FANDOM

Thrawn in Command Center

Welcome, Mith'raw'nuruodo! Edit

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Thoseabouttojediwesaluteyou

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! —SFH 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thrawn's personal armadaEdit

  • Greetings, Mith'raw'nurudo. I've been reviewing your edits to Thrawn's personal armada and I'm a bit curious as to the source for your additions and creations of Thrawn's fleet. It seems to me that Thrawn's vessels consisted of considerably more than just those few Star Destroyers and that the category of Thrawn's vessels might be a bit more encompassing than that. Anyway, if you could just clarify that, it would be appreciated. Wookieepedia does not allow original research, which means that even logical deductions are almost always frowned up when it comes to classifications. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. Given that the list isn't sourced, and a couple other admins in our IRC channel suspect that it's not factual, that template might not be a good idea. Categorizing the ships inside Thrawn's fleet is good, IMO, but we're not sure that the sources can legitimately place those ships as "Thrawn's personal armada", given that it's never called that. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll go ahead and delete the Thrawn's armada template, if you wouldn't mind removing it from the pages you placed it on. As far as major campaigns are concerned, which ones did you have in mind? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        • As far as I know, that's fine. Make sure that it is just the major ones, but there's no problem with that. Thank you for contributing and being understanding on this matter. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I looked at other war articles and they don't seem to embed the category in the template. At this rate, I'm not sure a new category is merited if they're already categorized within Galactic Civil War. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeking to know what you could do to help Wookieepedia Edit

  • This Admiral jolyon to Mith'raw'nuruodo, do you read me? (Admiral jolyon 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Hair colors Edit

Neither Martio Batch's nor Josef Grunger's hair appear black to me; both appear to be brunet. It seems AdmirableAckbar also does not see the colors the same way you do. jSarek 02:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FYIEdit

Hey, just letting you know that you didn't need to create a whole new infobox for a WookieeProject, like you did here ;) I noticed that you copied my code from User:Greyman/Template:WPinfobox. If there's a WookieeProject you're thinking of starting, or adding the infobox too, feel free to use the one I created (Like many other projects have done). There's no need for double templates :) So, feel free to use the template I made if you so chose, and let me know if you don't need the new one anymore and I'll take care of it. Cheers, Greyman@wikia(Talk) 23:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Project Ambition Edit

Hey, Thrawn, I saw you add the Project: Ambition template to the Executor article, so I'd thought I'd let you know that I'm currently actively working on bring the Executor to FA status. I'd be glad to help with your project in that regard. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the updae. Daala looks pretty good; just needs Revelation info, which I can do. However, it won't be added for a week or two, so someone else can do it if they would like to. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to help on your project. I can contribute with mostly Remnant-related content. Thanks! Car-em Hawhi 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll use it.

Thank you!

Project Ambition userbox Edit

Here's the source for the deleted userbox. On the userbox proposal page itself you just need the part within the
tags.
<div class="userbox" style="float:left;border:solid #CC9000 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#EFC35B"
| [[File:IsardHead.jpg|55px]]
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user is {{{1|a member}}} of '''[[Wookieepedia:WookieeProject Ambition|WookieeProject Ambition]]'''.
|}</div><includeonly>[[Category:WookieeProject Ambition members|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>
{{clear}}
===Usage===
To use this template, paste the following code into your user page:
<pre><nowiki>{{user Ambition}}</nowiki></pre>

==Categorization==
*[[:Category:WookieeProject Ambition members]]
[[Category:WookieeProject Ambition members| ]]
[[Category:Star Wars userboxes|Ambition]]</noinclude>

- Lord Hydronium 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Project AmbitionEdit

Great, I'll get started tonight. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Carvin Edit

