Talk: Mitth'raw'nuruodo/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Mitth'raw'nuruodo

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.

Appearance

  • I have noticed that there are 2 kinds of portraits of Thrawn, one with eyebrows and one without them. So which one is the correct interpretation of the Chiss?, Hasbro for example has adopted the eyebrowless idea. As for female chiss they all seem to have eyebrows, so Thrawn decided to shave them at some point, or male chiss never had eyebrows, or those representations of Thrawn without them are mistaken, included the Hasbro versions. --Yaldren Starquest
    • Can't say for sure, but I'd guess eyebrowlessness is either lazy artistry or a mistake.Heavy Metal Is The Law 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

  • 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)

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)

  • 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)

Not to re-bring up this old topic, but perhaps the name should be "Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Thrawn)". This is just a suggestion, I'm good either way. Input? 129.107.81.12 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That would only work if there was another character named Mitth'raw'nuruodo. Nah, I think Thrawn would be the best name for the article, based on the above discussion. {{SUBST:User:Xavius/Signature}} 10:43, 16 October 2008 (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)
            • Another point that needs to be made is that this is the Star Wars galaxy, not the Shogunate of Feudal Japan. All comparisons are, by and large, either inferencing or mostly opinion based. Both are considered "original" research. However similar the Shogunate and Mitth'raw'nuroudo's MILITARY reign was, it shouldn't be done here.--Linkstarwars 15:27, 27 February 2009 (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) 20px 12:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Having never read the Yuuzhan Vong stories myself and only hearing bits and pieces, personally, even I managed to pick up that he was probably talking about the Yuuzhan Vong or the Ssi-Ruuvi. Though neither was explicitly stated (I figured the Yuuzhan Vong was a lot more likely though).Heavy Metal Is The Law 21:25, 2 May 2008 (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 "Browse" and browse for the pic or just write the filename, add a description and a {{Fairuse}} or a {{Film-screenshot}} or a {{Game-screenshot}} or a {{Bookcover}}

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)

  • While the image is a bit tacky, I think we should find a place for File:Thrawn-DB.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. —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) 

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

Why not Praytell?

[User: tnu]

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

—Unsigned comment by Tnu (talk • contribs)

Something I'm wondering about is the image of Thrawn that was in the Tie Fighter game. Does anyone know who the designers modeled those images on? I looked at the image of Thrawn in the article and some pictures of the early 20th century Pope Benedict XV I noticed a few similarities. Servo 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Sorry wrong one

—Unsigned comment by Tnu (talk • contribs)

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—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)
  • 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)

--Master Starkeiller 21:52, 9 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)
  • How about this one, from The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook:
"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."
―Pollo Tipn, assistant to New Republic historian Voren Na'al
    • 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—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:
"This one is constantly thinking, analyzing, strategizing. He showed no fear, but was curious, studying me in turn."
―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

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)

thumb

  • 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)

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 --

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)

  • 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.

P.S. Thank you for re-wording whatever I said in the article to make it sound better.

  • 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)

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)

  • 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)
      • 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. —Darth Culator (talk) 21:54, 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)

I started a unified consensus track discussion about this topic here. Please voice your opinion. RMF 00:06, 22 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—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)
  • It is his core name. It should be at Thrawn as that was the name he mostly known by. The previous points don't truly hold any water in this context. Darth Byss 23:15, 4 October 2007 (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? —Unsigned comment by R-41 (talk • contribs)

  • 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? —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) 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)
  • thumb|leftOkay, 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)

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)

Possibly to distance himself officially from Thrawn, as the CEDF represents the people as a whole, while a Syndic merely represents one family, a family which other sources show can be cut off if it becomes too troublesome. Also, it is quite possible that Thrawn *was* a Syndic at the time, because there is no evidence that Syndic is the highest rank in the family, and there can be two or more princes at once, eg. Sorry about the poor grammar.--The Erl

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)

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 have my doubts about this "secret promotion"... In the opening cutscene as well as others throughout the game, Vice Admiral (!) Thrawn openly wears a white uniform with a hardly discernible rank insignia - looks like two identical rows of three blue and three gold boxes each.

I tend to regard this as a slip by the game designers; they used the identical cutscene on several instances (with different text spoken) before and after the promotion to Grand Admiral and I suppose the officer behind Thrawn is supposed to be Pellaeon who also should not be with Thrawn at the time.

The actual promotion to Grand Admiral only occurs in a cutscene after Zaarin's coup. As far as I can remember, the exact words of the Emperor are: "Admiral Thrawn, I am promoting you for your obedient service. You will join my inner circle of twelve Grand Admirals." Thrawn is then assigned to hunt down Zaarin.

