Species[]

I don't understand why the species is protected in the infobox, he is Pau'an beyond any doubt Maxattac (talk) 21:08, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, Maxattac! He does have the earmuffs and the facial ridges that fit the usual look of a native of Utapau like Tion Medon. He even has deformed sharp teeth like Medon, but I bet it is standard admin protocol to wait until an official source gives us his species. I know the admins know many of us will figure out the species by now on our own and try to edit it without a source. That is why it is locked. And when it is confirmed, the first to make the main edits will be the top admins..."beating" the rest of us! --Dangrievous (talk) 21:41, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • I won't disagree that the character appears like a Pau'an, but with the stylized animated style of Rebels (which we have barely seen thus far), it would be sensible to wait for official expansion on the character. The page's protection is not aimed at preventing the addition of new information by non-admins; high-traffic pages are commonly semi-protected to prevent vandalism from unregistered users. Both of you are capable of editing the page as it is. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:47, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
    • CC is correct. No one is arguing that he isn't a Pau'an, but it's always a good idea to wait for a source to actually state this before jumping to conclusions, even obvious ones. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:52, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not arguing. I know you guys are following standard protocol for the site. So I know for this high class new information, a high class source is needed. I can wait. I also rechecked that Tion Medon has red around his eyes and red streaks going down his cheeks like this Inquisitor. Can not wait for more confirmation about this character and series. May the Force be with you! --Dangrievous (talk) 03:17, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
        • To me, he looks like the Mortis Son.Darth Pickle 2 (talk) 03:21, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
          • It is done. It has been confirmed and I am happy with the species choice! --Dangrievous (talk) 06:45, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Homeworld[]

i don't understand if he is a Pau'an. why can't we put Utapau as this guy's homeworld? Jkirk8907 (talk) 09:57, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

• Species is not necessarily an indicator of homeworld. There are many individuals who do not regard their species' homeworld as their own homeworld. That is not to say that is the case for this Inquisitor, but we can't assume without official verification. CC7567 ^(talk) 14:12, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think Utapau can be listed as his homeworld based on the the page for Pau'an: "Pau'ans were gaunt near-Humans native to the planet Utapau. Also known as Utapauns and Ancients due to their long lifespans, they co-existed on Utapau with the Utai." I think that matter of factly states Pau'ans hail from Utapau whether they claim it or not. He-guy (talk) 03:55, October 15, 2013 (UTC) He-Guy

• But not all Pau'an's are necessarily from Utapau. They may have originated there, but not all were necessarily from there. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:05, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Apprentice of whom?[]

shall we added he as one of the darth vader's apprentices ?—Unsigned comment by 179.215.208.41 (talk • contribs).

• Not until it's confirmed he learned anything about the Force from Vader. All we know so far is that Vader told him to go hunt Jedi. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:18, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Forms[]

I noticed that the lightsaber forms, which the Inquisitor used, haven't been discussed. Having watched the duel between Kanan and the Inquisitor I think it's pretty safe to say that the Inquisitor was trained in Form II Makashi (based on the fencing-like body and lightsaber moves, which quite resemble Count Dooku's ones) and in Jar'Kai. Am I wrong?--79.100.72.233 20:50, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, because this is NuCanon and those are Legends forms, and this is not the place to speculate. Cade Calrayn 20:53, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Not sith?[]

Can anyone explain to me how he isn't a sith? Sure, he's not sith by race, but he is a darksider, a "sith minion" if you will, but then, what's the difference?--Fekyu (talk) 17:11, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

Rule of Two, Sith ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:15, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

Grammar correction[]

I can not correct it but I believe it should be "The Inquisitor took an interest in killing Kanan Jarrus and converting his apprentice, Ezra Bridger (...)" or " The Inquisitor took an interest both in killing Kanan Jarrus as well as converting his apprentice, Ezra Bridger (...)" instead of "The Inquisitor took an interest in killing both Kanan Jarrus and converting his apprentice, Ezra Bridger (...)" for saying both killing means that he wanted to kill the both not convert Ezra into sith and kill Kanan. I am no grammar expert but I believe this is wrongly spelled.

