Talk: Grievous/Archive6

Back to page |
< Talk:Grievous

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Shaak Ti

Didn't Grevious kill Shaak Ti aboard the invisible hand? She is not listed in the Jedi Kills section. (Deleted scene of EPIII on the DVD) 24.162.85.5 17:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Since that scene was deleted, it is superceded by the ROTS novel, which states that Anakin killed her in the Jedi Temple. - Angel Blue 451 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is wrong..again. Shaak Ti is not dead, numerous sources say so, she escaped! No one knows how she dies yet, the relevant info is on her talk page which is where this question should of been really! Jedi Dude 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah. One of the more-recent Insider issues confirmed that, since neither death of Ti was in the movie, Shaak Ti actually survived. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Also note Shaak appears in hologram form on the Jedi Council during the Battle of Kashyyyk, thus proving in G-canon she at least survived Invisible Hand. She's apparently going to appear in Force Unleashed judging by concept art released on the OS - Kwenn 19:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But in another Deleted Scene of ROTS it shows Anakin and Obi Wan entering the Invisibel Hand and Grievous stabbing his saber through her throat

Spinning torso

Is his ability to spin his torso completely around canon? I first saw it in the RotS video game and dismissed it as a game mechanic, but then I saw that episode of Clone Wars where he fights the Jedi on Hypori and noticed he did it in that as well.--Darth OblivionComlink30px 18:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

SPINNING BUZZSAW OF DOOM!I know your not supposed to put personal opinions on Wookiepedia, but I just had to voice that regarding Grievous's spinning torso. User:Darth Vatrir

Main Pic

General Grievous|thumb|right For the main pic on Grievous's profile, I think we should use this pic instead of the current one. I find its a more dynamic pose and he actually looks like a warlord, instead of just an advancing droid with lightsabers. User:Darth Vatrir

  • And what about that one? Since I have this pic, I've always though it was the best reference photo of Grievous. The four arms holding lightsabers, the cape, his posture, all that make him really intimidating. We quickly indentify him as a droid (or cyborg), and as a villain. What do you think of it? Kaal 12:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

thumb|right

  • Number three, definitely. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Number three isn't all that different from the current one. My vote is up for number two. It is very dramatic. Remember upper body images are preferred to full view images.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 02:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, number two is really a beautiful picture of Grievous (it's my favourite from the three), but IMO, reference photos should be prefered for an encyclopedic purpose, no? Kaal 14:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I just want a source for image number two. I think number one is out now, wouldn't you think? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. We should definately use it now.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 20:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Its done (maniacal laugh). User:Darth Vatrir
          • I just want to say, this looks really bad. Plus, the backround is from a poster and not at all uniform with the other main pics of major film characters. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, and we should be using images for informative quality, not coolness. - Angel Blue20px(Holonet) 22:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, I don't think it looks that bad. And I find its very...sending. We see he's a villain, we see he's a cyborg, and possibly a jedi killer. (Of cource we all know he is those things, but look at it from the point of view that you don't know.) User:Darth Vatrir
  • [[:File:GrievousEscapePod.jpg|left|thumb]] OK, for those who don't like the new pic, what do you say of this one? I find its imformative, encyclopedia style, and the white cape helps him match better with the comics of him. User:Darth Vatrir
    • God no. Give us a portrait. That's encyclopedia style. .... 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Full body images are also encyclopedic, Thefourdot. Our choices aren't only portraits. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Very true. I do have to object to using a poster for the main image though. - Angel Blue20px(Holonet) 03:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I was also thinking that it didn't match other images for main characters as well, for example Dooku's image. However it is better than any of the others that have been presented. If not the second one, then I should like number one, though my prefered image support goes to the second image, poster or not.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 11:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
            • For our purposes, it isn't the best. It is dark and leaves most of the character hidden. The main image should be chosen on the grounds of informativeness, not coolness or how dramatic it is. - Angel Blue20px(Holonet) 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Then my vote goes to number 3. User:Darth Vatrir
                • My vote goes to number one, simply because it is different from the current one.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • What about this?250px--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Its been pretty well established that informative, not dramatic, pics are wanted, though the fact saddens me. My vote still goes to number 3. User:Darth Vatrir
                      • It's not dramatic.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 01:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • But its not exactly informative or encyclopedia style, either. Darth Vatrir
                          • I guess not. Either we use number one, or keep the one we have. Three isn't much different from the current one.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Full body shots are about as encyclopedic as rhetorical questions and conclusion sections, Jack. .... 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no need to bring that debate into this one. What if I were to work on some compromises, and post them here for you to see? - Angel Blue20px(Holonet) 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be fine, seeing how this seems to be going no where.--IG-Prime(Sentience Core) 00:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm going to need some help though. Anyone have any big, high res promo pics? - Angel Blue20px(Holonet) 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If you can get a portrait, you will have my wholehearted support. .... 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Skimmed through OfficialPix and the only one that we don't have available is this one. [1]. Make a decision. --RedemptionTalk 15px 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Beautiful. That one is almost tailor made for the infobox. .... 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • thumb|right Wow, the OfficialPix Grievous photo is just great for an encyclopedia. If we'd had it "clean", I would vote for it right away. Anyway, I don't know if characters from the movies can have an illustration as a main pic, but I found the Grievous' one from The New Essential Chronology just beautiful, the pose is nice, and it's a portrait. What do you think of it? -- Kaal 02:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's great, and if we can't get the OfficialPix version, it will have to do, since Grievous isn't exactly "live-action". .... 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Thefourdot, enough with this. Why do you hate full-body images so much? They're just as good, and sometimes even better, than portrait shots. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The NEC one makes him look pink. -- I need a name (Complain here) 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
            • True. Not exactly a good main image if his metal body looks pink. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I found this pic amongst my old files from before episode 3 came out (sigh..). It's medium size, but it is of good quality and I think it might be up for it. What do you think?--Sauron18 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[[:File:TehGen.jpg|thumb|left]]

