Talk: Pong Krell/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Pong Krell

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.

Quote?

Can someone state the source of the quote? 'cause I've never heard him speak- Darth Q the first

NPOV

Okay, instead of going back and forth in an edit war, let's talk about what's neutral and what isn't. I found this page and was astonished at how it originally presented only Krell's side of things, i.e. "He was an accomplished general who was stuck commanding a bunch of incompetent clones who kept on questioning his orders." True neutrality means telling the whole story, such as why the clones acted that way, that they were not incompetent (and the entry DID use the word "incompetence" to describe the clones' performance before I changed it) but rather were marched into an open space without cover after Rex respectfully recommended a different strategy, found themselves in a minefield, and then were ambushed in said open space. The best troops in the world wouldn't stand a chance in that situation; go forward, and they get blown up by mines. Stand still, and they get gunned down by the enemies who are shooting at them from cover.--HanShotFirst 06:53, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

  • I removed the part that was the main issue of neutrality. Hopefully that will solve the issue. CC7567 (talk) 07:04, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I suppose I could have phrased that particular part differently, and I've got no issues with how it looks now.--HanShotFirst 07:13, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
      • I changed it back to the way it was, but I took out the incompetence part, despite the fact that the clones needed his help on more than one occasion makes them look less effective without a Jedi to save them. Krell is a great general, as stated on his biography page on StarWars.Com. He also doesn't care that much about clone casualties, and he thinks rather low of them (both points I added before you got involved). JRT2010 11:38, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
      • As for CC-7567's "gross act of insubordination"—In terms of strict military discipline and structure, subordinates do not repeatedly question the orders of a superior officer, as CC-7567 did. Subordinates do not criticize their superior officer in front of the men, like ARC Trooper 5555 did. To do so, whatever the reason, is an act of insubordination. JRT2010 11:45, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
        • No, the entry on starwars.com does not state he is a "great general". It says this: This Besalisk Jedi is all about getting results and, indeed, his battlefield record lists many key victories in the Clone Wars. He has an unshakable confidence in his methods, and he will brook no insubordination among his charges. In personal combat, he can be ferocious -- his giant arms carry two double-ended lightsabers, making him extremely dangerous in close quarters. Pong Krell's reputation as a successful general is well known but so is the fact that the casualty rates of the clone troopers under his command are the highest. There is a difference between "successful" and "great", and the fact that he racks up a high body count is a mark against him. Additionally, you are inserting your own bias into the entry by putting all of the blame on the clones.--HanShotFirst 15:44, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
          • If you read the article, it does not state any where that he is a "great" general. I only used that word here on the talk page to emphasize his record for success, in spite of his disregard of clone lives. I got rid of the incompetence part, but you are also adding your own bias by making Krell out to be an incompetent general, which is simply untrue. So he has high casualties? As long as he has many victories credited to his reputation, as stated in the Encyclopedia, then he is not incompetent. He may seem uncaring, but its not the same as being an "inefficient" general. JRT2010 15:50, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
          • As for your edits: Krell demanded that they continue to advance no matter what happened and no matter how many of them were killed. The clones' advance was halted when they found their path blocked by a minefield, and found themselves ambushed while attempting to navigate it. The clones were surrounded and had no cover. They were nearly overwhelmed by the group of Umbaran soldiers, and took heavy casualties. Krell was frustrated by their "failure" is very biased against Krell. Also, Even though continuing the fight would have resulted in even higher casualties - is clearly opinionated and, yet again, shows your dislike for Krell in favor of the clones. Leave it as it is. I already pointed out Krell's successful reputation as a general and his lack of concern for clones. JRT2010 15:58, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
            • Please resolve this issue without resorting to editwarring. I won't hesitate to fully protect the page if this perpetuates, nor handing out blocks for persistent editwarring. Thank you for your cooperation. 1358 (Talk) 16:09, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
              • I made my last edit before your warning. JRT is still at it after somebody else jumped in. (And if anybody's wondering, it's not a sockpuppet. Do whatever you feel necessary to determine the truth of that statement.) As for the acceptability of taking the clones' side, the entry for the episode takes the clones' side to an extent; it says that Krell becomes derisive and condescending towards them. It also says that Rex tried to dissuade Krell from his plan because he didn't think it would work, which it didn't.--HanShotFirst 16:20, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

"The General"

