Talk:Organization XIII/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Restrictions

It's a little strange that it asks/begs you to edit this article but restricts the editing to certain parties...kind of contradictory if you ask me...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.226.113 (talk)

"Article protection" is a feature that's been in Wikipedia for a long time. Semi-protection prevents non-registered and newly registered people editing, while full-protection protects it from everyone. Protection is needed because sometimes, people fight over what should be added or not, and it gets getting changed back and forth alot, which is not good for readers. Sometimes, many people add false information into the article or info that's too detailed, or info that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, here. That happens alot on this article, so it had to be semi-protected. Stuff like "Mansex" and "Arlene" are fan-made names, they don't belong here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, any vandal who is NOT registered for more then 5 days or is identified as simply a IP address cannot edit this page, it slows the stupidity rate somewhat. BassxForte 18:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism a la Arlene, Renelar, Larene, Mansex, et all.

Is there any way we can block or call for suspension (basically, in some way punish) those who are putting these things in?

There's no way they can claim it isn't vandalism - every official source says they're wrong, and the notes on the page tell them not to do it.

Or is there any way we could in some way block edits of that type (some kind of bot)?KrytenKoro 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally... people who insist on putting these things in are generally given a "do not add nonsense to wikipedia" warning, and if they continue to persist more drastic measures might be taken. BassxForte 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobodies aren't all born in Twilight Town

Another Report says that Namine was born in Castle Oblivion. Wouldn't this imply they're just born in in-between worlds, and not just Twilight Town?--The Crowing 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism notices

I don't know how you're supposed to go about notifying the person that they vandalized and whatnot (ie, what admins you tell, if any), so I'll just put the list of the recent three jack@$$es KrytenKoro 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

76.174.162.65
24.153.118.133
58.178.112.96

IP addresses have their own user page and talk page, too. The user page shouldn't be used, but you can just go leave a message to them through the talk page. Generic messages are here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we reinstate the partial lock? All of the recent vandalism's have been non-users, and only one non-user (out of what, 7?) has added anything of value.KrytenKoro 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Xemnas' Title

Well, wait. I would say that "The Superior" is definitely a title of his - it may not have appeared on his gravestone thingamajig, but he didn't actually have one in the first place. However, the title "The Superior" is used much more often throughout the series than any of the others' mini-poems.KrytenKoro 05:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's entirely your interpretation. Neither the game nor Ultimania gives Xemnas a title, while the others get them in both sources. ' 06:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

COM refered to him as "The Superior", although I believe that was to keep Xemnas's identity ambigous. BassxForte 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. It isn't presented in the same format as the actual titles. ' 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but Ansem the Wise refered to Xemnas as "the Organization superior" after reuniting with King Mickey. -- SFH 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That was probably Ansem's way of telling Mickey that Xemnas was the head of org XIII. BassxForte 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Xigbar section

So apparently in a very recently translated interview, Nomura confirmed that Xigbar was indeed talking about Terra, Aqua, and Ven when he mentioned "the others" to Sora, and that Xigbar met them when he was an assistant to Ansem the Wise. Should this mentioned or should we wait for more details?HadesDragon 22:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, the interview mentions the three in the context of the new scene where Xigbar talks with Zexion. Not the "it picked a dud" scene. ' 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, really? Sorry, my mistake...HadesDragon 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Mix+

Many times in this article, Final Mix + is mentioned. Does anybody now wether the reference is to the package, including Re:Chain of Memories, or just KH2 FM+?--Tempest115 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The collection is Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+. As in, "Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix plus Kingdom Hearts Re:Chain of Memories". The actual game is Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix. ' 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that. What I meant was are the references to the package or the individual game, but KrytenKoro answered my question.--Tempest115 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

195.195.237.10

This user already has multiple "if you vandalize anything one more time, you will be blocked", and since he continuously vandalized this article AFTER being warned, where do we report the cretin?KrytenKoro 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally you go to an Admin noticeboard or directly contact an admin for stuff like this. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The Jiminy Memo is probably our primary source here - we should make sure to list in the citing. Unless we are solely relying on the Ultimania, but that would leave some important stuff out, wouldn't it?

At least, shouldn't we include the entries for the Order in KH:CoM, KH:FM, and KHII?KrytenKoro 03:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Xemnas and the Keyblade(s)

"Keyblade" is the last thing that Xemnas says before he vanishes. Is this relevant at all adn if so, should it be mentioned in the article?--Tempest115 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the context or timing of his dying words had any relevence, there's no reason to mention it. // DecaimientoPoético 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically he says "accursed... key...blade", however this is simply the quote he gives once his health is depleated, before it goes to a cut-scene, it's about as relevent as Sai'x's "I'd cry, if I had a heart" or Demyx's health depleted quote "*sigh*, beat again". Vilerocks 01:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

77 warnings

This page has 77 individual pieces of code within it that are not valid in XHTML 1.0. I refuse to do this by myself. Someone WILL help me.24.107.156.55 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do they need to be changed? Does Wiki say that it has to be valid in XHTML, or do you just want the page changed for your personal benefit?KrytenKoro 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Xigbar and the knights

We'd like to inquire about the new secret movie "Birth By Sleep". In the new event "The Truth about the Chamber of Sleep", Xigbar mentions a "group that wields keyblades". Is he talking about the 3 armored people in the movie?

Nomura: Yes, Xigbar witnessed them when he was a disciple to Ansem the Wise.

I was told that Nomura was just answering a question about how Xigbar knew about them - but that's not what he says here. He is being asked who Xigbar is talking about, not how he knew about them - he could have read about them in Xehanort's research, for example. The fact that Nomura brings up that he actually met them, instead of just having heard of them somewhere as could have easily been assumed if Nomura had said nothing, seems to make the event relevant - if it was not important that Xigbar met them, then Nomura could have just said "Yes", and left it at that.KrytenKoro 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"His response wasn't monosyllabic, so it is clearly important" isn't logic I can really accept. Can't we be patient and wait for an actual affirmation of importance from the next game? ' 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

...Wh-? No, the fact that he ELABORATED on it negates the "he was just answering a question" reasoning - he brought that tidbit up himself.KrytenKoro 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you answer every question with "yes" or "no"? He's simply explaining how he knows of them. I think you're taking too much out of a sentence in an interview. I feel we should wait for the next game to actually assess whether it's important or not. ' 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ven/Roxas

Shouldn't we include the fact that the knight everyone's calling "Ven" strongly resembles Roxas? I tried to include it in his section but it was deleted. Nomura said himself that the knights have a connection to characters that have already been introduced. It could even be Roxas. I feel that it's important. Thoughts?