  • I think that was put in the article before, but it was never voted on. I'm pretty sure it's a picture of a Grievous cardboard cut-out, but it does have a good quality. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like the cape was painted on the body with Photoshop...--RedemptionTalk 15px 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think so. I remember the cardboard cut-out, and it had that cape. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That picture is indeed from the cardboard cut-out, I think that's were I found it quite some time ago. Nothing is edited btw, there's a version of it at "OfficialPix" if you wish to check it out, but this is larger and watermarkless.--Sauron18 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying it was. It just looks that way. We can do better then that. --RedemptionTalk 15px 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well it's the same as all the other finished Grievous Promo pics, and I prefer it to the current picture since the model is closer to the movie one. --Sauron18 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Endgame quote change

Personally think the following quote from the Endgame section should be removed:

"General Grievous, you're shorter than I expected."
―Anakin Skywalker[src]

Anakin's comments on Grievous's height have nothing to do with what that section covers. I've already tried persistently replacing this quote, but for some reason people keep changing it back. I for one think it is irrelevant and a poor choice. I just want to know why people think it's so good so I can save myself a lot of editing hassle. If someone can give me a good reason why it should stay, I won't remove it. Thanks. Unit 8311 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't. Which quote are you going to replace it with?--Herbsewell 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, those other quotes that were placed in Anakin's quote's place are only quotes that Grievous said. This one talks about Grievous. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really. It's just a comeback by Anakin because Grievous called him young.--Herbsewell 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • How about these two:
"We have a job to do Anakin, try not to upset him."
―Obi-Wan Kenobi
"And this time, you won't escape."
―Obi-Wan Kenobi.

I think they're better than the current quote and they aren't spoken by Grievous.Unit 8311 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added the second one, does anyone disagree?--Herbsewell 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jedi knew of Grievous before the battle of Hypori?

The New Essential Chronology says they did since Republic Commandos fought him at the Battle of Geonosis, everything else says they didn't know though. So what is it?--Rune Haako 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The Commandos didn't actually fight him at Geonosis; in Republic Commando, they only see his ship fleeing, and are unable to identify it. Grievous was active on Geonosis, but no Jedi survived an encounter with him to report back on his existence. EDIT: Hmm, just read that passage in the NEC, and it does seem to contradict the game itself... - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name

  • After reading the big Anakin/Vader article name dispute, I came to wonder: Why is this article named Grievous when all other dual identities have their birth identity as article name (Dooku, Anakin, Palpatine)? We are contradicting ourselves on account of which name is best known. If that was the case, Anakins article would be named Darth Vader. It isn't, yet Greevie gets his fame name on his article.DarthMRN 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, article titles go with latest name. So, this would stay at Grievous. As for Anakin/Vader, he was last known as Anakin when he return to the light for that short time before he died. As for Palpatine/Sidious, he was last known as Palpatine. Same thing for Dooku. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually the reason we don't use those names is because they are bestowed names and titles.--Herbsewell 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • What are you talking about, Neb? How do we determine which name they were known by last? Is fan perception grounds for how we do anything around here all of a sudden? But let's assumme you are right. That would make the Grievous article named K-Necrosis. Vader was still known as Vader after his death, except by his respectful children who didn't want to call him by that name. It doesn't add up either way. {{Unsigned|DarthMRN))

If Herbsewell is right, then naming the article Grievous most certainly is wrong.DarthMRN 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Necrosis is a different character, and ,as such, has his own article.--Lord OblivionSith holocron30px 19:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am right but we won't use it. It's the same reason the article for Darth Maul is titled 'Darth Maul'.--Herbsewell 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • DarthMRN: They're called sources. They have the character's name in them. And Anakin and Vader were the same person. Once he returned to the light side, he was no longer Vader. He was Anakin, regardless of what some people called him. And Grievous became his real name after he changed it from Qymaen jai Sheelal. N-K Necrosis was a droid made from Grievous's robotic skeleton, and therefore not actually Grievous. Herbsewell: No, that's not the reason. It's been decided that a character's name at their time of death is the title of the article. Therefore, it would be Dooku over Darth Tyranus, Palpatine over Darth Sidious, and Anakin Skywalker over Darth Vader. However, even if Darth Maul's real name was given, the article would still probably be at "Darth Maul" simply because Darth Maul was his latest name at the time of his death. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No since it's a title, we would use his real name.--Herbsewell 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • No. "Darth", although a title, is a different situation. Upon the adoption of a Sith name, "Darth" becomes a title and a name. Therefore, "Darth" would be in the article's title. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • No Darth is a tile as far as articles go. It's a matter of opinion, so don't try to change mine just because it's not yours.--Herbsewell 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)