  • As of this episode, the narrator of the show called Krell's decisions in "Darkness On Umbara" a "reckless strategy" that led to "disastrous defeat". I'm not going to use those exact words in the entry, but considering that and also considering Krell's actions in the latest episode, I believe it is no longer a violation of the NPOV policy to question his wisdom.--HanShotFirst 01:25, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • It can be added into the behind the scenes section, but the narrator's comments are not usually applied to a character's biography section. Furthermore, your attempts to portray Krell in the way you personally view him is a violation of the NPOV, and is becoming more and more tiresome. Your addition of misinformation is also tiresome. For instance, Krell did not actually order Rex and his clones to fight to the last man; he told them to stand their ground and win, meaning he expected these soldiers to survive and emerge victorious. Also, the clones weren't so much focused "navigating" the minefield as they were too busy arguing about General Krell. Stop claiming to adhere to the NPOV rule because all your edits point to the contrary. JRT2010 04:54, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • Please stay levelheaded in discussions—this is not a debate, and provoking others by calling others' efforts "tiresome" does not help. In fact, yes, narrator scripts can be applied to in-universe Biography sections; the narrator himself is not in-universe, but his comments are canon. CC7567 (talk) 04:57, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but if HanShotFirst had his way, Krell would be portrayed in his own article as an utterly incompetent general, even though canon sources have stated otherwise. JRT2010 05:05, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Stop this. Last-ditch comments are unhelpful and degrading, and they do not help anyone in a positive manner. Unless you have something constructive to discuss about the article, please stop prolonging this irrelevant discussion. Consider this your last administrative warning before disciplinary actions are taken. CC7567 (talk) 05:09, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • CC7567, I'm as tired of this as you are and I hope it will not be a problem for me to argue my case to you here in what I hope is a respectful manner toward JRT. To begin with, JRT is mistaken when he says that I would like Krell to be portrayed as completely incompetent, although I can see how he might conclude such. Krell has gotten results in the past, as acknowledged in this episode. But I would argue that it isn't as simple as winning or losing, citing the real world example of "pyrrhic victories". The objective of any good military commander is to maximize enemy losses while minimizing his own losses. While it's inevitable that soldiers will die in battle, a good leader does his or her best to lose as few of them as possible while still accomplishing the mission. The reason for this is, of course, that if you keep losing soldiers you will eventually run out of soldiers. This is something that Krell doesn't seem to realize. He did, in fact, order the clones to move forward against (or perhaps around) the tanks even though none of the clones' weapons were able of doing any damage to those tanks. If Rex had carried those orders to the letter, I'm sorry, but I cannot see how he could have succeeded. Furthermore, I take issue with JRT's insistence in his latest edit that both Rex's plan and Krell's plan worked, which is why I changed it. I will concede that Krell may have come up with some brilliant plans during his career, but IMHO this was not one of them. This plan would have been suicide and the deaths of so many troopers would have severely depleted the force under Krell's command, weakening his battalion and making it much harder for him to achieve his objectives. Rex's plan, as I understand it, saved Krell's plan from being an utter failure.--HanShotFirst 13:07, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • Further thoughts: I think it would be best if the article reflected at least some of the above. I also don't believe that phrases like "In an act of gross insubordination" or "in an act of insubordination" serve any purpose other than to make the character it refers to seem unprofessional. As we know from previous episodes, Fives usually does not talk back to his C.O. and is indeed professional. These were unusual circumstances. The word "antagonized" as used by JRT is also quite negative, as in "Krell was antagonized by having his orders questioned." It makes it sound as though Rex is being confrontational toward Krell, which a viewing of either episode disproves; instead, Rex suggests alternatives, points out likely consequences, etc. It seems as though neither one of us is ever going to be able to agree on how this article should look, and I think it would be best if a third party such as yourself decided for us.