It's only safe to say it's legit if you can provide a canonical source to back up that claim. Just because it's on other articles, don't make the potentially dangerous assumption that it's true. It's likely fanon, or conjecture. Hell, it could be true, but until you can provide a source, it is not going in that article. Thefourdotelipsis 11:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Saying someone "controlled" the military isn't quite the same as them having the rank of Supreme Commander...pretty much what's needed here is a source to directly say "Paltr Carvin was the Supreme Commander," or words to that effect. Thefourdotelipsis 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but on the other hand you could easily say that Palpatine "controlled" the military during the GCW, even though Vader held the SC post. It's too vague in its wording to be concrete. Thefourdotelipsis 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • But Cracken identifies Carvin as the head of the Tribunal, so he's in essentially the same political position as Palpatine, as effective ruler of the Empire. So of course he controls the military as well. The NEC establishes that the Tribunal, or Council, was in control of the Empire at that time, so...I'm not quite seeing where you're coming from. Thefourdotelipsis 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No, Cracken clearly states that Carvin is head of the Tribunal. "A Tribunal headed by General Paltr Carvin has put itself in charge of the Empire." To call Carvin Supreme Commander is, at the moment, conjecture. Thefourdotelipsis 12:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
          • You're using a piece of tangentially related info from Crimson Empire and a highly ambiguous quote...and calling it hard evidence? Well, I'm sorry, but it just won't do. It's nowhere near concrete enough. Give me facts and clear, blunt statements, and I'll put the information in the article. Until then, no sale. Thefourdotelipsis 12:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the review, and by all means, if you see something objectively wrong with the article, feel free to change it. However, if it's subjective, it's best to discuss it first. Also, since you apparently won't be able to review your objections for some time, the article can't actually go through. So, rest assured it'll still be there when you come back. Thefourdotelipsis 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AmbitionEdit

  • Hey, man, sorry about my inactivity in the project; I've been very busy lately. However, you can direct any articles in need of referencing to me, and I'll do the job. Cheers, -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sev'rance Tann Edit

Because it was worded like OR, and most of it was OR. If you want to comment on how her name differs from the Chiss norm, and if you want to mention Ar'alani and all that, by all means do so, in a way that is not essay-style OR and does not include fanon names, hypothetical or not. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Btw, I wrote that before I read your second message. Please try and have a bit of patience; it's only been less than an hour, and I can't be at my computer non-stop. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, for starters, the reason I didn't include a reason in my edit summary was because I used the rollback feature (which is not available to all users) and it does not give me the option to do so. I did discuss them, in IRC, and the general consensus (though, admittedly, there weren't many people active at the time) was to either revert or add fact tags or somesuch (and anyway, one doesn't need to discuss every little thing on a wiki before doing it, thankfully). Yes, how I spend my time is irrelevant, I was merely informing you why I hadn't replied immediately. The Chiss article, while well put together, is not a shining example of how articles should look. And while essay-style additions may not been revertable on their own, when coupled with OR it is. As I said above, I encourage you to add a mention of it to the article, but in a way that doesn't make assumptions and is merely stating known fact. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If it's OR, it's OR, no matter where you got it. I'll have a go at rewording it myself, when I get a chance. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I admit I completely forgot about my promise to reword it, and that is rude. My apologies. I've posted the link in IRC in the hopes of getting a third opinion. Feel free to join #Wookieepedia to discuss it. EDIT: just noticed it got reverted. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thrawn, I would encourage you to join IRC or talk to Ozzel -- an admin who was about to revert it himself before Madclaw did -- and find some sort of resolution/6th opinion. In response to your comments on Madclaw's talk page, anyone is entitled to edit any article; anyway, Madclaw was present in IRC at the time and listened to the discussion. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sev'rance Tann Edit

Your edit has been mentioned in IRC and it was identified as speculation there by several users and administrators. As for you not being sure under what authority I am operating on I think you are taking your username a little too serious. Now if you will excuse me, I have a date in the Shadowlands of Kashyyyk with a Czerka Employee regarding the hunt of several Tach. MadclawShyriiwook! 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not for the sake of argument but who's not being civil at the moment?

  • You are telling me that I can not edit a specific article,

unless there is an "Inuse template" there I can pretty much edit anything I wan't as long as I am following policy.

  • I acted upon it since I was in on the discussion of it being speculation and I had the time to revert it as "Others" were busy with other things.
  • Insulting you?

Well you must be easly insulted then, for the record it was meant as irony, me acting like my username was irony too.

  • You don't think I had a right to be involved?

Ok I retort with saying Under what authority do you claim I have no right to edit that specific article?