Your feeling is not a good enough reason for it to be included in the article unfortuneatly. trainra 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Wait for the next game. ' 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a staement of fact. " A figure strongly resemling Roxas is seen in the KH2:FM secret trailer. It is unknown whether the figure has a connection to Roxas." I don't recall Nomura saying that the knight wasn't Roxas. If anyone can prove that he did, I'll drop the whole thing.

Can you prove he is Roxas? I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but go to some Kingdom Hearts Forums, read reports, people will bring up the hard copy of him stating that the characters in the Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix+ Trailer are all new (except for obviously Mickey).ArchKnight47 01:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The knight is not Roxas, Nomura has stated a long time ago that they are three entirely new characters. Also, comparing Ven's characteristics to Roxas is pretty much a personal opinion, or a piece of trivia. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The exact moment Roxas was created he was picked up by Xemnas, was part of org XIII, left and was captured by Riku and placed in the twilight simulation, when he realized what was going on he merged in Sora and is still merged with him, currently there is not a plausiable reason to believe that knight was Roxas. Vilerocks 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Ven and Roxas are connected. However, it's not all that helpful to say "BTW ROXAS LOOKS LIKE SOME GUY IN A SECRET, AMBIGUOUS VIDEO THAT YOU'VE NEVER SEEN". It's a very useless mention to a general audience. ' 08:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK,before you act like you're better than I am, listen to this. The secret videos in every KH game have revealed content that has always proven to be important to the following game. I have found hardly anything on Wikipedia that mentions the knights in any of the KH articles I've looked at. Since Ven strongly resmbles Roxas, this seems to be the best place to put the info. Users have put stuff about Aqua in the Xemnas section because it was relevant to the character. It's almost impossible for Ven and Roxas to look that much alike and not be connected. Therefore, the information would be relevant to Roxas' story and character. Oh, and about the "general audience" thing- Most, if not all, of the people reading the article are KH fans who want to learn whatever they can about the next game.

No. 1: Sign your posts.

No 2:The best place for this info is in the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article. Vilerocks 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aqua is noted because her armor is actually in the game and doesn't require a POV. No, you don't get to determine what audience we're catering to. ' 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all the people who read this article are KH fans, some may have just used the "random article" feature and found this page and thought "this could be intresting". Vilerocks 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Real names for weapons?

The FM version of KH2 seems to give the actual names for several of the Organization weapons - Donald's Lexaeus Hammer is named Centurion, Goofy's Vexen Shield is named either Freeze Pride or Freeze Bride (the vocalization symbol is hard to make out).

Also, Sora has an earring that mimics the design of Marluxia's scythe named Full Bloom, and another accessory like Zexion's lexicon called the Shadow Archive. As all of these names seem to fit with the Order Member (the elements are correct), can we assume that these are the correct names at all? For Centurion and Freeze Pride, I'm fairly certain we can, since these are the same weapons the members use, unlike the Keyblade Hybrids Bond of Flame, Acrossing Two (A hybrid of keyblades!), and Way to the Dawn.KrytenKoro 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR. If they had "names", it would be a simple matter of putting them in the game or Utimania. ' 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

...It's not really OR. The Defender Shield from KH was part of the Defender Heartless ( a living part, so it's the same thing), and the Wizard's Relic was quite literally the Wizard's Relic. Same for the Shaman's Relic, the Nobody Guard, and the Nobody Lance (the Akashic Record is the closest to being OR, but the Bookmaster's journal entry talks about it having a book of knowledge, and that's what the Akashic Record is). Maybe Full Bloom or Shadow Archive could be OR, but they aren't exact clones of the weapons like Centurion and Freeze Pride are (and where would they mention it in the game? Or in Ultimania, since the names were introduced in FM?)KrytenKoro 02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying it's "not really OR" doesn't make it so. You're using your own analysis of the material that's not stated by anything. Your examples aren't convincing in the least, since those are dropped by the enemies (and aren't the same size as their enemy-held counterparts, anyway).

You're overreaching. ' 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes logical sense but Wikipedia goes for "verifiability, not truth". Stating those as fact are too much of a stretch to include. The whole issue is quite trivial, besides. Axem Titanium 03:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right, Apostrophe. Of course, that would also mean that Roxas doesn't actually wield the Oathkeeper and Oblivion - in Ultimania, if I'm reading the above right, it only says he wields Keyblades, as the games also say. The biggest analysis I am using is saying:

1) Weapon A is named this
2) Weapon B has the same exact appearance as Weapon A

Which would be the same "OR" used to figure out that Roxas wields the Kingdom Key, or Oathkeeper and Oblivion.

And that defeating the Silhouettes drops the relevant RECIPES for the same weapons:

Absent Silhouette: - Vexen(The Peddler's Shop), after the initial event
- Get Bonus: Freeze Pride(5 ATK, 0 MAG, For Goofy)

Absent Silhouette: - Lexaeus(Sandlot), after the battle with Dusk and Berserker
- Get Bonus: Centurion(13 ATK, 3 MAG, For Donald)

Absent Silhouette: - Shade Archive(Accessory, 5 AP, 3 MAG)

Absent Silhouette: - Marluxia(Beast's Room), after the event in Beast's Room
- Get Bonus: Full Bloom(Accessory, 5 AP, 3 ATK)

Absent Silhouette: - Larxene(Isla De Muerta: Rock Face), available when you
get to Isla De Muerta

- Get Bonus: Shock Charm(Armor, 3 DEF, 40% Thunder)

From http://youtube.com/watch?v=dojNpWui-Uk:

power level above 60k
this is where it gets easy... I used pete to dodge his granite meteor. make sure you've dismissed pete by the time the rubble clears, then space yourself a few feet from lexaeus (not easy to explain, watch the vid to get an idea) and make sure you're in range to guard his centurion drag. you will bait him into using it, guard it and use mega impact. then beat on him, you can finally get in all 3 finishers at this stage. after the third finisher, he'll still be dazed and you might be tempted to go back in, but don't, get the same distance away from him that you did earlier to bait his centurion drag. you'll bait him into using it again, repeat until he's dead.

Fine, I accept that this may be OR, however slight I believe it may be. However, can we at least mention that once their Absent Silhouettes are defeated, they drop a recipe for creating a copy of their unique weapons? That should be as non-OR as we can get it, while still mentioning an interesting and relevant fact. While it may not be plot-based, it is still part of their overall character, I would say.KrytenKoro 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're putting in too much effort over some trivial names. We don't mention "Oathkeeper and Oblivion" in the article (because it's irrelevant and completely unhelpful to a general audience) so that point is quite moot. The copy and paste is a bit too much; I am already well aware of them as I own the game. That some guy in YouTube goes by your theory is not evidence for anything.