--HanShotFirst 13:32, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • First of all, it doesn't break the NPOV rule to say that Fives was being "insubordinate" if that's the way he was actually behaving. At the end of Darkness on Umbara, you can see from an objective point of view that Fives stepped out of line by criticizing his general in front of the other troopers; I doubt you'll find a general in real life who wouldn't find that to be an act of insubordination. Furthermore, "antagonized" means to be "annoyed, "irritated," "riled"...which is basically how Krell felt each time his order was questioned. I never said Rex and Fives were being confrontational in an aggressive way the whole time, but they did contradict his orders more than once in Darkness on Umbara and Krell felt antagonized by this. JRT2010 16:05, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, I disagree with your decision to remove the information I added about the clones' thoughts on Krell. It actually does have a lot to do with Krell. It reflects how his influence over them has divided some of the 501st, causing his supporters (e.g. Dogma and Hardcase) to argue with his detractors (e.g. Fives and Jesse). Even Rex came around to defending General Krell against Fives's criticism (mainly out of his desire to honor his code of loyalty, of course). So I believe that bit of info is relevant to Krell, and therefore, his article. For better or worse, he's making an impact on the 501st and that is reflected by the clones' different opinions on him. JRT2010 16:05, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, your issue with my statement about how both plans worked doesn't make much sense. You said that Rex's idea ensured that Krell's plan worked out in the end. That's quite similar to what I wrote: "With the support of the enemy's commandeered starfighters, piloted by Fives and Hardcase, Rex and his clone troopers were able to proceed with their forward assault on the airbase." The whole point of the episode, I believe, was to show how the clones used their ingenuity to ensure that the mission did not fail. Well Rex's plan worked, and therefore, so did Krell's. JRT2010 16:38, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Just to avoid any further confusion, based on the summary you added to one of your last edits, I have to assume that you meant I was personally criticizing Fives, and therefore was breaking the NPOV rule. I was not criticizing him. I may do that on the talk:page, but not on the article itself. As I pointed out in one of the above comments, Fives can be seen as behaving in an insubordinate manner (e.g. defiant) from an objective point of view. JRT2010 16:38, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, to respond to your points one by one: perhaps you didn't intend it as a criticism of Fives, but in my opinion it looks very much like a criticism of him. I do realize that I've not been terribly active on this wiki since joining years ago and may not be as familiar with NPOV as others here, but if somebody were to ask me what being "neutral" meant I would answer by saying "write what happened, write what the results were, and don't say whether those results were bad or good, or whether the things that happened were bad or good." This is something that I've admittedly not always done a wonderful job of in the past...but back to the insubordination thing. I believe that being truly neutral would be to say that Fives criticized a superior officer, provide the details of the situation, and to let readers form their own opinions as to whether or not it was warranted. To say "this was insubordination" doesn't seem particularly neutral to me, because insubordination is bad, so the implication is "this character did something bad". If I were to go over to the page on Soontir Fel and write "In an act of treason, Fel defected from the Empire and joined Rogue Squadron," I don't believe that would be NPOV. It would be saying "He's a traitor!", which would be putting a certain spin on the event. Likewise, with Fives when you point out that he was being insubordinate, it is like saying "He's a bad soldier!" (EDIT TO ADD: Just to make my point clearer: yes, Fel committed treason. Yes, Fives was insubordinate. But providing context and explaining what exactly they did and why is fairly important. And there's little on the page at the moment explaining what exactly Fives' problems were with his commanding officer. Fives made what were, in my opinion, some valid points.)--HanShotFirst 22:37, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to take anything out of the entry while we're still having this discussion, but I am about to add a quote from the episode, just so you know.--HanShotFirst 22:47, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • Now I'll address what you said of Krell's plan working. Krell accomplished his objective, yes, but his plan--as you can see from the quote I just added--was to have the clones launch a full forward assault. Not to just stand their ground, but to move forward. I'm trying not to get snarky here, but they couldn't do that without dying. The tanks were in their way, and the tanks were capable of tearing them all to pieces if they engaged the tanks head-on. It was only because Rex did not carry out that order and did not tell Hardcase and Fives to abort their mission to steal the starfighters that they succeeded. So to sum up: Rex's plan allowed Krell to achieve his goal, but Krell's plan was not even carried out, so to say it worked is misleading in my view.--HanShotFirst 22:57, November 5, 2011 (UTC)our
        • Last one. Here is your description of the clones' reactions to his plan: By this time, General Krell's influence on the 501st created animosity not just between himself and some of the clones, but also between the clones themselves. After their failed attempt to take the capital, Rex paid more respect to Krell, and took extra care to offer alternative options as opposed to outright questioning the general's orders. Fives grew increasingly bitter and resentful of Krell to the point where Rex had to remind him about Krell's reputation as an effective leader. He also reminded the ARC trooper that a clone's duty was to faithfully support his superior officer without question or hesitation. Dogma strongly supported Krell's strategy and even stood up for him against Fives on more than one occasion. Hardcase, a hyperactive trigger-happy clone trooper, also favored the general's direct approach and paid little attention to the misgivings of his other comrades. And here is why I think it should be changed or expanded upon: you say that some clones have misgivings, but you don't say why. You say that Rex