, that would be plain stupid. Plus, he doesn't even wear that all the time. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:54, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the Thrawn Trilogy comic series he is often shown with one on his shoulder to protect himself from Luke Skywalker and Joruus C'baoth. I still fail to see why this deserves notation in "Behind the scenes". If you want to include an image with a ysalamir draped over his shoulders, it may be appropriate to note his common use of one during his final campaign in the caption. --SparqMan 20:59, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Then that should be done. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:41, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Like this one? And not just the Thrawn comics. He's also seen holding one in both of the Essential Chronologies, and the New Essential Guide to Characters. I also think his miniatures figure is holding one, but I don't play the RPGs so I'm not sure. And I didn't say he always wears one, I said that he is "often" shown with one. -- SFH 22:57, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good picture. That should be added, along with a good caption. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:59, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I know it's a little late, but where is that picture from? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:25, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The original version of The Essential Chronology. jSarek 22:05, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:13, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Commissioning of the Executor
"He took quickly to appearing in the Emperor’s Court and standing alongside the Emperor and Darth Vader at publicized events, such as the commissioning of Executor." What is the source for this statement? Is it in reference to that picture of him, Vader, Miltin Takel, and Palpatine, or is it from some novel or comic book that I never saw? -- AdmThrawn --
 * I assume it's just a reference to the picture. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:41, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC, that's from Galaxy NewsNets in SWAJ #12. --SparqMan 21:02, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a lot about it. Could you tell me who else was present at the commissioning of the Executor. There were three people standing beside Palpatine during the event. One of them was Thrawn. Who were the other two? -- AdmThrawn --
 * The other two were Darth Vader and Grand Admiral Rufaan Tigellinus. jSarek 22:24, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Everyone who helped on this article, especially SparqMan, Thanks for your help on the Thrawn article. I think that it is up to featured article status now. I have been working on it for a while now and I think that we have seen sucess. Kir Kanos (The Empire Rocks!)
 * Yup, it's been on a solid path since the big rewrite this summer. The section on the "final campaign" needs tightening. It could probably have a good chunk moved over to Thrawn campaign and be made succinct. --SparqMan 16:01, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with SparqMan. Anyway, this article is looking very good. A few touch-ups are needed in areas, but it's good. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:03, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Establishment of the Hand of Thrawn
I have removed the section "The Hand of Thrawn", again, because it is already covered in another part of the article. Further, it was chronologically inaccurate. Please do not readd the section or move it, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. --SparqMan 16:07, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for re-wording whatever I said in the article to make it sound better.
 * That would be Kir Kanos's fault. But why is it still up there if you removed it? Admiral J. Nebulax 16:10, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you guys talking about. Palpatine did not exile or even send Thrawn to the Unknown Reigons. He went there out of his own free will to establish the Hand of Thrawn complex. It was not ordered by the Emperor. If he did, there is no cannon that I know of which proves it. And anyway, I did not put the Hand of Thrawn thing back after you deleted it. There is almost nothing in the article about the Hand of Thrawn. Please put at least some of what I wrote in the Hand of Thrawn section back.
 * Okay, I think that I have come up with something good. I added a lot to the Unknown Regions section. It needed to have more added as there is a duology on the Hand of Thrawn. Sorry about the Mount Corvast thing. I even read the book and had it right next to me when I was rewriting the article. There was one trivial detail. At the end of the Final Campaign section, there was "&mdash" which didn't even appear as a long dash. Anyway, this article is now up to par greatly thanks to the work of SparqMan who made it look and sound a lot nicer (he also checked for accuracy and gramattical errors) and me, Kir Kanos (The Empire Rocks!) who provided the un-refined bulk.
 * "There is almost nothing in the article about the Hand of Thrawn". That's why we have links. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:49, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay SparqMan, I submit. You can post your theories that Thrawn was actually sent to the unknown regions. I won't argue. Thanks again for the help Kir Kanos (The Empire Rocks!).
 * Hey Kanos, I hope you're not just working on this article. We could use you on plenty of other articles in addition to this. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:47, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No actually. I am also working on Ysanne Isard and all Galactic Empire stubs. If you need help on anything else, please post it on my talk page. Kir Kanos (The Empire Rocks!). If there is anything you would like help with which is about the era before the clone wars, ask my friend, The True Mandalore. His name is under M on the list of Wookipedians. P.S. I've only been using Wookieepedia for two weeks.