I don't consider the recipes notable at all, but I don't care for it either way if others are for it. ' 09:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I am already well aware of them as I own the game." - So I shouldn't actually display what I am talking about, and just assume that you already, and that if you don't agree with me, you're being obtuse? That's an odd request. Besides - why should I be responsible for knowing what faceless internet names own what games?KrytenKoro 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest:

"Weapons imprinted by "shadows" (named "Absent Silhouettes" by the game) of Organization members that died in Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories appear throughout Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix, where they take the form of their respective members when challenged. Once these "shadows" are defeated, the player obtains recipes for synthesizing replicas of the Organiztion members' unique weapons."

Sure, I wouldn't get my precious "true names" in, but at least the phenom would be mentioned.KrytenKoro 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too much like gameplay to me. Maybe mention the "phenom" in the FM section of the main KHII page, if you feel like it's notable enough. Axem Titanium 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oathkeeper and Oblivion

The "bonds to Riku and Kairi" thing has something behind it - both of the keyblade's japanese names reference memories, not light and dark, and one of the earlier magazine previews (v-jump, I think) said "Who is this mysterious cloaked man with the keyblades of the memories of Kairi and Riku?", or something to that effect. However, it would need to be sourced, especially since noone actually said they are keyblades of light and dark, and many people would not remember that magazine (it was on KHU a LONG time ago, if that helps at all).KrytenKoro 01:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Both English names refer to memories. "Oathkeeper" is obvious; Sora "keep"ing his "oath" to Kairi. Oblivion is a word that actually means "the fact or condition of forgetting or having forgotten". A thousand villain quips later, people mistakenly thought it meant "destruction". If you can find a good source, I'm fine with adding it to the page, since it's relevant. "He carries two Keyblades that represent Sora's memories of his two friends, Riku and Kairi." Something like that. ' 07:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally found it!

"Secrets of the Keyblades

Nomura: The Keyblades the boy who knows Sora is holding are the Oathkeeper and Oblivion from the first game. [Note: This part isn't clear enough for me to see properly.]

The precious "Oathkeeper", which Sora received from Kairi
The jet-black Keyblade, symbolic of Riku

(Subtitle at the bottom, next to Sora in the coliseum with Oblivion.)

The Oblivion, at first, was called Riku's Keyblade. The boy who has the Keyblades from Riku (darkness) and Kairi (light)...... Who is he!?"

Part of the reason it took me so long was that I really didn't want to look through image archives, but I searched on a whim and found it at [1].KrytenKoro 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Roxas in TWTNW

Was Xemnas referring to Sora's battle with Roxas when he talks about Axel "awaking" Roxas? If not, what is Xemnas talking about? It seems quite clear with that scene, even if Xemnas isn't talking about the fight, that the fight is no longer "left up to interpretation". What is going on?KrytenKoro 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "left up to interpretation" refers to whether it's a "battle of wills" in Sora's being or an actual physical confrontation between Roxas and Sora. Xemnas doesn't clarify that. ' 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Zexion picture

I think that since KHII: FM+ is out now, we should change the picture in Zexion's article to show him wielding his new weapon. Comments? Themeparkfanatic 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to use the official renders. Roxas is an exception since the only official render for him is in his Twilight Town outfit.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article uses a new render of Organization Roxas from Final Mix+ Ultimania. ' 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Take this out-of-universe

We really need to make an effort to take this out of universe - hell, adding a few "the character Axel", "the game shows", or "the journal claims" would really help.KrytenKoro 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

...Hmm. Looking at it, it might actually be appropriate to say that the order members were introduced as bosses. We are supposed to stay out-of-universe, after all.

Maybe...have the first paragraph about their development/design, changes between versions, and the second part of each entry be about the plot info.KrytenKoro 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

'lo?KrytenKoro

I agree with you, but to truly take this out-of-universe, we need information on their development and design. Alas, such information is trapped within the moonspeak that is Japanese. ' 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

...You're all going to hurt me for this, but...we could mention how they changed between game versions. That would be an illustration of development, yeah?

Or we could contact one of the guys at kh2.co.uk, and ask if they have a resident translator.KrytenKoro 08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just how did they change between versions? ' 08:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-universe info? You mean like mentioning that fan's like noting "mansex", or how people declare Xaldin to be the strongest battle other then the fight with Sephy? That would qualify as "out-of-universe" information. BassxForte 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant like how their designs were developed, how their personalities were picked, etc. Or all the interviews were Nomura talks about Xemnas, Axel, or Roxas. Those are what this article is supposed to be focusing on.

1. please sig your posts, 2. I was just pointing out a flaw, there could be a wave of users who think that sort of info would be logical to put in the artical if it was taken out-of-universe, and really, I have enough head-aches with other articles. *cough*ssbb*cough*. BassxForte 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1. sorry, 2. I know, I was just trying to explain what I meant in case you honestly were confused.KrytenKoro 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I do support taking it out-of-universe though, but before we do something like that we need to get enough out-of-universe info to even suggust we should do that to the article, and, hey, if it's taken out-of-universe, even your logic wouldn't be able to argue with putting in a mention of the Roxas boss battle. ^_^ BassxForte 23:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The FM changes really should be in there, to at least seek compromise with OOU. Please reinsert them.KrytenKoro 00:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IP block

Seriously, when was the last time an IP added something constructive to this page? (yes, I realize that an IP just reverted vandalism - you get my point, though) Can we just add a vandalism block against non-registered users?KrytenKoro 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh... it's not as bad as the ssbb page. BassxForte 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but we should do it anyway. I haven't seen an IP do one good thing for this article yet, besides what KrytenKoro mentioned. I agree, this article needs an IP block.HadesDragon 00:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"This article or section contains a plot summary that is overly long or excessively detailed"

AKA The stuck up snobs of Wikipedia don't like this page because it has more information than the longest page on this site...The Wikipedia page. And the Wiki-dogs think that if it's longer than the Wikipedia page (which by the way is just Wikipedia talking about themselves even though no one cares) then it has to be given warnings for every little thing until they can finally close the page so that no one can make it longer. I despise the people who run Wikipedia but I love Wikipedia it self.

...but this page does have this problem. Instead of being nearly at-all out-universe, it's an in-universe character description that outclasses that of nearly all fansites. If appropriate, this page should be moved to the FFWikia, but it badly needs to be trimmed.KrytenKoro 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

the FFwiki already has an OrgXIII page. They also mention the fact Roxas suddenly became fightable in final mix. ^_^ BassxForte 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No this page doesn't need to be trimmed. Wiki-dogs need to stop being idiots. Heck they locked my discussion page because I yelled at Wiki-dogs so they blocked my discussion page and sent me a message saying to stop harrasing myself. I despise Wiki-dogs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.217.82 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're...insane, aren't you?KrytenKoro 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely think all plot summary should be pruned from this page and keep directly to character details. Axem Titanium 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. This article has been getting too bloated for a while now. I mean, it's well-written, but it still has too much unnecessary stuff.KrytenKoro 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?