reminded Fives what his duty was, but you don't include Fives' response. This makes Fives and like-minded clones seem like they just dislike Krell for no reason. I believe it's relevant to include the part where Fives says that while Krell may have a good record, he also has a habit of racking up high casualties and that being the reason for Fives' low morale. Fives is worried that Krell is going to get most of them killed, that he considers them expendable. The summary of the exchange between Rex and Fives also is also worded in such a way as to suggest Rex is right when he says "You must do whatever your superiors tell you, even if it's wrong or stupid," and to suggest Fives is wrong when he says "If my superior tells me to do something that's wrong or stupid, I should not just do it without question or hesitation." Being truly neutral means avoiding such implications. It means that if you're going to summarize the argument between the clones, that you should put the pro-Krell argument in there, put the anti-Krell argument in there, and leave it to the reader to decide which of the two makes sense.--HanShotFirst 23:40, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
          • I get your argument, but I do not agree that words like "insubordination" or "treason" break the NPOV rule. Take Slick for instance: he betrayed the Republic and joined the Separatists. Regardless of his reasons, it was still an act of treason as far as Republic law is concerned—so that can be neutrally stated without breaking the NPOV. Likewise, Fives was being insubordinate when he openly criticized the general in front of the clones—as I pointed out before—and in terms like military code and discipline, his defiant stance against a superior officer is insubordinate. It's not a personal point of view. In this case (e.g. military rules, conduct, etc.), it's simply a matter of a fact. Furthermore, the reasons as to why some of the clones dislike Krell have already been added (e.g. his strategies are not affected by potential clone casualties, he prefers the direct approach in battle—forward assault, etc.). To state this over and over (like when ever it mentions how Krell became angry when his order was contradicted or when he was criticized) would be repetitive. JRT2010 01:10, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm breaking up the Umbara section since it deals with two different episodes (and two separate missions in the overall campaign). The first one will have the original paragraph, the second will have the one you added. JRT2010 01:10, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
          • Your point on this matter (Krell's strategy) seems—and I'm not saying this in a disrespectful way—very opinionated and not neutral. No matter how likely it seems that Rex and the clones could not pull off Krell's plan (as it was originally conceived), it still does not absolutely confirm that it would fail. I also structured that part of the section to show that Krell's plan did not fail because of how Rex improvised on it. Krell's plan was being carried out because Rex was ordered to do so, but the clone was still counting on Fives and Hardcase to succeed in their task in order to better ensure that the mission was not failure.JRT2010 01:10, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
          • Again, the article has already gone over why some of the clones do not like Krell (e.g. his kind of strategies, his lack of regard for clone lives, etc.). To state these facts over and over again would be repetitive, as I have been forced to do in order to address these issues. I agree with you that being neutral means avoiding "implications," but more than a few of your edits have implied that Krell is a fool, the failures are his fault, and so on. JRT2010 01:10, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
            • Okay, I believe I can live with the page as it looks now, with one exception: I suggest that it be changed to say that Rex did not obey Krell's order to launch a full frontal assault. Those were Krell's exact words, as opposed to "stand your ground". It's also why Krell said at the end of the episode that Rex was lucky his plan worked, because if it hadn't worked then it would've been Rex's ass.
            • Also, just to address the implication that Krell is a fool: you're right, saying or implying that wouldn't be neutral, I suppose. And until we see more of the story I don't plan on adding anything else to cast Krell in a negative light, but I would like to make one observation on this talk page. So far, there has been nothing to suggest that Krell is a brilliant commander other than starwars.com saying that he's been successful and various characters on the show saying that he's gotten results in the past. It's an informed ability, seemingly, and if you only judge him by the decisions he makes in this arc, then I'm sorry, but he doesn't look very good. I mean, his troops were up against tanks that none of their weapons could damage, that were mowing down any clones unfortunate enough to get in their line of fire, and Krell orders Rex to advance, with those tanks in the way. To put it mildly, that wasn't a good idea.--HanShotFirst 01:23, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm glad we've almost reached an agreement at last, and I'm not against rewriting this part, but I have to argue that it doesn't seem like Rex was disregarding Krell's order to continue the forward assault. If he had pulled his troops back like before, then yes, that would be ignoring an order. Instead, he continued to have his men fight on (he told them to hold on or stand their ground as long as possible because he didn't believe they would survive unless Fives and Hardcase succeeded in their task). JRT2010 15:34, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Error?