If I can find an old enough PC then I'll replay TIE Fighter to milk any canonical information... Frabby 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The thing is, that's not the only source regarding Thrawn being a Grand Admiral prior to the events of TIE Fighter. Side Trip, for instance, quite clearly calls him a Grand Admiral prior to the Battle of Derra IV, as does Cynabar's Infonet. The only way those sources and TIE Fighter can both be accurate is if Thrawn was promoted to the rank twice - which is what the retcon making the secret promotion separate from the TIE Fighter promotion does. jSarek 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, where is this retcon cited, as official?--SOCLcomm 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The New Essential Guide to Characters states it on pg. 186, albeit with in-universe uncertainty: "Ten months after Yavin, Captain Thrawn survived an insect infestation among the alien S'krrr. Soon after, the Emperor promoted Thrawn to vice admiral. Some believe that the official promotion was accompanied by a secret promotion to Grand Admiral. Thrawn certainly exhibited the skills, but Palpatine wouldn't accept more than twelve Grand Admirals at one time, and so any such advancement would neccessarily [sic] have been off the record." Later on the same page, "Midway through his campaign [against Zaarin], Thrawn officially achieved the rank of Grand Admiral, promoted by Palpatine to fill replace Zaarin in the circle of twelve." [Italics mine.] jSarek 05:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's rather interesting, though it does seem to heavily imply that he had already been, if only provisionally promoted to Grand Admiral at the same time as a promotion to Vice Admiral. In many real-world military forces, there exist to forms of promotion, usually associated with "Regular service" and "Volunteer service"; whereas a person may be a Captain in the "regular Army", they may be a Colonel in the "Volunteer Army". I'm not suggesting Thrawn as a "Grand Admiral of Volunteers", if you will, but it may have some bearing on a de facto sort of powers determined by his location; perhaps by special proxy Thrawn was a Grand Admiral in his own sphere of command (i.e. the Unknown Regions), but a Vice Admiral in the regular Imperial service. In any event, the fact that the The New Essential Guide to Characters states that the promotion to Grand Admiral wasn't actually official until Zaarin's defection, then he truly can't be considered a Grand Admiral in the sense of the college of the particular twelve of that rank until that moment and promotion. Then again, wasn't there a bit in the Thrawn trilogy (Heir to the Empire, I believe) where Mara Jade states that Thrawn was promoted to Thrawn in secrecy, which was where they first met? Would it be safe to consider this secret promotion the same as the first one mentioned in the Guide?--SOCLcomm 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, there was discussion of Thrawn's secret promotion in the Thrawn Trilogy, on page 252 of the Dark Force Rising paperback. Given that it seems he had only one secret promotion to Grand Admiral, I think it's more than safe to consider them the same. As for the nature of the secret promotion, I've always assumed something similar to what you suggest - it was only widely known to Palpatine's innermost circle and Thrawn's Unknown Regions forces (though leaks did happen, as Cynabar's Infonet picked up on the fact of his rank long before even the Imperial rank-and-file did). However, it probably ALSO gave him command codes and information clearances usable anywhere in the Empire, and, in worst case scenarios, he probably had the authority to make his rank known to other personnel and issue orders in accordance with his rank. jSarek 23:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Re-read the thread and my citation of the Emperor's words. *IF* I remembered them correctly then they could be taken to mean Thrawn was not actually being promoted to Grand Admiral in the scene; the "promotion" may have been the recognition of his formal rank by promoting him into the Emperor's inner circle of 12 Grand Admirals. It may also be noteworthy that Thrawn served as a Vice Admiral under Vader. Now bear in mind that Vader was ranked as "Executor" which was not a proper military rank, but rather a position separate from the military yet superior to the admiralty. Serving under Vader in this function may have removed Thrawn from the regular military rank and file as well, and "Vice Admiral" may have referred to his function as Vaders second-in-command rather than his formal rank. Just a speculation, of course, but a new approach to explain the situation nevertheless... Frabby 13:43, 19 July 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)
      • He refused to accept responsibility for his mistake. If the Army has taught me anything, it's to accept responsibility for everything you do, even if your superior screwed you, because eventually your superior will get his.--SOCLcomm 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • His refusal to accept responsibility was part of it, but the total lack of initiative was the root cause of the execution. IIRC (and I don't have my books with me, so someone should verify this), in a scene soon after the execution, Thrawn and Pellaeon are talking in private, and Thrawn reveals that Skywalker destroyed his hyperdrive in the process of escaping. Pellaeon asks why he then had the officer executed if Skywalker hadn't really gotten away, and Thrawn mentions there's no room in his crew for someone who shows no initiative or creative thinking. jSarek 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointers to sources needed