Timeline?[]

I noticed that the infobox officially states that the Inquisitor died 4 years before the Battle of Yavin on the Sovereign, however many other rebels pages and the official page of Star Wars Rebels itself lists the show occurring five years before the Battle of Yavin, not four. Is there any official source that states whether or not the show has progressed forward in time, or is this just a simple error? Comm. Boots 01:35, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

• The show began approximately 5 years before the Battle of Yavin. The events of "Empire Day" and "Gathering Forces" mark the 15th anniversary of the Empire. That means the Empire was declared 15 years before those episodes. Episode IV is 19 years after Episode III. Knowing that, we can use simple math to know that the events after Empire Day/Gathering Forces are now 4 years before the Battle of Yavin. The Rebels events before Empire Day/Gathering Forces are marked as 5 years before. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 01:39, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Are we sure it works that way? Unless I'm missing osmething, that's like saying the US calendar should change it's year every 4th of July, instead of January 1st. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 17:14, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • That only works if the Battle of Yavin takes place on Empire Day. Leland Chee even tweeted how this doesn't work. Cevan (talk) 17:26, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
    • Please provide a link to that tweet. All we have right now are the number of years between the films. This is a really simple thing that people here are overcomplicating. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 17:33, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • Here is Leland's tweet saying that system only works if the Battle of Yavin takes place on Empire Day. https://twitter.com/holocronkeeper/status/560834168653770752 Cevan (talk) 17:43, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
        • Then we have to say "Between X and X before the Battle of Yavin" now, because we have no clear information to go on anymore. We know that Empire Day/Gathering Forces is 15 years after Episode III. We know that Battle of Yavin is 19 years after Episode III. That means it's at least 4 years, so somewhere between 4 and 5 years. We can't be definitive anymore for anything taking place after Empire Day/Gathering Forces. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 18:03, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Add to powers and abilities[]

He's used Force choke on Kanan and Ezra. The article doesn't mention that.--Fekyu (talk) 22:58, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

• That was only in an illusion; we have no proof that he can actually do that. Cevan (talk) 23:00, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, no it wasn't. He used it briefly on Kanan while torturing him--Fekyu (talk) 13:45, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • I just rewatched the torture scene and the Inquisitor is attempting to use a mind trick, not a Force choke. Cevan (talk) 21:26, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

The Grand Inquisitor[]

Recently, I have read in a few sources that Dave Filoni reveals The Inquisitor (of season 1) was actually The Grand Inquisitor and inquisitors of season 2 was ranked below him in a commentary in Star Wars Rebels Season 1 Blu-Ray. Here is one of the sources I have managed to re-find: http:// makingstarwars.net/2015/08/star-wars-rebels-season-one-blu-ray-review/

So, what kind of an update should be made? Move to the page to "The Grand Inquisitor" or "Unidenified Grand Inquisitor? Just mention it in this page and create a canon section in existing legends "Grand Inquisitor" page? Or wait until another official statement? --AnilSerifoglu (talk)

• If Filoni did say that, then I guess it's pretty official. But I'd like to know the exact quote, though. Unfortunately, I don't own the Blu-Ray edition. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:35, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • I have only managed to find the second half of the video (https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdtrubRj88) but it matches with Filoni's exact statements given here:http:// rebelsreport.com/2015/09/01/star-wars-rebels-season-2-a-look-ahead-new-images-and-info-from-dave-filoni/ "The Inquisitor in season one was the “Grand Inquisitor,” the Inquisitors in season two were ranked below him." --AnilSerifoglu (talk) 19:52, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

I just updated the page with this information. However, we definitely shouldn't change the name of the page. Grand Inquisitor is his rank. The name he used and the name we have been given for the character itself is "the Inquisitor." - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 21:08, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

• StarWars.com has changed the character's databank entry to "The Grand Inquisitor". Should we still keep the original name? --Dentface (talk) 02:17, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