I have noticed that throughout the two Umbara arc episodes that have been aired that Krell addresses Rex (CC-7567) as "CT-7567". Did the writers make an error, or is Krell insulting Rex? The incidents were not mentioned in the article; I did not wish to add anything to the article that might then be removed due to what I wrote being false, or not being neutral.

  • If I were to guess, I would say it was an insult. Referring to clones by their numbers rather than their nicknames alone seems to be something of an insult to me, especially when Anakin introduced CC-7567 to Krell as "Rex" rather than as "CC-7567". While I can't be sure of this, I believe Krell was trying to send this message: "You are not a person. You are a number. You have no more value than a droid."--HanShotFirst 13:37, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

I considered it an insult also, but Krell says C T, which is the prefix for the rank-and-file clone troopers, or sergeants. Rex's prefix is C C, which stands for Clone commander. Could that also be considered an insult, or did the writers slipup?

  • It's possible that it was intentional, as though he were saying "Your rank means nothing to me; you're all the same in my eyes."
  • You make it sound so harsh. And as I recall, Krell started referring to Rex more by his "nickname" rather than his number. The only time he used the number in The General was when he was giving an order that he expected to be obeyed. JRT2010 16:32, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • It's likely that this error is the fault of poor research on the part of the writer/director, something that might be mentioned in the BTS. An in-universe explanation probably isn't necessary, but if it is, I think a reasonable assumption would be to say that Krell is trying to say that he's in charge, and that the ranks of the clones don't matter because they're all under his command. This is all just speculation, however, unless an official source gives a real reason.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 18:29, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Right now, we don't know that the error was anything more than an error made during the scripting of the episode. The mere fact that Krell is calling Rex by his designation instead of his nickname says that Krell didn't always respect the clones' choices for individuality. Anything more than that would be speculation. CC7567 (talk) 20:29, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Sabers

The article states quite clearly that he uses 2 doublesabers, but I count 4 in several of the pictures. Anybody have a definitive answer? --The Snypr 15:53, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

  • Krell's sabers fold in the middle. You could be mistaken seeing 4 "hilts" when they are actually only 2 sabers folded in half.--CT-1987 17:50, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Side I sense in him

After watching the first three Battle of Umbara episodes, I can't help but feel that though he is a Jedi, he is using a bit of Dark Side. The Jedi don't believe in execution, yet he threatens Fives with his lightsaber in the first episode, then sentenced Fives and Jesse, (At least I thought it was Jesse) to be executed, THEN later decides to just kill them himself, (The trailer for the next episode) So.... definitely not a good guy, me thinks.... —Unsigned comment by Jet Twilights (talk • contribs)

  • Remember talk pages are to be used for discussion related to the article itself, not about the topic. 1358 (Talk) 10:45, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • He said he planned to join Count Dooku!!! Last time I checked, Jedi don't join SITH LORD Count Dooku. He might not be a Dark Jedi, but he was no longer a Jedi.--Jet Twilights 04:05, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

The one Jedi that I can say deserved to die. I hated the character from the start and cheered when he died.--Theraptor92 14:37, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

  • I hate to be that guy, but talk pages are to be used for discussion related to the article itself, not about the topic. (But yeah, I couldn't agree more)--Jet Twilights 14:58, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be listed as affiliated with the Confederacy of Independent States or at least in league with Separatist Umbara? He even says he's helping them, or would have once rescued, so we have the actual episode itself to prove that much. —Unsigned comment by 98.212.98.238 (talk • contribs)

  • He literally says, "I serve no one side." He did act in the interests of the Separatists, but he wasn't officially affiliated with them, which is what would be needed to list that as an affiliation. CC7567 (talk) 18:23, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Why he would recruit from Dooku and not Sidious is still a mystery. Also, was it said that from the beginning of the Battle of Umbara, and possibly for months, if not years, Krell was secretly helping the Separatists? He's been with them before the "Carnage of Krell" episode, even if not officially. However, he's obviously had dealings with the Umbarans. Otherwise, they'd kill him when they found him in the brig, not free him. He's a Jedi. Anyway, his high clone casualty record, in the war, not merely in this battle alone, could have been deliberate from the beginning. It's obvious he views clones as inferior. He even says as much flat outright so we know he thinks lowly of clones. —Unsigned comment by 98.212.98.238 (talk • contribs)

  • While all of those points are valid possibilities, this discussion is straying from focusing on the article to its subject (Krell), which is against Wookieepedia policy. This discussion should not be continued unless anyone has suggestions to make about the article itself, not further speculation about Krell. CC7567 (talk) 06:31, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Main image

{{Wip}} or not, the current image is in absolutely NO way better quality that the promotional shot that was there before. It is a lower quality image, not to mention the blue tint to Krell's face because he's behind a force field. So the main image I guess needs to be put to a vote.