Public Promotion to Grand Admiral
If his promotion was eventually made public, then how did the Rebellion/New Republic "miss" him on their list? Thanos6 18:45, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was that public. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:11, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, on the internal evidence of TIE-Fighter, the public field promotion at the end of the game is probably just before Endor (and could concievably be within the RotJ timeframe). Any planned effect of this could have been lost beneath the bang and rumble of a tyrannical Galactic military-industrial complex imploding. There are also, as I understand it, some references in SWAJ to a spat between Thrawn and Tigellinus, which I think may be meant to be the politicking that led to his "exile". The question is: what rank is Thrawn given, and what date are these placed at (IIRC, they're given precise year-month-day dates under the Great ReSynchronization system). Anyone? --McEwok 20:28, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "what rank is Thrawn given"? Admiral J. Nebulax 21:38, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Voice clip?
Anyway we can get a voice clip for Thrawn from the TIE Fighter game, like for Zaarin? Thanos6 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mm? Thanos6 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Name issue again
Sorry to start this over again, but due to the recent discussion that sprung out of the Grievous article, I think the community has come to the decision that article's names should be according to "Most Well-Known Names" (quoting the discussion) according to the Mark Twain precedent on Wikipedia. This article fits perfectly. --UVnet 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) '''I started a unified consensus track discussion about this topic here. Please voice your opinion.''' RMF 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to plague this article's talk page with this discussion? But before anything is done, let's see what others have to say. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also the fact that other factors must be taken into consideration, such as whether or not the person abandoned the name or not. Thrawn never abandoned the name Mitth'raw'nuruodo, so he was still formally known as such among his Household Phalanx. As for Wikipedia, well, the also have Dooku's article as Count Dooku, and Grievous at General Grievous, so they have some problems. -- SFH 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the decision was "last form of name". Thrawn is just a nickname, as Coope has pointed out. QuentinGeorge 20:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So it's not getting moved. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start a commotion or nothing, but just for your knowledge if you want it to be most encyclopedic, the general approach is most well known name. It is used in Wikipedia, it is used in Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, Encyclopedia.com and The Columbia Encyclopedia, just to name a few.
 * Enough, already. It's staying here. Thrawn was a nickname. He never got rid of the name Mitth'raw'nuruodo, unlike Grievous with Qymaen jai Sheelal. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but "Thrawn" isn't a name, just as "Chewie" isn't a name. They're nicknames QuentinGeorge 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He was still better known as "Thrawn" though :-P --Azizlight 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. "Thrawn" isn't his name. Ever. QuentinGeorge 07:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The article is staying here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The vote in question never said that nicknames were disallowed. It says quite clearly "to name articles based on the character's final or most widely known name, rather than the character's birth name". This particular character is commonly known as Thrawn, not Mithioaindlkankdljkwhatever. It looks like we have two staunch defenders of the unpronouncable name against several others who advocate a move. — SavageBob 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This isn't getting moved. Why? Thrawn never gave up his actual name. So, it's staying here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And where does the vote in question mention the fact that the character has to "give up the name in question"? — SavageBob 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. He was still known as Mitth'raw'nuruodo by some people. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The vote in question assumes the "final" and "most well-known" names are the same. As seen in this case, that's not always true; one can go by a nickname, with their name itself unchanging.  The discussion, on the other hand, indicated to me that most people were voting on the "final" part (especially because the consensus track itself was "Final vs. Birth Names"; how well-known a name was didn't even come into the title). - Lord Hydronium 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, he never got rid of his Chiss name. The article stays here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't clear, I was supporting you. The vote was to determine whether final or birth names should be used.  The vote came out in favor of final name.  In Thrawn's case, it's not even an issue.  His birth name was Mitth'raw'nuruodo.  His final name was Mitth'raw'nuruodo.  The title should be Mitth'raw'nuruodo. - Lord Hydronium 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't directing that at you. I should have been more clear. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was originally phrased "whatever name the individual used last, and/or was more widely known". But I can see that this only confused the issue. It should have been made quite clear what was being discussed, common vs. birth, common vs. last used, or birth vs. last used, not a muddle of all of the above. Well, I've already gone on record that this article should be moved, but it appears Nebulax gets to hold it hostage here. Meanwhile, the majority of users will continue to link to Thrawn or Grand Admiral Thrawn, names which, I might add, constitute the vast majority of links to the Mithoinindidkdfwhatever page: Links to Mithijodjildjkblah and variants (excluding redirect pages): 59; links to Thrawn: 354; links to Grand Admiral Thrawn: 66. Consensus is overwhelmingly against this page title. Nice to see we've got our readers and editors in mind with this thing. — SavageBob 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why we have these redirects. If someone searches "Thrawn", they'll find his actual name right there in the article. The majority is against you, SavageBob. It's over. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The beauty of a wiki is that if people type in "Thrawn" and hit "Go", they'll end up here anyway. It doesn't hurt anything to have the article at the character's legal name, so I don't see why this is such a contentious issue. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Well stated, Darth Culator. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that the majority of users are not in support of the weird title. Only the vocal proponents of Mitth'ala'dkd are really speaking up here, but the silent majority is against them. It's an issue because using common names makes more sense that using obscure names. There's a longstanding Wikipedia policy on this, and I just find it odd that a few vocal people around here have decided to make the decision for the rest of us and deviate from it. And Nebulax, the only consensus that is against me is the vocal people on this page, as those links should show you. — SavageBob 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets move this into a new consensus track, as per my comments on Wookieepedia talk:Naming conventions. RMF 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of links has nothing to do with what the majority of users thinks the title should be. I'm sure some of those Thrawn links were written by some of the very people in this debate.  Thrawn is just easier to type.  I don't see why if people don't know the name Mitth'raw'nuruodo we should promote that.  This is a site of Star Wars information; why shouldn't we have the most informative title? - Lord Hydronium 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, do you, SavageBob? If others were opposed to keeping it here, they would have spoken up. Just because someone types in Thrawn, like Lord Hydronium said, doesn't mean they think it should be at Thrawn. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, RMF, but I'm getting sick of these. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, that's why we need to settle this issue once and for all instead of having daily discussions on it on the same several pages (you know the ones I mean, you've been involved in most of them). You don't have to debate the topic extensively, just vote as you feel guided. And you must realize that the previous consensus track was clearly flawed&mdash;the name at death is not always the most commonly known name, and assuming one or the other is simply arbitrary. RMF 00:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I'm just sick of it all. I gave in to the Grievous one because I was getting tired of arguing. But now, I'm not backing down. We'll settle this on the new discussion page. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mitth'raw'nuruodo? He was known first as Thrawn because Heir to the Empire was written and published before OF was, and he is known as and will probably be referred to as Thrawn. Even star wars.com refers to Mitth'raw'nuruodo as Thrawn.
 * Chronologically, he was known as "Mitth'raw'nuruodo" first. The dates books were published is not the timeline of events. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the databank, well, they are in need of a serious overhaul and update on a lot of their articles, especially with regards to pre-Prequel trilogy info...Did I just say pre-prequel? -- SFH 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. As for the Databank's overhaul, they should hire some of us to help them out... I wonder if any of the guys over at StarWars.com know about the work we do. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They do, and it's not viewed particularly well from what I've been able to gather. Fanon creep and partisan squabbles breaking out into articles (such as Karen Traviss and Fandalorian) have led us to have a less-than-perfect reputation. jSarek 20:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Name-wise, "Thrawn" is actually part of "Mitth'raw'nuruodo". It's his first name, or at least a first-name analogue. I don't see why nobody gets that. Having the article at "Thrawn" is like having an article at "Luke" instead of "Luke Skywalker": absolutely absurd.--Erl 00:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we have many different opinions on this. Hopefully the discussion will solve this. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For Behind the Scenes: Thrawn is the Erwin Rommel of the Empire
Thrawn, like Rommel uses strategy, trickery, and gut instinct to lay out his battles while usual commanders rely on brute force. Both can turn the tables even when they are outnumbered. Like Rommel as a General, the Grand Admiral is always on the scene directing a battle, not away in some distant location, sending orders. Finally, Thrawn is a commended commander by all sides for his brilliance just like Rommel. So, should a behind the scenes reference compare Thrawn with Rommel?
 * This may be a case where, like Palpatine, a character happens to follow an archetype closely enough to correspond to several historical figures. (He's a bit Napoleonic, too.)  Anyone know if Zahn had any historical figures in mind? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He probably did (or maybe not, I don't know), but it seems like some villians were based off of many real-life people, not just one person. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, in this regard, I have a pair of letters from Mr. Zahn himself where he wrote to me listing just a few of the figures on whom he based Thrawn. They included Erwin Rommel, Hannibal Barca, Robert E. Lee, Sherlock Holmes...  Damn it, I'll have to dig that letter up, but I swear it exists and he does name the different personalities (both fictional and non) on whom he based Thrawn.  The letter was sent to me in response to a letter I had sent him (fan-mail, I suppose, is what it is called...).  Anyway, I remember he also mentioned Pellaeon was based on Sherlock Holmes' Watson...  You guys probably won't take my word at face-value, eh?  Do I need to find it and scan it?  I swear it's real, so I have no problem getting it...except for finding it again...  Which box...--SOCL 02:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but I'd still like to see it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a few days while I tear through some of the boxes of stuff...everything's still packed from when I moved. I'll find it, though...--SOCL 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Letter to Timothy Zahn2A.JPG|thumb|left]]Okay, here we are. I found the letter in the top drawer of my...well, that's not important.  This is the second letter I received from author Timothy Zahn.  I apologize for the resolution, but it is readable...  Oh, and it's a thumb...you have to click on it to see the full letter.  Please note my address was blocked out.--SOCL 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Exile
"However, if the Ascendancy's disapproval was expected to discourage Thrawn, they were sorely disappointed. Doriana had reported back to Sidious, who made several overtures to the capable commander. Thrawn could not honorably leave his post, so he decided to engineer his own downfall, continuing to press for pre-emptive strikes. Around 17 BBY, after attacking an enemy ground installation that was manufacturing weapons, Thrawn was sentenced to the traditional Chiss punishment of exile on an uninhabited world."