I'd say move, per the databank, and as that's clearly his proper in-universe name.--Ser Patrek (talk) 10:55, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

His birth date[]

In the page it is said "Over 47 years before the Battle of Yavin" using a simple math and the info from the Rebels Visual Guide. It is written that his age is Mid-40s. But there is a note that it is human equivalent. Here is the entire page: http:// 1.bp.blogspot.com/-07mkyyV7ETY/U-H4RiJLfzI/AAAAAAAAatM/wJhXIJDTsAk/s1600/star+wars+rebels+dk+book-0002.jpg So it means we have no idea about his actual birth year and I think current info should be removed from the wikia page. What do you think? ----AnilSerifoglu (talk)

• "human equivalent" is basically a way of saying standard years, so it's still appropriate. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 01:19, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

I know this is from 5 years ago, but as Pa'uans live for hundreds of years, it almost for sure doesn't talk about standard years. OneNose (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Potentially in Episode III???[]

So, the following in in the "Behind the Scenes" section:

"On October 28, 2015, Dave Filoni revealed that the Inquisitor appeared in the Clone Wars, but he didn't specify any details on the appearance or even if he was referring to the animated series or the Clone Wars in general, leading to an inferred possibility of his appearance in Episode III.[25] This is also backed up by the fact that the only male Pa'un in The Clones Wars was Torul Blom who died in Crystal Crisis."

Not sure anything indicates he was in Revenge of the Sith. True enough that Torul Blom was the only male Pau'an who was named in the Clone Wars arc, but we saw plenty of male Pau'an soldiers and other male Pau'an who were in the background. I honestly think that, given how he acts and dresses (ie: comfortable taking military command of troops and wearing parts of the Imperial Military Uniform, neither of which the other Inquisitors we've seen feel comfortable doing), the best guess for what he was on Utapau was a soldier or military commander. Nothing about Filoni's comment implied we saw his face or saw him up close, just that he appeared. He could have very well been a soldier, which seems altogether more likely to me than him being either of the other two Pau'an we meet in Revenge of the Sith with Tion Mendon (also that, everyone else we've seen up close in any of the films has been meticulously modeled to make it very clear who they are and the Inquisitor doesn't resemble either of those individuals).

Therefore, I suggest that "but he didn't specify any details on the appearance or even if he was referring to the animated series or the Clone Wars in general, leading to an inferred possibility of his appearance in Episode III.[25] This is also backed up by the fact that the only male Pa'un in The Clones Wars was Torul Blom who died in Crystal Crisis" be removed from this article because there isn't really any backing for this theory. And it simply be stated that Filoni said he appeared in the Clone Wars because that, from what I understand, is all we actually know.

--Elegant Force (talk) 08:41, December 2, 2015 (UTC)Elegant Force

"In the Clone Wars" may just have been meant as "present during the Clone Wars". But eh who knows.

In the new Rebels he is a Jedi Temple Guard[]

In the new Star Wars: Rebels, one of the Jedi Temple Guards took off his mask. He said something like this to Kanan: "You are now what I once was." —Unsigned comment by 73.17.160.70 (talk • contribs).

Vision in the Jedi Temple on Lothal[]

After his death, a vision of the Grand Inquisitor as a Jedi Temple Guard appeared to Jarrus in the Jedi Temple on Lothal. In the vision, this Sentinel warned Jarrus that Bridger could fall to the dark side, and the two engaged in a lightsaber duel. After Jarrus refused to fight any further, the Sentinel told Jarrus he was a Jedi Knight as the Grand Inquisitor once was. This vision was conjured by Jedi Master Yoda so Jarrus would know he was truly a Jedi Knight.

(Text bolded to emphasize)

Is there any source for the vision of the Grand Inquisitor as Temple Guard being "conjured by Jedi Master Yoda"? From watching the episode I do not recall any direct evidence of that. —Unsigned comment by 24.222.66.204 (talk • contribs).