Xemnas (ゼムナス, Zemunasu) is the Nobody of Xehanort, leader of Organization XIII, and the main antagonist of Kingdom Hearts II. His name is derived from an anagram of "Ansem" with an "X", due to Xehanort taking his mentor's name prior to the discarding of his body. His assigned Nobody is the Sorcerer. Xemnas is voiced by Paul St. Peter in the English version of Kingdom Hearts II and by Norio Wakamoto in the Japanese version.

In battle, Xemnas uses energy blades called Aerial Blades, which extend from his palms or are used as projectiles, and the power of nothingness.

Xemnas first appears in Kingdom Hearts Final Mix as an additional boss for that version. In this version, the player has the option of initiating a battle with "Unknown" (謎の男, Nazo no Otoko, lit. "Unknown Man") in Hollow Bastion. Scenes before and after the battle serve as foreshadowing to later plot developments, including Roxas and "Unknown"'s identity. In Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, Xemnas is referred to as the "Superior" by other members of the Organization. In Kingdom Hearts II, Xemnas plans to use the power of Kingdom Hearts to create a new world.

Completely removes the plot details (mostly from Kingdom Hearts II). If so, maybe we're better off merging it to the Character article (although that article needs some extreme pruning first). ' 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, but isn't there development info from V-Jump (or whatever it's called) or Nomura/Ultimania that we could add in? I don't have a copy of any of those, but anyone who does (and can translate well enough) should be able to add the info, right?KrytenKoro 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They're more than welcome to. ' 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(kickback indent) Both this and the characters article are in poor shape but I like Apostrophe's version a lot: short and to the point. I don't think it would be a bad idea to merge with characters either. As for dev info, that would go in a "concept and creation"-type section similar to the one in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Axem Titanium 03:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just not right to merge. The Organization has so many characters and plot-important people in it that just merging it would be stupid. I disagree to merging it. Anyone else? Themeparkfanatic 16:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly let's clean up the article, then we'll see. That's what I think.HadesDragon 16:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Question, First 6 Members

Were the first 6 members all Ansem the Wise's assistans? If they were I think it should be included in their description (Like Zexion). I think it's an important detail for readers. 67.182.124.204 18:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It IS important, that's why it's already mentioned in the article..HadesDragon 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

About Marluxia in Final Mix+

Shouldn't the new third battle with Marluxia in RE: Chain of Memories go under his profile? It may have only been released in Japan, but since it's not an optional battle, it is technically canon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.97.162 (talk) 14:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

God, I hate that word. "Canon". The battle isn't important in any sense of the word and the phrasing is ambiguous to include both versions of the game. ' 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

>.> If it isn't important, it wouldn't have been added; same with the Zexion fight, as well as his revealed weapon. All points are relevant, and contributory to the overall game. In other words..."canon." :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

...so the fact that the rose-motif of the castle is slightly different in the RE: version is also relevant, and not just something added for the fun of it?KrytenKoro 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I'd say I'm just about right.

Please don't tell me you are seriously comparing a background motif to a whole extra battle (or two, including Zexion's) that comes in a sequence of events (obviously, after the second battle) and even has it's own dialogue. Motifs are simply level designs. Battles like these are part of the story. Xagzan 8 January 2008

Weapons

Just a small heads up of an addition I've added. For some of the organization members, you'll see that their weapon names are in bold. For Xemnas and Roxas, I'd think that the weapons would be obvious and in no need of a confirmation. :P However, regarding Vexen, Lexeaus, Zexion and Marluxia, their weapons were added in FM+ as synthesis items, and thus have confirmed names. Just needed to add that in is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, dude, Donald and Goofy's weapons are based on Vexen's and Lexaeus, but that does NOT mean their weapons are called that. Oh, and Xemnas' weapons' names are NOT obvious, so I'm adding them back.HadesDragon 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...as reasonable as it sounds, the fact is that we can't verify those names without further quotes from Nomura - remember, we also received Bond of Flame and Acrossing Two by defeating Org members, but those were clearly not the names of the Org's weapons.KrytenKoro 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? >.> I knew this would happen...only wikitards would argue against whats confirmed. I'm adding them back, until you guys find PROOF that they aren't called that. So far, ZERO proof for you, 100% for me. Hmph. : <

...okay, let's examine. Donald's Centurion and Goofy's Freeze Pride are about half the size as Lexaeus' tomahawk and Vexen's Shield, and Sora's Shock Charms, Full Bloom, and Shadow Archive are respectively half, eighth, and half the size of Larxene, Marluxia, and Zexion's weapons. So far, none of them are the same weapon - so how do we know that's the actual name of the Organization's weapon? Add to that that we get Acrossing Two and

Bond of Flame through basically the same method, and they clearly aren't the same name (yes, they look different, but so do the other weapon/accessories). As for Aerial Blades, that's the name of the type of weapon (like Broadsword, instead of Rebellion or Force Edge). It's basically the "official" name for beam sabers.

The only weapon name confirmed so far are the Oathkeeper and Oblivion, which were confirmed by Nomura himself.KrytenKoro 17:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Kryten. And you,70.188.24.125, if I see that you added that again, I'm reverting it. Get this through your head: there are no official names for those weapons. Just because Donald's and Goofy's weapons are based off of their weapons and are called "x", does NOT mean that they are called "x". They aren't the same, as KrytenKoro pointed out.HadesDragon 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same? Getting something from a fight, and out of a synthesis recipe are completely different. >.> Ever heard of visual confirmation, morons?

...okay, fine. You get the Ultima Weapon from a synthesis recipe gained in a basement. Does it look like a basement? Never mind that I said "basically", but oh well.

And not only that, but you still haven't explained why differently-sized, differently-colored models verify the name of the original weapons. Hell, SaveTheQueen and SaveTheQueen+ have the same, exact appearance, but different names...actually, all of the items you are contesting do. How can you prove that Lexaeus' weapon isn't Centurion+?KrytenKoro 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said! Its called "visual confirmation", you fuck. IS Lex's weapon orange, yellow, and red?! Oh wait! Whoops, thats, forgot about that "+" in the end, have we?!

>.> Seriously dude, you need to stop "contributing" here. You only make yourself look stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

...I was more specifically talking about how the Full Bloom and Shock Charm are grey, but...let's look at centurion. (EDIT: I finally found a pic of Centurion+)

Exhibits 1a and 1b
2

Now, no matter how you look at it, that's not the same weapon. The size is drastically different for one - it's like calling Ichigo's Zanpakuto a butcher's knife. Lexaeus' tomahawk is roughly the same height he is - and Donald's Centurion is roughly the same height he is. The proportions are also way off.