"As Tigellinus and other Imperial courtiers closed in on Thrawn, the Chiss and Palpatine hatched a plot to satisfy both their long desire to bring the Imperial Starfleet to the Unknown Regions."

I just wondered where these pieces of information came from, as ive not read of them before myself. Deadman.

Fambaa
If I recall correctly, (though I'm not 100% sure on this, so that's why I'm not sticking it in the article) Thrawn wants the individual (ie, you) to kill the fambaa and retrieve the object because he uses the fambaa blood to fake an ion discharge. DAWUSS 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Title: Syndic
In the novel Survivor's Quest, Formbi calls Thrawn "Syndic Mitth'raw'nuruodo" which falls in line with what the recording of Thrawn calls himself in Vision of the Future; however, this is mentioned when Formbi talks about the "sides" in the battle which resulted in the death of those aboard Outbound Flight: "There was no Chiss side in the battle. There was only Syndic Mitth'raw'nuruodo..." Now, I have read the novel Outbound Flight and in it Thrawn is always a commander of the Defense Expansionary Fleet with his brother, Thrass, as syndic. Now, indeed, it's possible that Thrawn became syndic later on and probably because of Thrass's death aboard Outbound Flight, but why would Formbi call Thrawn syndic when he was clearly still "Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo". I mean, I suppose he could mix the title up if Thrawn later because syndic, but this seems unlikely specifically because Thrawn would have had to become syndic following Thrass's death. Does anyone have any information concerning this apparent discrepancy? If not, do you think contact the people at the Star Wars website direct would be helpful? Or perhaps contacting Tim Zahn?--SOCL 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No Zaarin
Has anyone else noticed that this article lacks any mention of Zaarin's attempted coup, and Thrawn's hunt for Zaarin? It plays a large part in why he was promoted to Grand Admiral. If anyone has played TIE Fighter recently, please add some sort of information concerning it. This article is incomplete.--Umar(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I found that section, but it seems to me that something seems out of place here. The article states Thrawn was promoted to Grand Admiral before engaging Zaarin, yet he was very clearly stated as being a Vice Admiral in the game.  Further, the article implies that Thrawn somehow was promoted to Grand Admiral, sent to the Unknown Regions, returned to complete construction of NL-1 (as Vice Admiral), hunt Zaarin (as Admiral), and get promoted again to Grand Admiral...all in 3 ABY!  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but either these events are misplaced or there's something else wrong.  Thoughts?--SOCLcomm 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thrawn's first promotion to Grand Admiral was secret, and occurred well before the Battle of Derra IV. His "promotion" during the Zaarin incident was more of a formal public recognition of his rank, though the fact it occurred so close to the Battle of Endor meant it was overlooked by the Rebels. jSarek 07:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As to why I reverted the caption of the TIE picture, even though Thrawn was claiming to be a Vice Admiral at the time, the above shows he was actually a Grand Admiral - a fact supported by the very uniform he's wearing in the picture. jSarek 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can no longer be sure where I read it, but I could have swore that because of his prowess, Thrawn was given the right to wear the Grand Admiral uniform at the rank of Vice Admiral. But if he was secretly promoted, then I suppose that sort of makes sense.  Then again, it's not much a secret if he goes around wearing a Grand Admiral's uniform...--SOCLcomm 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Friend of Tyber Zann
Should we Note this?-# 24.215.174.33

Done, I also added information on his role at the Battle Over Carida - User:General Layton

CGI of Zahn?
What is the source for Timothy Zahn being CGI'd to make Thrawn for the SWCCG? I know Talon Karrde is based on Zahn, but I've never seen it reported that Thrawn was, as well. jSarek 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Contact Juz at Decipher. He had mentioned that they took a picture of Zahn and digitized it to make it blue and gave it the red glowing eyes. CBenoit 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And where is this image? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the picture just below the Command section. You can also view it by looking at the card entitled GRAND ADMIRAL THRAWN on any number of card-image sites (like the PC's site, or the SW:CCG Wiki). CBenoit 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Uniform
Anyone who knows why Thrawn wore a Grand Admiral's uniform in TIE Fighter if he was only a Vice-Admiral at the time? Evir Daal 09:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A mistake made by the game designers, maybe? Unit 8311 10:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I meant, is there any IU explanation? Evir Daal 10:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that after his secret promotion? In which case he was at least entitled to wear the uniform, though it probably wouldn't stay a secret for long. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Vader would addressed him as such if that was the case. But I guess that's the best we've got... Evir Daal 10:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody addresses Zaarin as Grand Admiral either and he wears the uniform throughout the game. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But he was addressed as Admiral, wasn't he? That could be short for the full title; you typically address, say, a Major General as "General", not "Major General". Thrawn, on the other hand, was explicitly called "Vice-Admiral". Evir Daal 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The last words
Have anybody ever wondered (I mean AFTER The Outbound Flight was published) why Thrawn spoke his last words in Basic? You see.. I do know that the "real world" reason is that Cheunh had not yet been invented and so he could not speak it. But since the Cheunh is now known to be Mitth'raw'nuruodos first language that little thing has started to bother me. Somehow I think that when you die you automaticly speak your own language last, even if you know no one around you can understand. Does anyone know if there is an in-universe explanation for Basic?Dionne Jinn 10:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be that he hadn't really spoken Cheunh for 40 odd years and was more accustomed to speaking in Basic. It should be noted that Pope John Paul II's last words weren't in Polish. QuentinGeorge 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept your logic, sure. I just started to wonder after I read Survivor's Quest and Mara's idea that maybe Thrawn was alive after all...Dionne Jinn 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Content error?
From the wiki page: "During his campaign against the New Republic, a tractor beam operator, Cris Pieterson, aboard Chimaera responsible for allowing Luke Skywalker to escape capture, was, by his order, executed at his post in a rather brutal fashion by Rukh."

The next paragraph implys that he was executed because he had no initiative, but I thought that he was executed because he lied to Thrawn to shift the blame.

I don't have the book with me, can someone check?
 * I'm not finding where the article implies that Pieterson was executed for lack of initiative. It does, however, state that Thrawn rewarded another operator for thinking outside the box.  Also, Pieterson's own article states that he was executed for demonstrating an inability to adapt to unexpected situations.  I hope that answers your question. --School of Thrawn 101 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I guess that I didn't explain properly. My point was that I thought that Pieterson was executed because he lied to Thrawn.  I just looked at that section again (Heir to the Empire Paperback page 184-185), and now I'm not sure which is right.  When Thrawn's had Pieterson killed, he said this, "Anyone can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."  I thought that this was a warning, and an explanation of why Pieterson was killed.  It looks to me like Thrawn is saying that his error was letting Luke escape, and his mistake was lieing to Thrawn.  What's your take on this?


 * My take on the situation was that Pieterson's error was letting Luke escape, but his mistake was blaming his instructor/ senior officer for not training him to deal with the situation that presented itself. He didn't lie to Thrawn.  He told the truth, but blamed his instructor for his failure. - Cavalier One 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)