In the article, the different parts of Thrwan's career really ought to be accompanied by source references - so that the reader can see which particular part is from which particular source, instead of all sources being just listed (without pointers to them) in the Appearances section. Bontchev 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Exile

Was it ever pinpointed when Thrawn was exiled? I don't remember anything mentioned in Mist Encounter, and Outbound Flight was too early...and his time at the Acendancy (sp?) wasn't even mentioned in the Thrawn Trilogy. ----Ryluk Shouja(The Mukhabarat|Join SWGames!)08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Time line

I am completely lost with the time line in this article. I tried to translate it in Finnish but some parts of this article are simply too messy for me to understand. There is even two spots that gave me the impression that Thrawn was promoted TWICE to the rank of Grand Admiral. And THAT makes no sense to me at all. Will someone take a look at it? I don't have enough sources to do that myself.Dionne Jinn 08:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

  • I'm actually working on a major rewrite though it'll be a while until it's done. But the promotion to Grand Admiral in TIE Fighter comes after several other sources in which he already held the rank and The New Essential Guide to Characters explained this as two promotions, one secret and a later public one. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Section sourcing

"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 preemptive strikes. After attacking an enemy ground installation that was manufacturing weapons, Thrawn was sentenced to the traditional Chiss punishment of exile on an uninhabited world" - sourced as Outbound Flight. I own the book and have read it a couple times, and do not remember them mentioning Thrawn's exile. Can I get a confirmation of this?----Ryluk Shouja(The Mukhabarat|Join SWGames!)08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 06:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

His name

I know, I know. This issue has been talked about twice on this page. However, I only recently joined here, so I'd like to throw in my two cents *throws in two pennies* I realize he has a full Chiss name. I realize he's never technically disowned it or abandoned it or whatever. However, I firmly believe this article should be at Thrawn. Thrawn is the name he was known as around the entire galaxy, especially after the events of the Thrawn trilogy. Also, you ask Star Wars fans that "take part", for lack of a better term, in the EU (I say "take part" because they could read books or comics, play video games, watch Clone Wars, basically indulge in any Star Wars media that isn't the movies) who Mitth'raw'nuruodo is, and they'll probably think it's some Wookie word, but you ask them who Thrawn is, and odds are they'll think back on Heir to the Empire, Dark Forces Rising, and the Last Command. We were first introduced to him as Thrawn, and it's only been recently we've learned his actual Chiss name. Very few people in the galaxy knew him as anything other than Thrawn, and I think it's the same thing here. I'm also looking at other examples. Dooku was known as Darth Tyranus to only a few, and typically your Sith name replaces your real name (Palpatine is an exception, examples of the rule are Vader, Nihilius, Sion), and yet he's known as Dooku here. Grevious is another example, although both of these have been brought up. But perhaps the best example I can give is Jacen Solo. As of right now, he's abandoned the name of Jacen Solo and taken on the name Darth Caedus, and yet his article is still at Jacen Solo. Why? I think because that's what he's most well-known as. Way more people know him as Jacen Solo then as Darth Caedus, and same thing with Thrawn. So, yeah, I'm proposing moving the article to Thrawn. Anakinjmt 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your example with Jacen Solo and Darth Caedus other way around. Mitth'raw'nuruodo was Thrawns original name as Jacen Solo was his. Also Anakin Skywalker is most well known as Darth Vader but the article is named with his original name. And redirecting pages fix the rest of the problem. I think it is well as it is. And if we change Thrawns name we should change all chiss names.88.115.205.68 06:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Very late response, for which I apologize, but the argument could easily be made that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are well known by both. He's called Anakin pre-Episode III and Vader post-Episode III until he redeems himself in Episode VI. Now I don't think it's necessary to change all Chiss names. Thrawn is a very notable Chiss, and looking at the MOS, well-known names are the most preferred. If two names are well-known, the latter name is the one that should be used. Back with the Anakin/Vader argument, he ceases to be Vader and becomes Anakin again when he kills Palpatine, which we know because when appears with Yoda and Kenobi, it's as Anakin, not Vader. He may have a real Chiss name, but the MOS says to give him his latest, most well-known name, preferably their real name, but not necessarily. Anakinjmt 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Mitth'raw'nuruodo himself says in the Outbound Flight (page 32, hadrcover edition, 2006) that "full names are required for formal occasions, for strangers anf for those who are socially inferior". Based on that I think that in-universe the Chiss treat Core names as we usually treat first names. Naming this article only as Thrawn would be as naming an article about George Lucas only as George, or Luke Skywalker as Luke or R2-D2 as Artoo. I'm sure every Star Wars fan would know who it means, but that doesn't make it right way to name an article. And thinking it in another way (I return to in-universe way of thinkin): an article like this can be, in a way, considered to be a "formal occasion" and we are all strangers fot that matter (and I'd prefer to leave social standing out of this completely). Did that make any sense?--Dionne Jinn (Valita täällä) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"Thrawn" redirects here. This is his canon name. This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Gonk (Gonk!) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this conversation is needless. But I still felt a need to try and give some reasons to keep the things as they are. Redirections are good in a way to solve these kinds of problems.--Dionne Jinn (Valita täällä) 18:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession box and categories