  • As for the article, it does not matter how you re-write that bit, unless you can provide a canonical source on it it is speculation and Wookieepedia has policies about that, I'll be happy to post a link to it here: WP:NEBULAX. PS that's me using irony again with the pipelink. Cheers and have a Civil-tastic day. MadclawShyriiwook! 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:DaalaEdit

I haven't voted because it could use some more Revelation info, which I plan on adding soon (hopefully tomorrow). Once that gets in, it should be good. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • That's all right. To be honest, I'd like to, but I may contribute a little less (not that I've been the main contributor; that would be you and Tranner). I'd like to see what our next main focus is. I saw you were thinking of Imperial Navy or Thrawn, I believe. If those are the two you're considering, I'd suggest you think of something else. Imperial Navy would be very big, and I think it'd be good to get a few more experienced members before we try that. As for Thrawn, he's huge too, and Green tentacle is already working on that on a subpage ( and his version is really good). But hey, you're the director. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Executor Edit

Hey, Thrawn, I thought I would leave you another friendly heads up after reading this that I am currently writing the Executor article under my own subpage. I've acquired all the sources and the project is already under way. Once again, I'm glad I'll be able to help with your project in this capacity. Thanks. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I am reasonably far along. Probably a little over 1/3 through. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, no. I moved my progress to a Word document to make room for my simultaneous Battle of Hoth project. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:objections Edit

The Invincible-related objection is still outstanding. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Daala, despite being a major antagonist in previous books, was made the Chief of State in Invincible, which was a controversial move and many fans were unhappy about it (evidence of this can probably be found here and here as well as on the official site). Just a short mention of that should suffice. Hope that helps. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ReplyEdit

No, it wouldn't be frowned upon, although some Inqs might joke about the influx of Daala (or whatever) related articles. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I'd suggest adding them to the forum, and waiting a few days to see if anyone objects. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FAN objections Edit

Just to let you know, certain types of objections on the FAN page are discouraged, and the Inquisitorius were concerned about some of your objections to Kendal Ozzel's FAN. Objections like "Change "He was assigned as the commander..." to "He was assigned to the Executor, the flagship of both Darth Vader and the task force Death Sqaudron, as its commanding officer, with Captain Firmus Piett as his senior subordinate"" are not really what the FAN page is all about. These are things you should change yourself, if you have an alternative to what is currently in the article, and only serve to lengthen the FA page and discourage the nominator. Fixing it yourself would take far less keystrokes. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The objective of the FAN process is to improve articles so that they can be brought to a level where they are at their very best and can be featured on the main page. The objective is not to make objections for the sake of objections. Whilst you can and have made these objections, the decent thing to do would be to actually fix them, as it actually would have been less effort for you than typing out the objection itself, except in the case of any major objection that isn't easily fixed. No one owns a nomination, and it is actually smiled up on when someone fixes minor problems while reviewing. Thefourdotelipsis 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Userbox categoriesEdit

Hey. I've deleted the WookieeProject Ambition members category as the associated userbox has not gone through our approval procedure. Though you can continue to use the userbox from your subpage, please don't create categories for userboxes that have not been approved. Thanks. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: TemplateEdit

If users were able to stick their own templates on articles willy-nilly, the admins would get all kinds of users wanting to do it. Since there's already a template (and an established policy involving it) for the purpose you need, there's no sense in creating a new one. Gonk (Gonk!) 11:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You'll notice that no other WookieeProjects use custom templates of that sort. A template that proclaims an article to be the "property" of any group goes against the open-editing philosophy of wikis. Maybe your "Ambition" should be geared more towards contributing in a manner suited to the community and less towards personal aggrandizement. Gonk (Gonk!) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:FAN objectionsEdit

  • I struck it, but keep in mind that there one objection I think you overlooked: the one about expanding Death Star. I thought I should maybe remind you of that. Cheers. Darthchristian 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Death StarEdit

Yes I have, and can add the information by tomorrow. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. Glad to help. It'll be good to get Daala to FA status. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ShelterEdit

No, I don't think they're the same. I haven't read those NJO books, but Daala was in the Maw at the time when Shelter was a Jedi hiding place, so it's doubtful that they could have been in the same facility. I suppose one was built on the edge of the Maw, and the other opposite. Due to the black holes, they were unable to find Daala's hideout without careful searching, and they believed she was dead anyway. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe so. Shelter certainly was, according to its article. I don't think we have an article for Daala's new base in the Maw. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GorgonEdit

Hey, nice work on the Gorgon article. I did some minor editing for grammar and clarity (there were a couple of cases where it was clear that there was a word missing), hope you don't mind. Doluk 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Empire's Cartography Edit

Just a curiousity more than an anything, as I hadn't gotten around to sourcing the tidbits on the Empire's size post-Operation Shadow Hand and just found them edited out - any particular reason why they were removed? They're clear indicators of the progression of the war. I've been updating various area's with information from the Cracken's Threat Dossier, which explains how large the Empire was. Thanks Sinre 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Archie Goodwin's Classic Star Wars Time Line problem: Comics dates are conflicting with other Wookipedia articles! Edit

Hello Mith'raw'nuruodo,

I have a question regarding Classic Star Wars. But I should explain it first.