But okay, okay...let's say it is, roughly, the same weapon.

What do we call it?

We have two equally valid names for it: Centurion, and Centurion+ (There's always the official "Tomahawk", but who cares what Nomura thinks?). Even though Centurion+ has modified coloring (really, the colors are only moved around - it's the same colors overall, though), it is the more powerful version, and thus functionally closer to Lexaeus' actual weapon.

Now, as Wikipedia is constantly visited by people who have their own opinion on everything, we have to have some way to say "THIS is the answer. This is the answer, and there's no possible way to dispute it.

So, basically, we have this problem: Prove to me (and I mean capital punishment in court prove to me) that the official name of Lexaeus' weapon is Centurion. Because in my mind, it's more likely to be Centurion+.

If you can prove that, then fine, we'll put the name in. It's relevant, it's verifiable, blah blah blah.

If you can't, then you need to remove your cranium from your rectal cavity and learn to act like a thinking Homo sapiens.

Because right now, you're acting like an Equus asinus.KrytenKoro 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: As for your earlier comment about how getting a dropped weapon and a synthesis is wildly different - though it wasn't my point at the time, yes, it is different. Mostly because I'd expect the weapon that an opponent drops to at least be made of the same material as the one they were using. I'm not so quick to trust miniatures that were designed by teddy bears that we not only know didn't make the original weapons (seeing as the Organization members seem to create them from the elements themselves), but didn't have any contact with the member to know what they called it.KrytenKoro 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, Imma have to put it this way. First off, HOW they create and materialize their weapons is never explained except for Xemnas and Roxas, of a sort. Now, lets look at Nomura's point of view: WHY did he make their weapons miniature? Simply, so they could be fitted on Donald, Goofy, etc etc. Meaning, the miniature models are exactly that; modeled after the originals. And seeing as the minis have their own names, and the biggies don't, we're just gonna have to go on the minis' names, now wont we? So as far as everyone is concerned, those are their OFFICIAL NAMES unless Nomura and his team further elaborates on the issue. >.> You see, this is the funny thing, you guys are trying to prove that those aren't the official names, instead of trying to find the ACTUAL names which you are so dead set on. We only got the mini list, and thats all we can go for. See, the advantage is this; the minis are modeled after the originals, and have names, while the big ones don't. In fact, NOTHING is elaborate on the big ones, EXCEPT what comes off the puny ones. The ones who back up the claims that the small ones are the official names have ALOT more proof, even if little, against the guys who are trying to prove the aren't the names, because they have ZERO proof. >_> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sighs)

If they had official names, it'd be a simple matter of putting them in the Ultimania. And yet, they aren't there. I take this to mean that they don't have official names...and like Kryten said, the Moogles would have no way of contacting the Organization to what the wretched things were called in the first place. So, until Nomura or the games explicitly tell us: "Member's "x" weapon is called "y"", they don't have official names.

Using the fact that the miniatures are based off the originals, and thusly the two share the same name is a flawed analogy, at least regarding this matter. Your "proof" is not enough. HadesDragon 10:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the world is not enough. For shame, HD.KrytenKoro 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, what? Are we stil on the same page here? Also, and this is directed at 70.188.24.125: please, sign your comments.HadesDragon 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the link. It was just me being snarky.KrytenKoro 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said...you guys have NOTHING to back up your claims. You got nothing to go on, while I, and a few other individuals do. You're just saying what you think is right, as so are we. But at least we have more proof than you? I mean...THAT fact, you cannot 100% argue against: we have something to go by, you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance. ' 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats one of the stupidest things I've seen. Its like giving away grands of mullah for some shady cult in exchange for spiritual salvation. >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you've not listened to me: please sign your comments, at the very least. And no, Apostrophe is right. Face it: all of your "proof" is OR. They won't be added until you can prove, with 100% undeniability, that their weapons are really called that. And I should remind you:if the consensus most of us reach is that it shouldn't be added, then it won't.HadesDragon 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats why democracy phails. :<

I'm not certain why we should take your comments seriously if you refuse to even join in basic discussion. ' 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

May I summarize? These are the main arguments of the two sides:

No OR: The games never give any personal names to the specific weapons, besides Roxas' Oblivion and Oathkeeper. The Ultimania, which is heavily involved with the series, also lacks mention of the names, besides their type. While modified models exist with names, these cannot be taken as irrefutably positive without verification by Nomura, especially since Bond of Flame and Acrossing Two are ALSO modified models. Also, even among the keyblades there are items that are nearly the same in appearance but with different names, much less all the other accessories in the game. Basically, Nomura and the production group never verify what the names are.

Weapon names are correct: The weapons, while different in size, shape, and creation, look similar enough to have the same names.

Now, which of these two sides are "not based in facts"? The "No OR" side is specifically stating what we know, and can verify. You are stating your opinion.KrytenKoro 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Roxas section

Seems to mostly be plot summary - though it is highly important, it is also pretty much the plot of the game, and thus redundant. Would somebody like to trim this down? I'm worried that if I do it, I'll just mangle it and get people mad at me.KrytenKoro 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Wikitards get pissed off at everything anyways, since everyone only wants everything their way. >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

...Isn't that how all humanity works? Is it possible to not want something the way you want it?KrytenKoro 17:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs pruning overall to remove the plot dumps. You're more than welcome to do what you think you needs to be done. ' 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What I think what needs to be done never goes uncontested to a point of where its not even worth it.

No wonder more and more schools are blocking wikipedia. Its full of jackasses.

I'd say something, but...the joke just writes itself.KrytenKoro 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fourteenth Member...

So, the new Kingdom Hearts game, Kingdom Hearts: 358/2 Days has revealed that our beloved Organization has a 14th member. Interesting (and exciting beyond belief)!!! Should this new information be added into Organization XIII - or should I say Organization XIV? Apparentely the new member is female. Also, here is a link to an image of the doors to an area of the Tokyo Game Show Kingdom Hearts section.

Here!

Look at the right-hand side of the door and there are Xemnas, Xigbar, Xaldin, Saix, Axel, Demyx, Luxord...and a new person. Either that is Roxas or this new Organization member. Plus, the person wields the Kingdom Key. Should this be mentioned in the article?