OK, we have Thrawn listed in the s-box as leader of the Empire, but he's not in the head of state category. Any reason? Thanos6 08:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, unless I get a reason not to, I'm going to throw him in there. Thanos6 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Formbi

Could Thrawn somehow be the Formbi in 22 ABY and 35 ABY? 72.141.203.84 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Though I'm not going to say definitively that it is not Thrawn, because in all reality, this is Star Wars we're talking about here, I believe that no, he couldn't be. Reason is because Formbi has been established as a semi-major character now, as well as Timothy Zahn's own admissions that he wouldn't mind bringing Thrawn back in a future novel, but only if he was a clone and aware of his status as a clone.--Linkstarwars 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mitth'raw'nuruodo Clone

Does the Thrawn clone he began to grow deserve an article, or is it too minor?

  • Probably not. I don't think he even matured completely. Grand Moff Tranner 20px (Comlink) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering the destruction Luke and Mara created in the cloning chamber the clone most likely died there. I think only the clones that really did something deserve their own article.--Dionne Jinn 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Universe?

One of the section heading things in the article says "Return to the Known Universe" or something similar. Shouldn't it be "Return to the Known Galaxy" instead of Universe? Isn't there only one known galaxy (besides the Yuuzhan Vong one)? Unidentified Flying Bunny in the Sky Talk Contribs 05:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fleet

Im sorry but I was wondering if anyon can tell me how the image 50px is cannon? I was just looking at it and from my point of view it just doesn't seem like Thrawn. Thanks Ryan Fett (For Mandalore!)20px 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The image is caNon, from the Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook, as clearly stated in the image's description. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Survivors quest

I don't know if post like this was posted before but at the end when Mara and Luka are discussing implications that all scheming from Formbi and Chiss forces are such that they wonder if Thrawn somehow is behind it all. Not much is know about Chiss technology and from my point of view and reading all the books from T.Zahn I concluded that they did have cloning capabilities and that Thrawn that joined Empire was actualy a clone. At this point you have two Thrawns, one that is still in Chiss fleet and the other that joined Empire. With this Chiss would still retain their best military mind and deter Empires eyes of them aswell. I think Zahn initialy pland to write something in this regard but it wasnt picked up by other writers so Thrawn was killed for all times.

  • An interesting point of view, however I'm forced to disagree. I believe that Thrawn did indeed die by his bodyguard's hand, and that the Hand of Thrawn series, with Mara's thinking that perhaps there were more clones of Thrawn or perhaps Thrawn himself was still alive, was established so that if there ever was an enemy (such as the Vong) that needed someone of Thrawn's caliber to defeat them then Thrawn would have been able to reappear on the scene. I also believe that this simply furthers the extent of Thrawn’s genius because he knew of the Vong (known then as the Far Outsiders) and prepared for any eventuality even his own death. Ryan Fett (For Mandalore!)20px 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Brother Thrass

The article lists Thrass as being older than Thrawn, however, I and several others, I've noticed, seem to either have come under the impression that Thrass was younger, or remember reading that he *was* younger. I am re-reading Outbound Flight now, so I will correct this mistake when I get to that part of the book if necessary. 129.107.81.12 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I cannot remember it actually stateing in the Outbound Flight which brother was older, I simply assumed Thrass was the older as at the end of Chapter 11 (pgs 166-170 in the paperback version) Thrass says "... and a brother to protect." and several other times naturally falls into the role of protector which is normally occupied by the elder brother as they generally feel it is their duty to protect their younger kin (by instinct if you will). Ryan Fett (For Mandalore!)20px 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I found nothing to indicate one way or another in Outbound Flight. But somehow I'm one of those who think Thrawn is the older one of the brothers. I think Thrawn is protecting Thrass more than other way around but in far less obvious ways.Dionne Jinn (Valita täällä) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

little fight at Corusaunt

Didnt he go to corasaunt with a fleet to wait for tyber zann so he could take a ancient sith artifact from him and then there was a huge fight?????Mr.Bonesey5 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)