File:PongKrellHS-SWE.jpg|Promotional image File:PongKrell-POD.jpg|Screenshot File:KrellEvilGrin-SWE.jpg|3rd option

Promotional

  1. The promotional image is higher quality, sharper, proper color. You will not get that from any screenshot from any of the Umbara episodes. - JMAS 20px Hey, it's me! 06:40, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Jayden Matthews 10:48, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Ressor 23:15, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot

  1. This one is much better. Menkooroo 07:56, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Nahdar Vebb 22:07, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 09:57, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • JMAS, if you have an issue with images that I upload for an article that I plan to take to featured status, please take it to my talk page. Believe me, I have thought about this, and I have no problems using that image you uploaded for the article in the P&T section or elsewhere. However, I feel that it is my choice on what should be the main infobox image simply because I am taking the article to featured status. You know my position on using promotional images for infoboxes as well too. Please see. JangFett (Talk) 06:55, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • While I would normally prefer the image of JMAS, I'll leave the decision to Jang. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:15, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • Hence why in the main comment, I stated I was starting this in spite of the WIP template. Because you are working on it, and even when you take it to FA status, that does not mean you own this article. It does not mean that every change has to have your approval. The main image is to be the best possible quality image to depict the character. That is what this is about. The image you selected is of obvious lower quality and inferior color, and that will be the fact with any screenshot taken from the Umbara story arc. Every image will dark, or oddly colored due to the dark environment of said story arc. The promotional image does not have that drawback. - JMAS 20px Hey, it's me! 18:09, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
    • And no, this should not have been taken to your talk page, because this has to deal with the article in question. Which is specifically what this talk page is for. - JMAS 20px Hey, it's me! 18:11, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm going to say one other thing before I stop debating over such a ridiculous thing. How come you did not dispute the infobox screenshot image of Cut? Of course, because you originally uploaded it. When you asked me if I wanted to change that for a SWE image you uploaded, I said no, and you complied. Now, when I change Krell's infobox with an image I feel that is more suitable, this occurs. JMAS, while the wiki is free for anyone to edit, no one should also dictate what image should go where, or even have total control over the images of the wiki. I do not own this article, but I feel that I have a right to change an image within the article at my discretion. JangFett (Talk) 18:19, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't give a flying frack who uploaded the image. File:Cut.jpg|This image and File:CutLawquaneHS-SWE.jpg|this image of Cut are not vastly different in the color in which they depict the character. If you can find any screenshot from any of the Umbara arc episodes that accurately depicts the colors of the character, then go for it. I'll drop this. I don't think you or anyone can based on the darkness and odd colors of the entire story arc. My objection is FAR less over the promotional image vs. screenshot, as it is over the color. - JMAS 20px Hey, it's me! 01:11, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
          • I think the main image of Krell should be more evil looking! That is why the promo image is better. The guy is a villain and the image should reflect that. --Dangrievous 16:15, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dangrievous. The current image doesn't reflect Krell's evil nature. If that sort of thing doesn't matter, than why not replace Darth Maul's snarling visage with him as a confused/frightened youngling? I think this is a good one if you cut it down to just Krell's face. He looks suitably nasty in it. Near-sighted Jedi 09:24, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
  • To be very honest, I'm not sure I like either one of those pictures that much. I'd more prefer something similar to this that shows him grinning. I think that captures the essence of the character better. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:55, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • You mean like the third option I just uploaded? - JMAS 20px Hey, it's me! 05:02, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
      • I think I'd still prefer a "live" shot from one of the episodes. I'm not a fan of the promotional posing images, especially with the unsightly purple background. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:04, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is really menacing but I agree! I HATE the purple BG! As I can not upload images cause bs, I suggest a face when he is looking angry after telling Rex about the fate of Fives/Jess right at the end of "Plan of Dissent"! BTW: How do you get these silly image restrictions off!? Cause I would be glad to search for an image as well...--85.11.146.37 12:54, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
          • Just to clarify this, the main image is not a way to make a charakter more evil, more epic or more whatever, but a way to present an image that shows the character's face/head (or body, if you want) in the best way of presenting it, regardless of it looks evil or not. Nahdar Vebb 14:28, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
            • Since it's an even vote now, does that mean the image should be changed back to how it was? Ressor 23:16, January 12, 2012 (UTC)