• Yes. It's from Rebels Recon. You can find that in the Legacy section, since we don't source introduction sections. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 03:24, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, Yoda really needs to work on his clarity and communication skills. Like seriously, this is one of those "tell don't show" kind of situations, Yoda. —Unsigned comment by 24.222.66.204 (talk • contribs).
    • It was important for Kanan to learn the lesson himself. Just like Luke was not a Jedi Knight until he tossed away his lightsaber in front of the Emperor, Kanan was not truly a Jedi Knight until he accepted he couldn't protect Ezra forever and stopped fighting. That was his Jedi Trials. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to join the discussion in the Star Wars Discussions section. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 03:32, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
      • Its Amazing how The Grand Inquisitor was the biggest obstacle to Kanan's knighthood, but he was the one who made him a knight.--Marcuspearl (talk) 05:16, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
        • Ironic really how that turned out.
          Yours Truly Valenthyne (talk) 11:12, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
• Rebels Recon says "motivated by Yoda". "motivated" != "conjured". The latter means that everything that happened was scripted by the conjurer. It's also possible that everything that happened was the Force doing its own stuff, with Yoda just triggering/invoking it. So, I've removed the sentence.  [ pepoluan ^talk ] 09:14, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Legends version[]

I think it shut be Legends version of that article because The Clone Wars is also Legends TV-series. {{Subst:user:Mustafar29/podpis}} 19:46, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

• TCW is canon; we just also consider it Legends for the purposes of its Legends-only spin offs. - AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 20:43, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Additionally, his role in TCW is extremely limited, and we don't even know which Temple Guard he was. There's no point in creating a Legends "Unidentified Jedi Temple Guard" article when there's nothing that sets him apart from the others from a Legends point of view. --LelalMekha (talk) 21:04, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

The Sentinel?[]

What source says he can be called the Sentinel as a Jedi Temple Guard?--Editoronthewiki (talk) 01:44, May 12, 2019 (UTC)

• The credits of "Shroud of Darkness" call him that. - Cwedin^(talk) 01:56, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • The first ID put there now is correct? It doesn’t just say Sentinel? Thank you.--Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:25, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
    • It's just Sentinel. - Cwedin^(talk) 02:40, May 12, 2019 (UTC)

Physical body death[]

The infobox mentions that the Grand Inquisitor's date of death only regards his physical body. However, considering there are no such comments in articles on other characters (including those who became Force spirits), I believe we should remain consistent on that and delete the mention from this article. Why would the GI be an exception, after all?

Second of all: correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Star Wars universe there's no case in which death would refer to anything other than physical death. Death is inherently physical, so stressing that the date of death means the death of the physical body makes no sense. Also, if he was a ghost (which is still disputed, I believe), he could not die, as ghosts are dead per se.

That's all on my side. I refrained from altering the page myself, as I'm somewhat certain my point may turn out to be arguable. Mustafar29 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Species retcon?[]

Could his species have been changed for OWK? He looks like a normal near-human. --Potsk (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• He’s definitely still a Pau’an, he’s the same character and there would be no reason to change his species. We can chalk up his look in Kenobi to practicality most likely, it’s not a change in species. EthSch13 (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Asajj Ventress was a Rattataki at first, then they changed her to a Zabrak ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Potsk (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That change was for story reasons, and a lot less dramatic appearance-wise, I can’t think of any way that would make sense with the Grand Inquisitor from what we’ve seen of him so far. EthSch13 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In Obi-Wan Kenobi[]

Okay, so... are we going to talk about what happened in Part II in the show? Should that be considered as his physical death? HERRERO BOSS (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the Grand Inquisitor could have survived that abdomen wound like Fennec Shand or Cal Kestis it needn't have been mortal (though he looked quite dead-like when the Third Sister left him behind). I don't think they would retcon the entire S01 of REBELS which features him very much alive as its primary antagonist. The Inquisitor could have had cybernetics implanted in his abdomen beneath his suit to keep him alive. We'll just have to see. Alex of Star Wars (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Additionally, Pau’ans have two stomachs. He likely only got stabbed in one. He might be out of commission for a little while, but Deborah Chow specifically said that they wanted to honor what Rebels contributed to the canon, there’s little to no chance of retconning the series. 72.65.223.91 14:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• There's no reason to assume that Rebels has been retconned, especially since the trailer shows the Grand Inquisitor in scenes that haven't happened yet. For now we shouldn't list this as his death VergenceScatter (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• It's possible Filoni is retconning his own work, but this is conjecture at best. Considering that Ahsoka is a big sequel to Rebels, I can't imagine they're throwing it out the window. It's even more improbable that they'd create two timelines, unless one is "Legends" (which is really far fetched). VaderBoyee (talk) 8:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In Obi Wan Kenobi[]