Any thoughts or opinions? Evilgidgit 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's Roxas. The fourteenth member is female. As for Roxas wielding the KK...meh, I don't think it's all that relevant. It's poster artwork.HadesDragon 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I thought it was Ven. And Roxas is standing with the knights…in any case I'm avoiding speculation, but I thought it was Ven. And we can't prove it's a new Organization member anyway–although those coats are certainly the Organization's trademark, other people have used them.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Roxas is not standing with the knights. THAT is Ven. He's just wearing a similar outfit. It can't be anyone else. That person with the Organization is obviously Roxas. I suggest waiting until more information is confirmed.HadesDragon 14:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason none of us think the guy with the Org is Roxas is because Roxas doesn't look twentysomething.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Roxas doesn't look all that old me. It's probably because we can't see the picture very well. You never know with Nomura's art style. Besides, who else would it be but Roxas?HadesDragon 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Roxas. Nomura's art just varies a lot. ' 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We shouldn't add anything speculative so early. Kariteh 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, why did you post that image as an example of variable design? In any case, roxas is quite clearly next to the knights, and his design has never varied so much as to be identical to the Kingdom Key holder. It seems much more like Ven than Roxas.KrytenKoro 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people seem to denounce that kid as Roxas since half his jacket is black, but God. No matter how much Nomura's style fluctuates, it's stuck for KH2 to these games, and Roxas has never appeared twentysomething.

but this discussion is getting too forumy, so let's try to wrap it up.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the 14th member, let's please wait to add information about this supposed 14th member. Currently, we don't know anything about this new character and most anything we add to the articles is speculation and original research. All we know is that this new character is believed to be female, because of how the character's lips looked, and that they may have been wearing an organization hooded cloak in the trailer. While I sure Nomura is pleased with our discussions of who we think this person is, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Any additions of a 14th member without proper sourcing from a reliable source will unfortunately have to be removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm very leery of even calling the new character female, since that's what happened with a pre-release picture of hooded Xigbar. Let's not do something like this again. ' 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image from Famitsu Now can we add a section on the 14th member. It clearly says 14 on the text. I think its notable that Organization XIII now has 14 members. Maybe someone can translate and use this as a source?

I got it from here in case you're wondering. Mavrickindigo 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My Japanese isn't all that great, but the most I got by skimming it is that interviewer asked if it was Namine and Nomura said no. The majority of the interview is about the game, they only asked a few questions about the new member. As far as I can tell it doesn't give much information as to the identity or even the gender. Someone with better Japanese may want to give it a look too. Unfortunately, we can't really use scanned images like this as references. It is an interesting bit of info though. We'll have to wait for another reference to pop up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Not enough reference? Dude, the scan claims its a 14th member. The screen shot itself refers to "her" as the 14th member, and judging from the features, its a female. At the very least, create a entry for her below Roxas, and as more info comes in, we just fill it in. So far, we have confirmation, and thats enough, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I like keeping these pages as update to as possible, but all we have is a scanned image from a magazine, that is not enough to cite from. As far as to its gender, I didn't see anything in there that said "her" or "she". Drawing conclusions from an image like this is speculation and original research, which we can't have on Wikipedia. Yes it said, "Number 14" and "new member", but like I said, the image is not enough to cite from. I'll be on the look out for a suitable reference to add it in properly, but right now that image is not enough. Sorry. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

It should be possible to use it as a source, but we need the publishing data for that specific issue. It seems a little silly to have a section on her immediately, though. What is there to say? ' 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you put it that way then, you're pretty much killing the whole purpose for why Wikipedia exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Being melodramatic is not especially helpful. Those rules are there to prevent things like DiZ being the leader, Riku being the thirteenth member, and there being another female member from happening (again). ' 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As Apostrophe correctly noted, the rules and guidelines are there for a reason. We appreciate the help by supplying us with the extra info, but we still have to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines; it's their house, we go by their rules. If someone can provide the magazine name, issue number, publication date, page number, section/article title, and/or publisher of the magazine, then we can cite that. And the most we can probably list until it's fully translated is that a 14th member is scheduled to appear in the new DS game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

I already said it was from Famitsu, but I'm not sure the exact issue or anything so if someone can find out, let me know. I provided where I found it from so can someone who can do this kind of thing find the exact numbers? Mavrickindigo 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't think its too bad to just say "in the upcoming DS game there was revealed to be a fourteenth member. Nothing else is known.Mavrickindigo 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture with the new member says "The 14th..." The caption above it is "New member...What is the 14th's true form?"

"新たなメンバーが...14番目の正体は誰?!"
"14番目だ..."

In the interview, something like "The 14th member of the Organization 13 appears to be Namine." "It is not Namine." "Then who is it?" "It's a secret. In regards to the story, before "II", and during "II", there was not 14. Though the 14th is introduced, the reason why it is not XIV will be understood by the composition." (i.e., this game will explain why, even though there is a 14th member, it is still called Organization XIII).

KH2 Ultimania lists is as the newest issue, and I'm sure contacting one of them would get the full citing info. Basically, all we really know is that:

It's a new member (A mysterious new member!)
It's not Namine
It's introduced in this game, and
The reason why the Organization did not change their name will be explained.128.211.183.174 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)(By the way, this is KrytenKoro)

Knowing all this, I think we should add the 14th member to the list. As little as it is known about her (If it happens to be really a girl), Wikipedia is meant to inform, and we should do as much as we can. --Alexlayer 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the full translation Kryten. To everyone else, we're willing to put it in, but without proper sourcing there's not much we can technically do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC))
The information needed to cite the image is:

Magazine - Famitsu
Issue # (Must have)
Month and year of publication (must have)
Page of the article (important to have)
Title of the segment or article (would be nice to have)
Name of the writer of the article (would be nice to have)

FYI- Thanks to the ever diligent members at Kingdom Hearts Ultimania, a translation has been posted in their interview sections. The magazine information is no longer needed, though it wouldn't hurt to have either. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Recent changes

Why were the FM changes and many of the citations removed?KrytenKoro 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot of that was removed because this article contained an excesses amount of plot information. The article is currently undergoing renovations to see if it can stand on its own or needs to be merged into Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Unfortunately, because of WP:FICT, we can't have the articles mostly full of plot information, we need to have a balance of fictional information and real world info. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Look, this is getting ridiculous! In fact, damn Wikipedia is getting stupid as well! Until we can sort out this article properly, and we decide to merge, I've removed the merge tag. We must fix the article first if we want to save it, so who's with me? Themeparkfanatic 11:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I object to your unilateral removal of the merge tags. If you'll notice, they say that "it has been suggested" and to "discuss". One person can't say what will and won't be merged. Axem Titanium 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this article remains where it is, because I believe it will be hard to incoprorate Organization XIII properly into the characters article. After all, there is a lot of information to sort out and move if it is decided to move it. Evilgidgit 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