Wookiepedia states that Classic Star Wars issues 16 to 20 are dated to 3ABY. But if you read the issue 16 you see that it takes place right after the issue 15 and issue 17 takes place right after the issue 16. There is no break between adventures!

Also Admiral Griff dies when rebels escape the Yavin Blockade in 6 months ABY. This is depicted in issue 17 I believe. Admiral's death date is confirmed by Wookiepedia.

Wookiepedia entries of Hoth, Yavin and Echo Base confirm that rebels escaped Yavin 6 monhts after the Battle of Yavin. The entries indicate that Echo Base first established in 1 ABY and construction took 1 year, completing in 2 ABY. Echo Base was destroyed at Episode V, which takes place in 3 ABY. Also according to the time line of comics entries, Splinter of the Mind's Eye takes place in 2 ABY which is AFTER the Classic Star Wars comics.

Based on the evidence found in Wookipedia I would humbly suggest that we edit Classic Star Wars entries, collection entries and the death of Skorr and S'ybll entries as 0,5 ABY.

I believe that Classic Star Wars is talking about the first establishment of the Echo Base which takes place only a short time after the escape from Yavin Blockade (0.5 ABY). Since the establishment of Echo Base (1 ABY according to the Wookiepedia and 0.5 ABY according to the Classic Star Wars as far as I can read the pages) cannot take place after the destruction of the base (3 ABY) events told in the issues 16-20 cannot take place in 3 ABY.

I am not sure if you have an alternative explanation or source for the exact time line for the events between 0-3 ABY but Wookiepedia's own articles clearly state that Archie Goodwin's Classic Star Wars series take place between the Battle of Yavin (destruction of 1st Death Star) and the establishment of the Echo Base.

I tried to edit the pages but Borsk Fey'lya reverted them back. I posted a similar message to his talk page to inquire this issue but he did not answer me yet. I understand his and your position as a senior Wookiepedian so this time I ask of your opinion. Please inform me because this time line issue really confuses me. Especially I wonder on which basis Wookiepedia dates Classic Star Wars issues 16-20 to 3 ABY.

Could you help me to clarify this situation?

Note: I am just a simple user, and did not edit my page yet so there is no link under my user name. I hope this won't be a problem for you. I would really appreciate your answer. Also if it is appropriate I would like to have an input from anybody participating to this talk page -regarding this issue and if they are willing that is.

Thank you, Kozand 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Project Ambition Edit

Director Thrawn, I have no idea if you'll see this, due to your inactivity for the past month, but here I go.

Project Ambition is practically dead in the water. As a member, I managed to get two Imp characters to FA status. Additionally, your work brought the Gorgon to FA status. So far, those have been the only success stories for this Wookieeproject. There has been a long period of inactivity since. If you have no desire to lead this any further, or if I do not hear back from you in a week's time, I will take over the project and contact the other members to see if there are still interested at all. I'd hate to see the project get trashed, so that's why I've decided to confront you about this. Perhaps the failure of the Daala FA nom discouraged you, but I certainly hope that is not the case. FA noms take time, as I've learned. I'm confident that should this project be revitalized, our main goal can be achieved.

Like I said, I'll give you a week's time to get back to me. After that, I will take control and attempt to start this project up once more. I apologize if it seems I was being rude in this message. That is most certainly not my intent in writing this to you. I hope that you will return to Wookieepedia as an active contributor, and if that happens, I would be more than happy to relinquish control back to you. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for responding. I will take over for good, if you're okay with it, but you're always welcome to participate. I'll put your name back on the list of participants. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

new award Edit

I awarded you with one of the first of these,

Imperial EmblemI have awarded you the Imperial medal of valor for being part of the WookieeProject Ambition .

feel free to put it were you wish on your page.

Project Ambition's new main focus Edit

Kane
A message from the Grand Moff.
The latest from Project Ambition.
Project Ambition now has a new main focus: Conan Antonio Motti. Please see the discussion forum for more information. If you are able to contribute, please let us know there. We appreciate any help you can give. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+