What's the source stating that the Grand Inquisitor definitely survived. He looks pretty much dead and Darth Vader and the Third Sister say that he has died. Should we remove the information saying that he survived. Correct me if I'm wrong.

• The source that he survived is that he's alive later in the timeline, for now - no reason to assume a retcon unless they explicitly say it. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 23:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that the quote is, "He will pay for the Grand Inquisitor's... [cut off by Vader]". The Grand Inquisitor's what? We don't know. She doesn't say 'Death'. The next word might've been 'Injuries'. IronyMann (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Image[]

I don't have access to high-quality screenshots from the series, but might I suggest that we replace the infobox image from Rebels with a photo from Obi-Wan Kenobi? I can think of one scene in particular that would work well, when the Grand Inquisitor is on Daiyu and tells Reva that he will capture Kenobi himself. The lighting lets his eyes really shine, and he looks quite accurate to his Rebels counterpart. I find it odd that neither the Grand Inquisitor nor the Fifth Brother have had their infobox images replaced yet, but hopefully this will bring some attention to the issue. EthSch13 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi there, I brought this issue up on Discord and the answer I was given was that this should first be put to vote, as there's no policy on infobox images other than precedent. Though my view is that the Grand Inquisitor should get an updated photo, as did Ahsoka, Saw Gerrera, and a bunch of other animation-to-live-action characters. ~Mustafar29 _{(text me back here)} 20:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Image, part II[]

I suggest that the infobox photo be replaced with the Grand Inquisior's live-action appearance.

I believe we should not consider the matter through the prism of whether we liked his new live-action appearance (I myself am not in favor whatsoever). I simply recognize the need to follow the precedent that previous cases of animation-to-live-action transition have set, including Ahsoka, Bo-Katan, Cad Bane, etc.

One may argue that the Grand Inquisitor's case is significantly different from those I have enumerated because the Grand Inquisitor's live-action appearance did not depict the character's oldest image. However, the article on Maul—naturally before the premiere of Solo—retained young Maul's Phantom Menace appearance despite the fact his most recent appearance was that from Star Wars Rebels. Therefore, I gather that age should play no role in terms of whether live-action should have priority over animation with respect to infobox pictures.

I am not jumping the gun, and so I have not updated the infobox myself. I would rather an in-depth discussion preceded any decision to be made. ~Mustafar29 _{(text me back here)} 11:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

By precedent, the infobox image should be of his live action appearance. The Legends articles of Original Trilogy characters don't have their older comic versions. It's also very arguable/subjective that he "looks older" in Rebels. He looks different, as with all animated portrayals of characters, and that's as far as it objectively goes. This extends to Fifth Brother. Potsk (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles who originated from The Clone Wars etc (Such as Ahsoka Tano) have changed their pictures to live-action ones as the series in which they've taken place in is around 9 ABY, years away from their original appearance, in this case, the Grand Inquisitor's last (not latest) appearance takes place in 2 BBY IIRC, so the oldest appearance. The Grand Inquisitor's Rebels appearance shall be depicted here as he's older—not visually, but he is—and not the live-action appearance as he's younger. (And personally, because it's horrible :P) Samonic 12:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Precedent isn't policy though. And any attempt to change the image could just as easily be reverted to what someone else preferred, this is why I suggested putting it to a vote when asked on the discord by Mustafar29, that way the community has decided what should be the image, and we can refer to that decision if someone later decides to change the image to whatever they wanted Lewisr (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to bring up the Legends OT characters again (Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie). Why is it different for those articles? Also Kyle Katarn which favors his portrayal by an actor in Dark Forces II rather than his later appearance in Jedi Academy? Potsk (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Potsk: I have absolutely no idea, I would have changed it, but I guess it could be because they're more "known" to the public which would generate more clicks? Lewisr: Why isn't there a vote, then? I haven't seen a CT/SH, if I haven't missed it. Samonic 19:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why there hasn't been a vote for TGI Samonic, I'm certainly not going to start it as I have no desire to change the image to one from Kenobi Lewisr (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Before there can be a vote there needs to be a presentable, high-quality image of the live-action inquisitor. Potsk (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm for putting it to vote, then. As for the which-image-is-more-known-to-the-public criterion — if this criterion was taken seriously, then Ahsoka would violate it, as she's definitely best known as her TCW self. The same goes for Bane. Not certain as to Bo-Katan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember before the case of Inquisitors there was no doubt as to whether or not live action takes precendense over animation. A problem arises here and now because many fans, me included, are not satisfied with the outcome of Inquisitors' animation-to-live-action transition. Whether we like what they look like or not, come on, we're an encyclopedia. There's no room for sentiments, facts are what counts. ~Mustafar29 _{(text me back here)} 19:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Mustafar29: What? No one has said they won't change it because of their preferences, unless I have missed it. Everyone will vote what they like, we can't force a change. If you want to put it to a vote, go ahead, the community will be able to choose what they like. I, personally, would keep this image because of my preference, and I don't know what you mean by "facts." Samonic 20:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Per precedence, it should be a live-action image. The only problem is that the ones we've got now are bad compared to the animation one, since the latter is of far better quality and has a more neutral expression. OOM 224 20:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Is precedence policy? Samonic 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Precedence informs policy. All precedents exist for a reason, and for the longest time realism has been the preeminent factor for consideration when determining an infobox image. When you start overturning precedents (I'm saying nothing against change), you're going to introduce inconsistencies with everything else unless you change all of them as well in accordance with the new precedent, and that means setting up even more arbitrary standards when we should be cutting down on them. Realism is the precedent for infobox images because it's the best standard. Exceptions only apply for fringe cases such as visible differences in age where the less realistic image is set later in chronology. OOM 224 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Understood, thank you. Samonic 22:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Samonic, it's alright, I just mentioned a vote as a possibility. Also, I said I didn't want to step forward or volunteer to arrange any voting, all I did here was start a discussion (an in-depth discussion). I don't really want to argue, that's obviously not a matter of life or death anyway :P By facts I mean all that which is objective. One objective thing is that per precedense infobox images are updated for live-action except in articles about Inquisitors. Now I think that with OOM's say on that, we're done with the matter. Force be with you! ~Mustafar29 _{(text me back here)} 22:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Well, if it does get brought to a vote, which I agree it should, then here is the live-action image I present for consideration. Placed slightly above for formatting. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Let me just leave a note here that the issue of the infobox image has already been put to vote. — Mustafar29 ✉ 21:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical error[]

Grammatical error under "Hunting Jocasta Nu"

The first paragraph in the "Hunting Jocasta Nu" section starts with "As him and his master arrived ....". This is grammatically incorrect, as him is the objective tense of the male third person pronoun. Objects cannot take action in a sentence, that's literally what makes them the object. The subject of the sentence would be "As he and his master arrived ...." The simple rule is, if you remove the other person from the sentence, which pronoun would be used instead? The pronoun doesn't change when you add someone back.

"I went to the store", not "Me went to the store". So, "Alice and I went to the store" not "Alice and me went to the store". Similarly, it's not "As him arrived..." it's "As he arrived..." Adding the other person to the sentence does not change the grammar. —Unsigned comment by 69.228.130.15 (talk • contribs).

• You don't have to point out grammatical errors on the talk page. If you see one, just fix it. Potsk (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The page is semi-protected, so unregistered users cannot edit it. OOM 224 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)