I can just imagine the backlash I'm inviting with this, but here goes. Unfortunately, if this article is going to make it to Good Article status, the number of images used will have to be cut down. Currently there are 15 images, 1 logo and 14 character images (2 of which are of Roxas). The magic number for most of the articles seems to be eight to nine, but the restriction might be tighter on an article like this, I'm not sure. So that means we need to cut at least 6 images. Personally, I think that one of Roxas' images and the less important members should be removed. Some that come to mind are Larxene, Xaldin, and Demyx.
Also, I would really appreciate constructive comments. Let's not try to turn this into a popularity contest over which character is the least or most favorite. We're trying to improve the article along with the KH Characters article to be include in the KH Featured Topic.
Something else I'd like to mention, that if this article can't be improved, then it will have to be merged into the main character article and then all of the images, except maybe the logo, will be removed and eventually deleted by Wikipedia. So please, let's arrive at a consensus. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

I say Roxas' second picture and the logo have to go. Demyx, Larxene, and Xaldin are also good suggestions.HadesDragon 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the logic behind those three, but...At most, Xemnas, Axel, Marluxia, and Roxas should be kept. Possibly Vexen, as he was also a major player. The rest are essentially followers. If you really wanted to take it far, Roxas' image should be on Sora's page, and this page should only be an image of the hooded Unknown with written descriptions of their individual appearances, since the need for images is quite, quite low for this group.

As for the logo - it should be on the Universe page, since it is the official emblem of Nobodies in general, not just the Organization.KrytenKoro 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just picked those three because they seemed less important to the plot. Like you said, Xemnas, Axel, Marluxia, Roxas and Vexen were bigger players in the story. I'm not married to removing those specific three, just a thought. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

At the very least, the logo could be easily be removed and the Twilight Town Roxas image dumped into the Character article. An option is editing the Final Mix+ montage to just Organization XIII, but we'd need somebody with good image editing skills. ' 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we really even need that? I mean, I'm willing to debate against image removal on stuff like List of Digimon or Bijuu, as fantastic beasts are by their nature nearly impossible to describe with words alone. In this case, however, we could survive with just the "Hooded Member" pic, or one of the group pics (like the one from pre-release where five or so were at Hollow Bastion (castle)), and short descriptions of their face and weapons, as that's all the pictures really give. Roxas' keyblades are the hardest to describe with words alone, and we would have a pic of him on the Sora or characters article, so that is easily solved.KrytenKoro 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for editing the main image on the character page. Normally if we can find a group shot, we should go with that instead of the separate images. If the characters' identities hadn't already been revealed, I'd agree with you on the hooded member pic. Though it wouldn't be a bad alternative if we can't find a suitable group image. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

For a group pic, couldn't we use the FM+ wallpaper? It shows all 13 on the bottom (though we know have 14, apparently)...KrytenKoro 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading over Wikipedia:Non-free content, I'm worried that editing the Image:Kingdomheartscharacters.jpg will be a breach of fair use. Perhaps we should go with either the Kingdomheartscharacters.jpg picture or a screen cap of the five at Hollow Bastion. Along with one of those as the main image, we could have a few images for the characters that were more important to the plot. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

You shouldn't need to edit it at all. You just need to point out the twelve on the bottom and Roxas up top. Unless you're pretty good with art programs, it probably wouldn't look too great anyways. That's the way to go. TTN 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be so bad about editing the group image to only include Org XIII? I must have missed it while reading WP:NFC. I think I could do a really good job of cropping it and fixing up the background. Axem Titanium 01:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If so, then please do it, Axem.HadesDragon 02:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Legal position", the statement that caught my eye was, "It is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification." I was almost done editing the picture when I thought to check on the image policies. That's why I brought it up above, because I wasn't sure about the application to what we want to do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I did a bit of further reading to find the exact line. Apparently, a "derivative work" can only be authorized by the copyright owner. However, in order to qualify as a derivative work, substantial new content must be introduced to set it apart from the old work. Thus, cropping the image to highlight a certain section is fine under fair use because it does not undermine the original copyright holder's ownership. Axem Titanium 14:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, let's crop it, and get rid of some of the other individual images. Any thoughts on which ones to keep? Possibly just the ones most important to the story, like Xemnas, Axel, Marluxia, and Roxas. Or should we remove them all but Roxas's? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I think keeping Xemnas, Axel, Marluxia, and Roxas (Org XIII attire) would be fine. I'll finish up that crop job (why did I decide to do it pixel by pixel?!). Axem Titanium 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Image:Org XIII.jpg. What do you think? Is there something I can fill the whitespace with? Axem Titanium 02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine without any filler; and why do we need any other pictures? At most, we should have Roxas, since he is the only one not in the group pic.KrytenKoro 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine with just white, that's what I had in mind. So everyone seems to be in agreement with keeping Roxas. To be honest, the separate ones don't really add much to the articles. The one thing that does comes to mind is that Axel and Marluxia's show their weapons. I'm for adding them in, but can't honestly come up with a strong rationale to include them when we have the main one. Any other thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

It shows what they look like in-game? Axem Titanium 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the new image up and removed some of the others. I kept up Xemnas, Axel, Marluxia, and Roxas though. If there's still opposition to leaving them up, they can go.
On another note, does anyone think this article could pass GA? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

I see no point in having these images when all the characters (except Roxas) are included in the main image. What I think is a good idea is to keep the Roxas image since he's not in the main image, and remove the others. The Prince of Darkness 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, consider them gone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Great! The article looks a lot neater now. I definitely think it can pass GA. The Prince of Darkness 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure all of them have to go? I would argue that Axel's picture contributes to understanding because of his unique choice of weapon (chakram) and not everyone knows what they look like. I suggest putting Axel's pic back up and then include a Nomura sketch ([2]? Or [3]?) for the concept and creation section. Axem Titanium 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about the sketch of Axel, which would solve both problems with one pic?

Also, would it be a good idea to have the original "Unknown" pic near the top (or possibly a screenshot)? For some reason, the article looks unbalanced due to only having the Roxas pic. I don't know. (Also, this is KrytenKoro)128.211.176.229 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that sketch of Axel too. But admittedly the one of Saix looks the most like concept art. I'm up for either one. And currently the whole thing does look a bit unbalanced, but with fair use policy there isn't much we can do. Too many pictures violates fair use. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

The fair use people won't complain over just 4 images. Axem Titanium 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Axem, which concept image do you think would be best? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

They would. See Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2. The Prince of Darkness 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, a featured article. Chars of FF X and X-2 is barely B. Axem Titanium 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. The Saix one should do fine.HadesDragon 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Saix image has been added to the creation section. If there aren't any other ideas to improve the article, perhaps we should try for GA? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It really looks poorly balanced with everything on the right.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tomahawk?

So, is it significant that although Lexaeus's weapon is called a "tomahawk", it actually... umm... is NOT one? It's a strangely shaped club, or hammer at best. It bashes, with no cutting/cleaving capabilities whatsoever. Is there some more club-like definition of tomahawk that I'm ignoring? It would be similar to if Axel's weapons were called "boomerangs". -BaronGrackle 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's what the games call it. Just roll with it. ' 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edge of the tomahawk is clearly bladed, but you're right, it's not actually used for cutting. However, the Japanese games call it an "axe-sword," so… Whether it's the "correct" term or not, it's official and what it's actually addressed as, and that dictates.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

14th member's name revealed?

I've recently been hearing rumors that the 14th member's name is Quaxa. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.100.226 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't heard of the new member's name, but I haven't really been looking. Where'd you hear about it, we can try to check it out and see it's just a rumor or not. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

No where in particular. I heard the name being mentioned in about five forums. I don't believe it. At least, not yet. What have you guys heard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.100.226 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess is it's a rumor because looking at it again it looks like an anagram of "Aqua" with an "X" in it. Sounds like something someone on a fan forum thought up. Who knows, that may be it, but I don't think we'll get an actual name for a while. It was a long while after the first sequels were announced before Roxas's name was announced. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

You're right. It IS an anagram of Aqua with an X. I wonder why I didn't see that sooner. Anyway, sorry for bringing this topic up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.100.226 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to apologise. It is good for people like yourself to speak up about things you have discovered and wish to address them. Good work. I doubt though that this will be Aqua as a Nobody - because the 14th member looks a little short to be the same person. Evilgidgit 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, do people have any other info about the 14th's name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.85.188 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Currently all we know is that she has no pillar, no Org. chair, and that the reason for those and why she did not appear in KH2 will be explained in 358/2.HadesDragon 15:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

VA

Other articles I've seen tend to use the bulleted form that I changed Xemnas to - would this be acceptable?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in making it a separate element. ' 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Apostrophe said, it's only a single point of information. Bullets are normally used for lists of information that have several separate but related points of information. They do improve readability, but I believe the general idea behind an encyclopedia favors prose over lists. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

I guess, it just seems out of context with what is surrounding it, and kind of disrupts the flow.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 12:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it a little closer to the beginning of the paragraph, does it flow a little better? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Slightly - it might work best as the second or the last sentence, unless I'm just being nitpicky - does anyone else see how the VA sent. disrupt the flow? Anyway, whatever the decision is, it should be done for the other members as well.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

Well, i'm out of all this conversation about keyblades, nobodies, weapons and all that, I'm not that expert, but in the photo there are only 12 of the 13 members of organization XIII. It should be changed, I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camiloneto (talk • contribs) 04:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full image. We can't really included Roxas there when Donald's in front of him and he's up there with the rest of the protagonists. Anyway, there's an image of Roxas in his section of the article anyway, so it's not like we're completely leaving him out.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Old Pictures

I know this may be an inappropriate question to ask, but where can I find the pictures that used to be in this page? Mavrickindigo 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[4] ' 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the images will probably be deleted eventually since they're not in use, so save them or whatever while you can.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

XIIII?

Should we mention the XIIIIth member mentioned for 358/2 days cause she seems she's gonna be important 24.237.114.224 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

XIV. Read the article. ' 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Axel's chakrams

Just responding to KrytenKoro here, if a concept art image is better, then put that in instead, but I think the chakrams should be shown. In fiction, chakrams commonly have radically different designs compared their real life counterpart. In real life, a chakram is just a flattened ring, 10-30cm in diameter, and sharpened. That's it. It's only labelled as a chakram because it's circular, and he throws it. There are no other similarities. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You could simply use that logic for every member. None of the weapons are realistic. Lexaeus's weapon certainly isn't a tomahawk, nor do readers know what gun arrows look like. ' 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason Saix was picked for the concept image was that that particular image was more representative of what people would expect for concept art in that it displays Saix's head shot, his berserker transformation, and his weapon, stuff like that. Basically, because Wikipedia has tightened its image standards, or rather tightened its enforcement, we have to make some concessions about putting images up. We lost seven images on the Characters of Kingdom Hearts page. In short, these pages will never be perfect by any body's standards because we all have different standards which are also different from Wikipedia's standards. Besides, giving people an image of what his weapons look like sadly doesn't benefit that article that much. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Good Article Review

After reviewing this article, I am proud to promote it to GA status.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations to everyone who contributed to this article, and keep up the good work. L337 kybldmstr 10:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no 14th member still?

It says see the discussion but when I looked at the part discussing the 14th member (I was a member of that discussion I should know) It seems we had found enough citing information to put it up. So what's the hold up? What's stopping us from even mentioning the 14th member? Heck the 358/2 days article even mentions her. Should we delete that info from that article too? Mavrickindigo 12:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The new member is mentioned briefly in the last sentence of the lead and the last sentence of the main paragraph to the "Members" section. Unfortunately, the amount of information we found isn't enough to warrant a separate section. A small amount has been mentioned in a new interview since then but it's still not enough. Small paragraphs with one to two sentences are not enough for a section and is not part of the guidelines of Manual of style. Once some more details are announce it'll split into its own section. Don't worry, since this article got GA status, we have to keep it up to date to maintain the status. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Member Images

While I do know that we have a big ole' image of the entire group (sort of), why were the individual images removed? They're still relevant, and in quite high quality. The article feels much less attractive and professional now that it lacks them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.35.2 (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we had a similar discussion regarding the images in the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article(see its talk page for details). Wikipedia has since tightened its image policies.HadesDragon (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Roxas has a new official picture?

http://www.square-enix.co.jp/jf08/titles/khdays/

Should this replace Roxas' current picture? I know the current one was loaded because it was the only picture available that had Roxas in his Organization XIII coat, though now this one is released. Although it doesn't have his weapons, it still seems to be official. SacredX 07:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not necessary. There aren't any drastic changes in his character design. The current one adequately shows his design; plus as you stated, the current one shows his weapon in addition to his design. Thanks for keeping an eye out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

That's not new. It's in the Final Mix+ Ultimania along with the one we have in the page. 69.23.135.79 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vexen in Kingdom Hearts II Manga?

I remember making this before, but I don't see it anywhere.

Should we mention Vexen's latest appearance in the KHII Manga? Seems like something important, even if it is in the manga. If I remember correctly, it was the Vexen Replica #44. He also seems to be the one to kill Xaldin in the manga.

So, yeah. Is this important enough to be in the article? DarkRyan75 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not an specific details, but it'd probably be a good idea to mention that the members have appeared slightly different in the Manga series. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC))