Jump to content

Talk:Organization XIII/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Axel's section needs revision

I was going to revise his section myself, but, unfortunately, unregistered and newly-registered users aren't allowed to edit this article. So, I ask someone who is skilled in writing to re-craft Axel's section, as it's a travesty in terms of grammar and flow. If no one does it by the time I am not considered "newly-registered," then I'll do it myself. Machinamar 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. What do you think needs to change? VI Zexion 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Roxas get his own article?

Roxas is IMHO, too important to the game not to have his own page. He should still be on Organization XIII's page, but also get his own, with more detail (perhaps such information as original fan speculation, but XIII's page have less in-depth info; just the basics).TruthTakesTime47

No. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 07:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
We have gone over this before. The answer is no. There is simply not enough to say about him to warrant an article. Axem Titanium 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
One could incorporate Roxas' story into Sora (Kingdom Hearts) if they really wanted to, though. We did the same for Xehanort. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think that having Roxas mentioned here is a spoiler, even though you learn about it fairly early in the game? Putting him with Sora would prove to have the same problem as well. Mavrickindigo 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I really should put a "THIS DISCUSSION IS OLD" tag to all of the sections, since a lot of people seem to lack the capability to look at the dates. ' 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Zexion's Weapon

It looks like Zexion's weapon is making an appearence RE:Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, and it's... Riku's keyblade? O_o[1]

It's a manifestation of Zexion's Illusion power, not his actual weapon. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 09:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been confirmed that Zexion can use his power of illusion to mimic others' weapons, but he actually has his own actual weapon. And that's not a Keyblade, it's just a fancy sword called Soul Eater.—ウルタプ 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well in the newest magazine scans he was shown using a book as his weapon, so I think this is his true weapon since Sora doesn't fight using a book.--Emokid200618 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it says in the new scan and I quote "-Zexion Boss Battle To enter the battle, Sora must enter a special book. During the battle, Zexion will confine Donald and Goofy into books, along with himself. The player needs to find the right book, with the shadow underneath it, and use the reaction command to get Zexion." So you really shouldn't jump to conclusions and if you don't believe me go to http://www.khinsider.com/ and look for yourself.

Also, according to khvids.net, the book is called Mirage Book. Evilgidgit 11:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a possibility that the book is Zexion's weapon but the battle takes place in the book. So maybe the book isn't Zexion's weapon. It could be just part of the battle.
Do you think the magazine editors would show Zexion holding some random book and it doesn't happen to be his weapon? Why would they show him holding a book (of all things) during a battle? Come on now. It's pretty obvious. The book IS his weapon. NeoSeifer
That and screenshots show pages flying everywhere during the battle...>>;—ウルタプ 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Even more proof, for those who still don't believe that the book is his weapon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67kuuQSizys NeoSeifer

Better pic for Roxas?

This has been bugging me since forever, why is Roxas' Organization attire pic so bad? Can someone find a better pic with him wielding his weapons? (Leonhart9999 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Feel free to find this nonexistent render. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lexaeus' original name?

It's listed as "Aeleus" on the page now (and the mistranslation "Eleus" is mentioned as well)... but, if I remember right, it was always listed as "Elaeus" before. Which one's right? I know Elaeus sounds/looks a heck of a lot better, but Squeenix does have something of a history of choosing the shittier translation when there's two choices... 63.215.28.145 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Elaeus" was a fan Romanization of the katakana that adhered to the whole "anagram with 'X'" rule, but Aeleus works as well and is official.—ウルタプ 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly in the official stuff is "Aeleus" used? Even after the Ultimania translations came out, the only name I ever saw anywhere was Elaeus. I think I remember someone mentioning the European releases had it as "Alaeus," but that doesn't work either (2 A's and 1 E... supposed to be the other way around); so that's another mistranslation. The only place I've ever seen Aeleus used is Wikipedia, and even here it was a pretty recent change (at least a couple months after Ultimania translations and English-language KH2 were available). Just seems a little fishy to me; I'd like to see where the name was officially stated, that's all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.28.145 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
It's in the PAL (Europe) release of Kingdom Hearts II. The Splendiferous Gegiford 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As a note, the original names are only from the Secret Ansem Reports, not the various Ultimania translations out there. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But the name Elaeus seems to be closer to the japanese name, doesn't it? E-re-u-su, E-lae-u-s? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.254.142 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
That may be true, but the current spelling is taken from the game itself. Can't get any more official than that. Sticking to accuracy is rather important. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, under that direction, the name would be Eleus. Or, the original japanese, Elaeus. Only one version calls it Aeleus, while the other are closer to the original proposed spelling. Soooo....128.211.254.142 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
...um, ever hear of retcon? Note that the names used in the PAL versions DO work as anagrams with an extra "X" while "Bleig", "Dilin" and "Eleus" certainly don't.—ウルタプ 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The "original Japanese" is エレウス, not "Elaeus". You're asking us to take your original research over something that's official. ' 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was saying that if the original romanization was Elaeus, then that would be the original spelling, wouldn't it? Not that it matters, since noone will ever let it be changed.74.140.118.84 13:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'Human-derived fictional species'

I've noticed that "Organization XIII" is listed under the list of 'Human-derived fictional species.' Shouldn't that be Nobodies? After all, there are more Nobodies than just the Organization (Namine is proof of that)... and the Organization is a group, not a species, unlike the Nobodies. 68.58.27.163 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also the Nobody article, as there isn't a whole lot to say about the species. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's easy:put Nobodies on the actual page and then link it to this page. I'm surprised no one thought of it before 65.188.7.188 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening. There isn't a lot to say about them beyond "without heart, emotion, and dark/light alignment". ' 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, was I typing too fast for you?? You put the word "Nobodies" on the page that says "Human-derived fictional species" and link it to the page that says "Organization XIII" I can type it in bold if you want.

Before declaring yourself more intelligent than me, I suggest you learn the workings of categories. But don't let that stop you from being cutely arrogant. ' 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was stupid of me. I should have looked at that. Sorry

Before I do something stupid

There's something I want to add to the article but I want to confirm this before I do, is the orginization really evil? All they want are their hearts back, to be whole once more, in KHII Namine states she isn't sure if the orginization is evil, Xemnas is the only one that I think could be defined as evil, and even then he simply wants his heart back just as much as the others do, they really didn't deserve to die, the poor things. BassxForte 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit the party's responses to Xemnas's bleeding-heart "why won't you let us exist" speech made them sound like bigots, but it's more their questionable methods…you know, "hell is paved with good intentions" and such…—ウルタプ 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I just want to make absoulutly sure before i say "orginization is not really evil" in the article, they can't really feel emotions, (although they can fake them quite well) so they probably can't feel regret over their actions, Xemnas and Sai'x are the only ones I would view as evil, although Larxene could be considered evil too. BassxForte 06:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add this. It'd only come off as bad fancruft, and is only your assumption. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 12:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that Square-Enix hasn't officaly said they are good or evil but... I don't see how anyone could really view them as evil. BassxForte 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, the point is they're antagonists. Whether they're evil or not per se is insignificant beyond the fact that they're against the protagonists.—ウルタプ 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... maybe i'm an obsessive little weirdo who has to speculate every little thing about this subject? BassxForte 21:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Is fictional character x evil or not" isn't something that we dabble in. We report facts. Nothing more. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"report facts"? How about reporting the fact Namine clearly states she isn't sure if the orginization is good or evil? BassxForte 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...haven't I already said "antagonist" makes evil not? Whether they are actually EVIL or NOT they are opposed by the protagonists vice versa.—ウルタプ 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Naminé says she doesn't know because she doesn't know. Roxas says they're bad. Whose word do we take? Who cares? Why do you care so much? The words "evil" and "villain" are not found in the article, so I have no idea what you're making a fuss about. ' 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When Roxas said that, it was a question, he asked Namine if they were evil, and Namine said she didn't know, as for why i'm making a "fuss", i'm a big fan of the series, so these is fiind of expected to me. BassxForte 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A question kinda needs a question mark. Being a fan of the series doesn't mean you need turn Wikipedia into a soapbox for you to decide whether some fictional characters from a cruddy video game are evil or not. I, nor anybody else, will let that happen. Discussion over. ' 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... a discussion can't be over until someone with greater power interferes, or both sides come to an agreement, i'm not trying to turn wikipedia into a soapbox or put my personal speculation on this page, I don't understand why your being so nasty about this. BassxForte 17:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We're being nasty because we gave you an answer politely and you had to keep pressing, maybe?—ウルタプ 17:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A discussion is over when one party fails to see the point of continuing it. ' 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If one party fails to see a point in continueing a disscussion and stops then they lose, and your excuse for being nasty is a very poor one. BassxForte 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"They lose"? Grow up, already. This argument bores the shit out of me and is not productive, thus I'm not continuing it. You aren't getting what you want. I know this. Urutapu knows this. I see no need to mull over this any further, regardless of your halfassed "rules" of discussion. ' 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remain rational about this, and remember not to insult others, you shouldn't follow wikipedia's rules religiously. BassxForte 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to side with ' and Urutapu on this. What we CAN say, is that they are the antagonists of the game. That's all. Nothing is said about them being evil or good, and it's already stated what their goal is. The rest is up to personal interpretation. - Zero1328 Talk? 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to improve this article, but I wanted to verify the fact before I did so, I don't know why you two insisted on turning the discussion into an argument, this discussion should not continue, if you two would just shut up this should be the last post for this discussion. BassxForte 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

...you were the person who wouldn't stop.—ウルタプ 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's technically your fault the conversation devolved into an argument, don't add anymore to this discussion, i've really had enough of it. BassxForte 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop blaming others for your failures. If you've had enough of this discussion, then stop replying. That's what I did. ' 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you replying now? I'm not blaiming others for my failures, i'm blaiming others for their failures, not stop replying, i'm sick of this. BassxForte 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rekindle an unwanted discussion, but I'd just like to point out that the Organization is filled with characters who are evil. Members I - VI are all traitors to Ansem the Wise. Marluxia and Larxene are power-hungry Nobodies who want to overthrow the Organization. Axel tries to kill Roxas, and kidnaps Kairi. Lastly, you mustn't forget that the Organization is sending the Heartless into various worlds, trying to turn innocent people into Heartless just so they can collect hearts. The fact that they cannot feel remorse for their actions is irrelevant, because few fictional villains actually regard their own actions as evil. The fact of the matter is that the Organization's behaviour is contrary to the morals that Disney would normally preach, and that is why they are evil. Leonhart9999 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It may involve Disney chaarcters but it is Square-Enix who made the game. BassxForte 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a Disney game, outsourced to Square Enix for game development. The Final Fantasy characters are cameos. Disney owns the rights to Kingdom Hearts and all the Kingdom Hearts characters. And Square Enix doesn't preach that it's just and right for someone to commit bad acts as long as they have a distorted sense of righteousness, Organization XIII is still evil. Leonhart9999 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If this isn't going anywhere that's relevant to editing the article, then please take it a forum. ' 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough! Take this conversation elsewhere! It does not belong on wikipedia! Although I started it I can't take responsability to where it led. BassxForte 00:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can, you've been commenting on every response. You've done nothing to prevent this from coming to where it is so yea I think you do have to take responsibility. Even though you told them to stop responding you were constantly responding to their comments, if you reall wanted it to end you would have just ignored them.--Emokid200618 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would be their fault for restarting the article. BassxForte 06:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to play the blame game here. Act with a bit more thought, and just forgive and forget. - Zero1328 Talk? 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine... I forgive you all... on the conditions you come to terms this isn't my fault. BassxForte 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, part of forgive and forget is, to forget. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Once you say this is your fault, I will begin the forgiving and forgeting. BassxForte 07:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Will you please SHUT UP all of you. Every KH fan has theories on the true moral nature of O13,OK? This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for idiot teens (or whatever age you are). I made the mistake of turning the above article into a battleground They have message boards for theories.

Fine then; it's up to me. Unfortunately BasxForte, antagonists aren't always evil. Take Devil May Cry 4. In the game, Dante, who has been the game's hero, is viewed as the antagonist due to the fact that you take control of Nero. Dante isn't evil, he's just being viewed thru a different perspective. ChromeWulf ZX 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... that was what I've been trying to say the whole time... that an antagonist doesn't alwayd mean that their evil. BassxForte 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's 100% true. Antagonists aren't always evil. But, regarding this article, WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE WRONG?
The article NEVER mentions that the Organization is evil. Therefore, it is unnecessary to say they are not evil, because nobody said they are evil. That'S what the other users here have been trying to say the whole time: Evil or not, neither should be written in the article, because in the end, it's still speculation.
All you guys are doing is stating the obvious. If you've suddenly found out that you've been agreeing pn the subject this whole time, than do Wikipedia a favor and find somewhere ele to put useless jabber.

-Remember, kiddies, that opinion isn't fact until proven WITH facts. That's why I never touch Wiki's political articles which are constantly edited by random people. Whether or not the Organization is evil does not change the purpose of the article; to inform. Perhaps a small separate section can be made as to why they did what they did, but both sides of the debate should be displayed. Please, stop arguing and get off Wiki if you can't do anything except babble on about pointless things. Blahmaster 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't start this up again. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Larxene

Why is there that tag in Larxene's page? The "She dies, accept it!"? BassxForte 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a vandalism countermeasure placed back when the game was just released. There was alot more vandalism back then. - Zero1328 Talk? 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see... has anyone noticed the obnoxious amount of vandals that vist this page? BassxForte 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Back then? I think ', Geg, Urutapu and I were all watching it. This is over a year ago, take note. All the hidden tags seemed to lower the amount of vandalism. There's still a bit of incorrect info/vandalism and such, but if you think we don't need it anymore, be bold and get rid of it. - Zero1328 Talk? 11:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In-game Larxene dies the exact same way the others die, why would one think she lived anyway? BassxForte 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because one of the pre-game adverts said that there was an Order member "we had seen before" and that it was "feminine". So people automatically assumed it was Larxene, despite that fact that the Order isn't the manliest bunch )exc. Lexaeus, of course).74.140.118.84 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i'm a guest. I think Larxenes original name was Larene. (How do people miss that Larene is a name?)

Rgardless of what you think... we need an offical, reliable source that states her name before we can mention it in the article. BassxForte 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffrence in Death

Should it be mentioned that orginization members die difrrently in KHII then COM? BassxForte 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the animation or whatever, then no, I don't think so. They probably decided to make it a lot fancier going from GBA to PS2, but they're both described by characters as "fading away."—ウルタプ 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... in COM their sprite just kinda fades into nothingness... but in KHII their body seems to piece apart and go to darkness. BassxForte 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's note how they apparently don't have mouths. ' 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? BassxForte 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The sprites don't have mouths, unlike the polygon models, which have mouths. My point is that comparing the graphics of games from two entirely different systems is pointless. ' 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, always nice to have people make fun of you when you TRY TO IMPROVE AN ARTICLE. BassxForte 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in further conversation with somebody who finds offense in everything. Stop taking everything so seriously. ' 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking things too seriously, simply pointing out that when I tried to help, you responded with sarcasm. BassxForte 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) They don't die differently when the games are run on the same hardware.74.140.118.84 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC) -The only difference is the graphics. On the GBA and PS2 version of COM, they teleport differently, simply because the GBA doesn't have the power to display the dark teleporting. So, their deaths were simple because they could not be visually shown as they did in KH2. Blahmaster 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese names

I see that some of the members have been given their translated names in Japansese and some are not done. I have done some research and managed to find out some:

The ones that aren't there are close enough to the English to not bother.—ウルタプ 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


The Fight Against Roxas

Since i'm sick of edit warring about this, at the suggestion of another user i'm taking this to the talk page... the question is, should Roxas's section mention the fact he will now be fought in Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+ or should it be left out? From my point of view it should, I wasn't putting it into the story section of Roxas, but rather the section of general information on him, therefore it didn't violate any of wikipedia's rules and their was no reason to delete it. BassxForte 06:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is: The fight against Roxas happens as a cut-scene in Kingdom Hearts II, but in Kingdom Hearts 2 Final Mix+ the fight will be a boss battle.
The piece of information doesn't seem useful in any way. It doesn't fit into a character profile that well, and it's more of a gameplay element than a character description. It would be better if mentioned at Kingdom Hearts II#Final Mix+, since it pertains to that. - Zero1328 Talk? 06:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The piece of information is a referance to something involving a specific character, and thus should be mentioned on the article duscussing that character. BassxForte 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I keep telling you, your arguments are ambiguous and nonsensical. I say there's no proof that the fight being playable has any new effect on the storyline then say "we're not mentioning the COM members can be battled in 2FM" and you say some random thing supporting my points. Then I bring that up and you go back to "I'll just keep reverting you because the bare fact of a playable battle is notable somehow." Zero's right (this was, incidentally, my exact argument): the fact you can actually fight him is a pointless fact to mention as it has no actual impact on the character's development or personality, unless we can glean a fighting style or powers from it, which we can't.—ウルタプ 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
And I'm saying, wait until the damn game is out to put in anything about it. Is this that difficult? ' 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently so.—ウルタプ 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting it in the section about general information on Roxas, not the section involving his story, it makes sense, YOU are the ones who are hurting this article. BassxForte 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself, already. I may be an asshole, but at least I assume good faith. Stop pointing the finger at other people when you don't get your way. ' 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you say that, YOU are the one who is ignoring WP:AGF, you people have an obnoxious inability to listen to reason. BassxForte 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that make me a black kettle?—ウルタプ 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that meant. BassxForte 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Stop pointing the finger at other people" do you not get? ' 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop making my points for me. BassxForte 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in this conversation if you're simply going to act like a child and pretend that you do no wrong. Keep in mind that there two people against this content; if you decide to edit war over this again, then you'll be easily blocked for 3RR. With that said, I'm done with this moronic discussion. ' 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If some can give a half decent reason why it shouldn't be in the page i'll leave it off the page, I haven't seen a reason even close to that yet. BassxForte 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I guess you can't read or have selective vision or something, but you haven't given a good reason to have it on the page. I'm quitting reasoning as well.—ウルタプ 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uritapu I already gave a reason stronger then yours in a awkward talk between our userpages. BassxForte 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. We both said that the sentence is not appropiate for a character profile. Profiles are supposed to contain background information (like personality, origins), not gameplay information. Even though it relates to the character, it doesn't fit in the subject. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever stop and realize your losing this argument? BassxForte 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How am I losing? We've all stated the reason many times and I tried to make it as clear as I could just then. The sentence is related to gameplay, and character profiles shouldn't contain gameplay information. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons i'm winning this argument.

  • 1. I'm clear and blunt with my reasons.
  • 2. Your reasons are vauge and nonspecific
  • 3. Putting the thing about Roxas in there makes more sense then putting in Xemnas's section "If you rearange the letters of his name you get "mansex"" which isn't even relevent to the character. BassxForte 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Question. How are you winning this argument if a random bystander (ie, me) looks at it objectively and decides that your argument makes no sense compared to the other 3 people? Being a cutscene vs. a boss battle is a gameplay-related issue which doesn't really belong in a character list-type article which is inherently plot-based. Axem Titanium 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, i'm winning, your losing, heck, even in the impossible scenario i was losing, it would still get into the article, you can't even fathom how patient and persistent I am. BassxForte 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to consult WP:NPA, and please step down for a few days to cool down and rethink your statements. When you've calmed down enough, make a simple survey(not recommended), or ask for more opinions at WP:RFC. It's clear that continuing to bicker like this is not effective, since you quickly denied Axem's third opinion. - Zero1328 Talk? 07:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack, I didn't insult someone or threaten someone, anyway, i'm not stressful or anything, if you want to see me in a talk page while i'm stressful I would advise you check out what happened in the Talk:Metal Sonic page, thankfully THAT edit war was resolved peacefully. BassxForte 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been retorting, saying that they're not assuming good faith, they're hurting the article, and you've even threatened to continue an edit war. You're bickering. (That is incivility, a personal attack, and a threat of vandalism, but I'm overlooking that.) We can't bicker anymore, we have to sort something out or just forget about it and leave it off entirely. I really think you need a short break to collect your thoughts. - Zero1328 Talk? 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have collected my thought... thought this out rationality... considered all points and ideas... the final diecision... your "points" fall short... unless the next point convinces me otherwise I will put it back in the article, if the next post in this discussion does convience me it won't be in the article. BassxForte 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is clear not to include this information. I'm sorry you don't agree, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. ' 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this point? LEARN HOW TO SPELL. You're 16 years old (according to your userpage), at least have the courtesy to type correctly so other people don't have to spend 10 minutes deciphering your words. Not only would that make you easier to understand, people might start taking you seriously. Axem Titanium 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Say more things to me the insults. BassxForte 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, all you did was simply say that all the points fell short, you didn't give any reasons. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, your grammar is atrocious as well. I have no idea what you just tried to say right there. This is the English Wikipedia. That implies that you must know English to contribute properly. I realize I may not be very civil here, but seriously! You just went on a three page rant where no less than four people disagreed with you yet, like a petulant child, you stubbornly still think you're "winning". I suggest you go learn some people skills before returning. Axem Titanium 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, I have more importent things to do then negate everything people like you say, like getting the mention back in the article. BassxForte 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please, by all means, go do those more "importent [sic]" things. They're obviously not here. Axem Titanium 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the "sic" was just for the purpose of mocking me, although I don't care if people do that to me. BassxForte 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why mention it? You do know what "sic" means? ' 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"sic" denotes a word the writer can't spell. BassxForte 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(note the word was linked)—ウルタプ 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that. BassxForte 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the damn subject, the part on Roxas is seperated into 2 seperate sections, one is simply called "Roxas", the other is a "story" section, I have constantly put the mention into the "Roxas" section, not the one involving his story, which should be reserved to his origin, actions, etc. BassxForte 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting up nowhere. Stop this crap...now. We need an argument. Stop this petty argument. Yeesh, you guys are worse than the guys over at the Sonic articles.... ChromeWulf ZX 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You know what's worse than circular arguments? People who jump into them long after they're done. If you have nothing to contribute other than insults to a finished argument, then please don't comment at all. ' 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the reverts are still happening, so let me spell it out for you, BassxForte: 1) This is a character page, not a gameplay page. If it was gameplay, we would reference nonsense like how you can use sleights to fight Axel in CoM, but you use reaction commands in KH2. 2) From Sora's viewpoint, which is the main viewpoint we are using to describe these characters, the same exact thing happense in KH2 and in KH2FM+. Whether WE the player, are able to control Sora during the event has no bearing on the STORY. Using your logic (which is perennially put UNGRACEFULLY into the article), we should include stuff like how the Order are killed in cutscenes, while you fight them in gameplay, or how Saix killed Maleficent's heartless in a cutscene instead of in gameplay. It's a ridiculous distinction that only makes sense in a walkthrough or on a page about the game itself - this page is neither of them. 3) You constantly claim that "no good reason" has been presented to not include it - can you give a reason why it has anything to do with character and plot descriptions? I would be very surprised if Roxas noticed a difference between a cutscene and gameplay battle - by putting the sentence in, you are basically implying that he would. 4) Your logic would end up including stuff such as "It's better for small children to beat the minigames for you, since they have the attention span for such dull stuff" - it would be just as graceful as the lines you keep putting in, and it would be related to an article about Jiminy, apparently, since the minigames are recorded in his journal. 5) So far, no one has accepted your argument. While "Wikipedia is not a democracy", it should be obvious that you're argument isn't successful when everyone else disagrees with you.128.211.254.142 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize your argument made no sense at all? I was making an agrument over the fact there was just a Roxas section and a Story section for the part about Roxas, but it seems smeone removed them to spite me, let me spell this clear for you, does the change from slights to action commands mean anything? NO. Does the fact that Saix destroys Maleficent's heartless in a cutscene have any impact on either of them? NO. Does the fact we don't know if the thing Marluxia fought on in the final battle for KH:COM is a machine or a nobody have enough importence to be in the article? NO. Does Sora's oboxiously exagerated jumps during the final few battles against Xemnas at the end of KHII have any impact on Sora's physical ability? NO. Does Marluxia's constant use of the color pink mean he's homosexual? NO. Does the fact Xemnas's name can be rearanged into "mansex" mean he's homosexual? NO. Does Axel's high loyalites to Roxas mean he's homosexual? NO. Do we allow the speculation that Larxene's original name might be "Arlene" exist in the article? NO. Should the fact the battle against Roxas has changed from a cutscene to a boss battle in KHIIFM+? YES. My reasoning is this, unlike the others this sudden change revolving around 1 character and therefore unique to that character indicates the fact its notable enough to be in the article. You people are even worse then Angry Ogre. BassxForte 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You just...You just agreed with the point of my post and then said that that meant that it would be justified to include the Roxas boss battle. WTF?

1) Yes, the change from Sleights to action commands is important - Sora can counter bosses in one, while he merely attacks in the other. However, that would not belong on a character page. 2) Yes, the fact that Saix destroys Malificent's heartless is important - it showcases the Organization's superiority to the bosses from the last game. That's what the scene is there for. It could conceivably go on this page. 3) Yes, because this article is ABOUT Nobodies. If there is a species of Nobody not listed, it should be included. It was important enough to list in the Jiminy Memo, wasn't it? 4) Sora can fly? 5) His hair is more red-brown, and he's a bishounen. Bishounen are romantic, not gay. What are youtalking about? 6) And we can reorganize Axel's original name to be Ale. Is he a drunk? 7) No? It even says they're good friends? Do you bone your best friend? 8) No, because it has no basis in the games' story? 9) No, because IT HAS NO BASIS IN THE GAMES' STORY? 1 character: Saix and Malificent are two characters. And how is Marluxia's hair color a "change"? Are you - Are you high?74.140.118.84 13:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page...

Well, what I really mean is have had a request for it and it's gone through. So basically, unless everyone can stop fighting and resolve on the matter of one item, sort of thing, then I guess, the protection will stay up. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What fighting? The kunai thing was just some vandal, and there's no edit warring over the Roxas battle. Are you seeing something I'm not? ' 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's more or less about how everyone is always changing the article to add in useless information, then that is reverted back and it just keeps going back and fourth, I asked for it to be fully protected and stated some stuff there, and that's what's going on now really. I was just really sick of seeing people changing it all and adding pointless and useless information into the article. Basically, people don't seem to learn from anything in regards to the changing of the article and what to add and what not to add. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 06:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Then revert it. Protecting pages is only supposed to be used in extreme situations. This isn't extreme, and I was planning to revise certain aspects of the article. Not only do you stop easily-revertible poor edits, you stop improvement. ' 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, well, whenever I check on the page, it seems to be already done. And I also saw that you wouldn't mind having it Semi-Protected, that would actually seem like a better idea. Sorry in regards to all this, I was just simply trying to see if I could resolve it with a protection to stop all the vandalisim. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

The article states that the information is much to long, I'm simply trying to revise it by cuting useless information. Then, shortly after, not only are all my revisions changed, but I am warned. If I'm not supposed to revise this article by means of shortening it, then why is that tag there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwdcvgyu (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

You're removing information and painting an inaccurate view of events, such a putting events out of order and adding some opinionated statements. I agree with your reasoning, but your edits aren't acceptable. ' 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but may I cut insignifigant information out?

Condensing the text is fine. ' 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I attepted to mearly shorten the text, but then it was edited again, supposibly because of poor grammer (it went something like "nu nu bad grammer"). When I had returned to visit this article, just for kicks, I realized the article was slightly longer than it usually was, with more useless text inserted. I ask, wjy were those edits kept? Aren't we trying to summarize the text, not add more fuel to the fire by putting even more text?

Um, what? 40 kb vs. 42 kb. Are you sure you want to continue this thread of thought? ' 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong. Sorry, but honestly, Vexen and Zexion's articles are still much too long, and I don't necessarly believe my grammer was incorrect. What I am trying to say, is for the users to keep my edits, as long as I don't vandalize. qwdcvgyu

Claymore?

The article mentions Saïx's weapon as being a claymore, yet I find little comparison, other than it is sword-shaped. Since the Berserkers' weapons are described as hammers, isn't that more fitting? After all, I can't recall any point in the story where it's mentioned as anything in particular, claymore, hammer, or anything else. It just seems more likely that he would wield the same weapon as his Nobodies. Give this consideration. --...Wikiwøw 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look in the first section of this talk page. ' 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, I already looked at it. It really gave no verification of the weapon as a claymore. In that case, it seems like original research to me. Isn't it best to say it's a hammer, or a "heavy, sword-like weapon", or something more accurate and verifiable than Claymore?.. --...Wikiwøw 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Note the "Attributes, weapons, and Nobodies are taken from the Ultimania" in this section, and read Saïx's entry. There you go, it wasn't that difficult to find. Nemu 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You see the big arrow images? Those indicate links. Click them. ' 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Thorn

In the Japanese version, it seems pretty clear that the name was intended to be "Twilight Zone" (トワイライトゾーン towairaito zōn), an obvious referance to The Twilight Zone. Probably romanized it as Thorn to avoid possible legal actions. Since this article includes the alternate Japanese names for just about everything, it might be worth noting. WtW-Suzaku 10:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I don't remember seeing a dakuten on that so, ingame... I could check myself, but my game save is gone and it would take a fair bit of time for me to get to the point where I can look myself. On the other hand, this sounds dangerously close to speculation... - Zero1328 Talk? 10:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we have enough Japanese in the article, and Twilight Thorn isn't important enough to even put in context. ' 12:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanization

Do we really need the romanization of the japanese words as well? We already have the english translation - anyone who could understand the romanization should already be able to read the kanji and hiragana, so it just seems to be throwing in as much trivia as possible. Plus, I just don't like romaji, since it's not as well-ordered as regular japanese is. Meh.

I won't remove it until someone else agrees with me, since right now it looks like people actually spent time on it, even if it doesn't really belong.128.211.178.133 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle styles at the end

There is a bit of a flow problem, in my opinion, on parts of the article. Xemnas, Xigbar, and Xaldin all have their styles of battle listed at the ends of their biographies, as opposed to their actual fates. This just seems weird, at least to me. Does anyone else find something wrong with that flow? -- SFH 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it... at the very top of their section their identity and origins are presented, then we mention their personality, then we mention their weapons, then we state what they did in-game. BassxForte 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that much of the information about the personalities for the Organization members has been removed and some members have no description of any personality (Xaldin, Marluxia). Could someone at least put in something about their personalities, as it makes the article look incomplete...in my opinion. Evilgidgit 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There are alot of additions to this artical that are clearly vandalism. Looking over the history, it seems that someone changed many sections in an unproductive and offensive manner. I recommend that someone correct it as soon as possable. 204.57.77.29 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Therealsquee

Thats what people have been doing... correcting vandalism as soon as it appears. BassxForte 07:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well what I had seen looked like it had been there for a while, and I would have corrected it myself if I had the time. Unfortunately I was at work. Therealsquee 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Therealsquee

Roxas in the Secret Ending

For those who have seen the new released secret ending you will know what I am talking about, for those who do not, head over to kh-vids.net or kh2.co.uk to watch the secret ending. Roxas is featured in the secret ending, but we do not know if it actually is him or just somebody who looks like him. I prpose we leave any information about his appearance in the ending out of the article, until it is confirmed that it is are favourite keyblade master Nobody. Agreed? Evilgidgit 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I just did, remove it from the article. It's a policy, anyway. no speculation. - Zero1328 Talk? 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Im fairly certain that isn't Roxas, just looks somewhat similar to him. BassxForte 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually IMPOSSIBLE for the knight in the secret ending to be Roxas, unless Nomura is lying for some reason. It has been specifically stated in one of the Nomura interviews that none of the three knights are either Sora or Roxas... along with the fact that they're all new characters. Plus, we don't even know what that knight's real hair color is (it's never shown before the "freezing" scene), so he might not look as much like Roxas as you think. 63.215.28.145 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Acording to Khinsider.com Nomura confirmed that the blond haired soldier's name is Ven along with the female soldier being Aqua.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.94.19 (talk)

Proof please, and remember to sign your posts. BassxForte 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Never mind they ended up being names under speculation sorry for misleading.

CoM Members' voices

Shouldn't the new seiyuus for the members of Re:Chain of Members be added to the article right about now? Jienum 12:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, someone find out somewhere and add it in.

Lets Try This Again

Ok, lets try to be calm, let's try to be resonable, and let's try to come to an agreement, give me your reasons as to why the mention of the battle against Roxas deserves to be prosecuted like this. BassxForte 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care anymore, since the game is actually out now, but you using overloaded terms like "prosecuted" is not going to help convince the others. ' 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean "persecuted", Bass? Because if you're being prosecuted...[well I guess it's sort of right] we're enforcing the rules.—ウルタプ 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is not about my use of wrods, get back to the main subject. BassxForte 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll just tell you the reason again. It has nothing to do with the actual character's development. Just add with fighting style and powers if anything. But saying the fight simply used to be a cutscene and is now a battle should be mentioned at Kingdom Hearts II#Final Mix+.—ウルタプ 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: I agree with him. I think it should be stated. Is there any true reason why it shouldn't? HeroOfVirtue 13:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant? Okay. Sounds good. Axem Titanium 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It remains to be seen how it benefits this article, in the place it's being added to. It's already been mentioned a few times that it could be added to Kingdom Hearts II#Final Mix+, but he refuses to listen to other editors when they give reasoning as to why it should not be added. All this aside from the fact that he still hasn't given sufficient reasoning as to why it should be added here. And how is reasoning like:
  • It doesn't belong here because it does nothing for character development
  • It's trivial and serves no purpose here
  • It's not even mentioned that it was 'only' a cutscene in the original, so saying that it was changed to a battle makes no sense
insufficient or untrue? The onus is now on BassxForte, or anyone that agrees with him, to say why it should be here, contrary to the above reasoning. Nique talk 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Then perhaps I shall put it where you said it belongs.
Oh, and, thank you for your useful and polite response, Axem Titanium. HeroOfVirtue 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't belong here because it does nothing for the character development." This is an article about video game characters, we're gonna have more then a few things about gameplay mechanics.

"It's trivial and serves no purpose here" Biased information, no more, no less.

"It's not even mentioned that it was "only" a cutscene in the original, so saying that it was changed to a abttle makes no sense" What? Can you word that sentence a little better? It made no sense to me. BassxForte 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1) You say that it's about characters, yet you want to include game mechanics in it as well. Make up your mind, or better yet, let the fact that it's about the characters determine what should or shouldn't be included, such as (surprise, surprise) changes in the mechanics of the game.
2) Wikipedia's definition of Trivial, taken from WP:TRIVIA: not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to. The change from cutscene to playable battle is meaningless on character pages. (See point number 1)
3) If you can't understand this, then perhaps you should read it a little more carefully or attend your English classes more faithfully. The page doesn't mention at all that it was only a cutscene, so it's extremely out of place to say that it was changed from a cutscene to something else. Does that make sense? Nique talk 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1) The reason it should be added is because although they are characters, they are characters from a video game as such it can and will have things releated to gameplay.

2) According to WP:TRIVIA adding trivia is discouraged, but it is not against the rules.

3) In that case, the point holds little weight and makes no sense. BassxForte 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1) But there's already a section for this information which has been pointed out to you multiple times, and which you still patently ignore.
2) Not against the rules, but that doesn't mean that something completely non-sequitur to the page belongs on it.
3) Holds little weight? Only if you're ignorant of the fact that it makes no sense in relation to the rest of the article. Nique talk 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The final mix+ page will not talk about all the new things it does, that would completly flood the article, if any new gameplay or story releated things appear in final mix+, they should be placed in the article of the characters this new thing has to do with, as noted, you allow these "flash-back" scenes to exist in the articles of many org members, yet you scorn the idea of putting the mention of Roxas in, which is not normal, we shouldn't be making exceptions. BassxForte 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an "exception". All you're trying to add is that it was changed from a cutscene to a playable battle. That's irrelevant on a character page. Comparing that change to the additional scenes is pointless, as they are not the same situation. Can you not see the difference? Changing it from a cutscene to a playable scenario makes no change to the story or the character development. The additional scenes do make changes, though subtle, to the character development and plot. Your point is moot. Nique talk 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your "points" are absurd, it refers to a gameplay mechanic, can't you get the point? This page isn't totally about their personal stories, since they are video game characters we should express gameplay points as well. BassxForte 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Her points are fine. You just don't understand that this point of information is trivial. All fiction related articles should have out of universe information, but not if that information would go in a trivia section. This belongs under the FM+ section of the KHII page in a paragraph mentioning some of the additions to the game, not here. Nemu 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I "get" your point, I just don't see the validity in this case. It's the page about the characters, their stories, their development. Also, it's not even a matter of game mechanics. It's saying that a scene was changed to a battle, with NO change to the characters at all, no new information about them, purely an aesthetic difference. I recommend getting to the point and explaining precisely why it is relevant to the character page aside from "It's about game characters, so we have to have game mechanics", or desist from this disruptive argument. Nique talk 20:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please listen. They are all right. This information's not necessary for this page, but it is very much relevant for the FM+ area of the KHII page. So rather than argue pointlessly here, why don't you give me a hand in writing it where it belongs? I plan to write a paragraph about changes and additions as soon as I know exactly what FM+ has in it. What do you say? HeroOfVirtue 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Question:Why list every single change, if this page already lists several changes that have to do with certain Org members? BassxForte 22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Any changes listed here are important to the various characters, and already would have been here if they had been in the original game. The point about Roxas obviously wouldn't. Nemu 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If Roxas has been a boss battle in the original game I wouldn't care about this, since he has suddenly become a boss battle in Final Mix+, as compared to a mere cut-scene it deserves to be mentioned here. BassxForte 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone but you thinks not, so it's most likely not going up. You'll have convince the seven people against you, which will not happen because every one of your points have been countered multiple times. Nemu 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You know what? I'm saying this then I'm not trying to reason anymore. Whether it was a cutscene or a playable battle, Sora always fought Roxas.—ウルタプ 00:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that all of us think this is trivial enough to not go to WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:TINMC, or WP:RFM, which is why we haven't done it, even though we have been going like this for a month. I even suggested it a number of times, yet no one appears to have acted on it. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be fairly pointless with his personality. As shown by his numerous attempts to include things, the only real way to reason with him is to beat down his argument until he gives up. True reasoning doesn't really work. Nemu 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to say that I have decided to put BassxForte on WP:ANI. I believe admins are required to end this dispute. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fancy names or titles gain neither my respect, or obidience. BassxForte 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well they'll certainly get you out of our hair. :)—ウルタプ 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you desire an admin to close this discussion and all similar conversations out of contempt for me, what I do in response won't be pretty. BassxForte 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"== Lets Try This Again ==" - That right there indicates the need for an admin to resolve the issue
"Ok, lets try to be calm" - We have been
"let's try to be reasonable" - again
"and let's try to come to an agreement" - everyone but you already has
"give me your reasons as to why the mention of the battle against Roxas deserves to be persecuted like this." - again
Your actions of ignoring the community and unilaterally changing the page to fit your own views, even against policy, are SPECIFICALLY what admins are supposed to resolve. What can you "do in response" except make this more of an admin issue? Just let it go - you were wrong, that's fine, move on.74.140.118.84 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because the majority is against me does not mean I will submit, history is riddled with scenario's where the majority was wrong and the indivdual was right. BassxForte 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there have been situations where the minority was right. There've been plenty. That doesn't justify this case, your actions, your stubbornness, or most especially your refusal to accept Wikipedia policy on consensus, nor does it counter the fact that you are, indeed, wrong in this case, as per the numerous explanations given above in this discussion and the old one from a month ago. Give it a rest already. It doesn't belong here. It's irrelevant to the content on this page. Put it where it DOES belong and nobody will argue with you. We should have a bit saying what was changed in it anyway, on that section, but a change from cutscene to playable does not belong here, on this page. Do you understand that yet? Nique talk 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand it is possible for you to be wrong yet? life's not black and white. BassxForte 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll dust off what I said a long time ago...does that make us black kettles? Because you're refusing that possibility more than we ever have.—ウルタプ 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments have been logical and reasonable, but you have yet to supply me with reasons that are stronger then mine. BassxForte 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet the onus is still on you to prove to us why we should let it stay, contrary to all our "logical and reasonable" reasons why it shouldn't. So far, the only reason you've really given is the invalid "It's about the game, so it has to be here", that I can see, though admittedly this MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT is a little bit overwhelming to try and re-read, so I may well have missed some other point(s). Nique talk 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What angers me the most is that most of you act like you own the article, and revert almost anything that enters this page. BassxForte 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a large difference between "owning" an article, and just keeping it tidy. Nemu 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i'm just refering to the fact you revert 99.9% of the edits that occur, regardless of whether or not they actually improve the article. BassxForte 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So you agree to Xemnas's name being Mansex? - Zero1328 Talk? 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Because "99.9%" of the edits are destructive, not constructive, to the article. Look at the number of times speculation has been added here! Only a couple of editors are really bad for reverting even small changes, but all that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this case. Stay on-topic. WHY does it belong here? If you can't justify it against what is thus far a consensus, and convince us that it DOES belong, then no offence, but it's about time you suck it up and let it go. Nique talk 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does "mansex" have to do with this discussion? 80% of edits I have seen ont his page have been construtive, yet you refuse to accept this, it's revolting. BassxForte 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If 80% of the edits you've seen have been constructive, then you need to take off your "it's not vandalism" goggles and have a look at the history. The number of times that speculation and original research and outright vandalism (like putting how Xemnas's name is an anagram for "mansex", or in some cases even CHANGING IT TO THAT in the article) have been added to the article in comparison to the real, productive edits is ridiculous. However, -stay on topic-. WHY does just the fact that it was changed from a cutscene to a playable battle belong here instead of Kingdom Hearts II#Final Mix+ or a new subsection thereof? And you might want to be careful with your wording. "Revolting"? You could end up insulting someone, and that wouldn't be very nice. Nique talk 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vexen's death

I see that Vexen's death description has been removed. I was wondering if it should be mentioned in the article, as his death is different. In CoM he is stabbed from behind and then slashed by Axel, but in the remake, he is struck from behind and then incinerated by flames. Should the changes and cause of death be mentioned? If not, then that's fine with me. Evilgidgit 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He is killed by Axel. How is irrelevant. And he wasn't hit by the chakram from behind in Re. ' 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

-This could be because of the poor graphics of the GBA, or maybe they just decided to change it to SHOW OFF the graphics of the PS2.

Misterious

Does someone here seriously think that one day Square Enix will come out with something saying 'Misterious' was an entirely deliberate spelling with a hidden meaning and back story, thereby validating stubborn insistance? No, seriously, I want everyone who accepts this as deliberate to tell me exactly what it could mean. Let that hidden fanfic writer come to the surface. Now, if whoever was responsible for this had any sense at all, they'd realize someone misspelled the word 'Mysterious' and would change it adequetely, rather than leaving it there to embarass everyone. Know what? Send an e-mail asking Square Soft if you're so absolutely certain they'll validate it. Once more, with feeling: It's a typo. No one on the planet with two neurons to rub together thinks 'Misterious' means anything at all. Jachra 09:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said it did? You know what "sic" means, yes? ' 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's, if anything, pure Engrish. "Misterious Boy" is hand-drawn. You're gonna have trouble saying "oh he slipped and hit 'i' instead :E".—ウルタプ 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's obviously an allusion to Final Fantasy XII. It turns out that the Organization is composed of Espers, and Sora is the new Dynast-King (that's why he has the crown emblem).
Also, the Kingdom Key is the present form of the Sword of Kings.
(Before any of you crucify me, I am being sarcastic).74.140.118.84 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything. Even jokes have context. ' 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Cause, you know, the Mist (that's in several FF games), and the Kingdom Key being the Blade of King Mickey, and Sora having the crown emblem....It's a joke about why "Mist" would be significant...74.140.118.84 20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New Final Mix Scenes

Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to integrate what these scenes reveal than to keep it in a seperate paragraph?

Basically, if we applied the same method to the original game, it would be very segmented and hard to understand. So wouldn't it work better to merely have a sentence in the introductory paragraph of "Axel's role is to investigate and execute traitors." than to have a three-line long thing "In Final Mix+, Axel is ordered by Xemnas to execute Roxas."

Or even, to integrate the new scene's description into the storyline paragraph where it fits, so that the chronology of the scene is not as obscure?74.140.118.84 13:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Roxas based on a concept character?

Several of the games clearly show characters to be saying or doing things that don't make sense til later games, so why would this video count only as concept? I mean, did Nomura ever say it was just concept?

Surely they knew what they were doing when they put Riku and Mickey into cloaks for this video, but people still said that it was just a concept video and that they wouldn't actually be wearing the cloaks in later games. Is this where the "concept" idea came from, or is there an official source?

I mean, I for one realized they were going to be doing a Nobody of Sora once they revealed in Final Mix that the body and soul becomes its own thing when split, since Sora was split. And Final Mix was released fairly early.

So, I guess I'm rambling, but can we have a source for calling it a concept video? 74.140.118.84 15:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Form

AT one point in KHII Axel states "I'm not getting turned into a dusk for...", should it be mentioned that someone in the orginization apperantly can control the forms of others, or should it be kept off the page, due to a lack of info? BassxForte 04:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Turned into a Dusk" is an invention of whoever translated that line into English, so I seriously doubt we'll see anyone actually get turned into a Dusk anytime soon. There's a new scene in FM+, when Axel's being sent to kill Roxas, and what he actually says (when referring to how he'll be executed by Xemnas if he fails) is "[executed] using Dusks," not "turned into a Dusk." Since Axel dies in a fight against hundreds of Dusks later on in the game, it's probably safe to say that the execution he was talking about was just being swarmed by a whole lot of Dusks at once, not being TURNED INTO one.63.215.28.145 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense. Xemnas raises his hand and it glows, clearly to hit Axel with some kind of energy. "I'm not getting turned into a dusk for..." is from the original game. Thus, the context of "Using Dusk, eh..." in the new scene is exceedingly obvious. Those Dusks in Betwixt and Between weren't there to be used to execute Axel; there were attacking Sora before Axel jumped in to save the day. ' 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesse... in the cutscene where Axel is being threatened we first see Xaldin threating Axel with a lance, Xaldin impales the lance in the wall behind Axel, then we see Xemnas threating Axel with some form of energy emitting from his hands. BassxForte 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Larxy

Larxene's original self was Arlene. Thanks to some random person on youtube for this. --Furon 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to say it? Youtube is not always trustworthy, give me a link to the video and then we'll talk. BassxForte 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the original names are obviously Isa, Lea, Medy, Durol, Lumaria, and Enelar.
(See, I can make unverified statements too!) /:P.74.140.118.84 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically what the user above me meant is that neither Nomura or any other reliable source have given Larxene's original name, and as such anything else is pure speculation. Her name could Renale, Ranele, Nerale...we don't know.HadesDragon 20:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, until we get some offical information regarding the original names of members 7-12, stuff like this won't be mentioned in the article, simple and straight. BassxForte 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Would it be at all appropriate to say that Marluxia's original name was "Mar-", as Xigbar leads into? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Are you talking about a cutscene in Final Mix? We'd need to know what the kana was when it was being spoken, since it could be very ambiguous: Maybe it was Mar, Malu, Maru, Maar, Maa.. We'd have to mention the kana and pronunciation, and stay away from speculating english spelling, in the article. - Zero1328 Talk? 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That cutscene tells us nothing about Marluxia's original name. Xigbar doesn't say his ORIGINAL name was "Mar-something." He's referring to his NEW name (Marluxia, which we already know), not his original one.63.215.28.145 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking about the cutscene in Final Mix. As to 63.something - how are you so certain? Doesn't Xemnas decide what the members' new names will be? Why would Xigbar already know if he had just sent the new recruit to be named? Or if that is not the case - where does Xigbar indicate that Mar- is the NEW name?KrytenKoro 02:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, why are you speculating over what he's talking about in the cutscene? It might be in another language, but that doesn't mean you speculate what he's saying; you find a way to translate it. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Who says that Xemnas picks the names, or that Marluxia wasn't sent to him already? Use common sense. The reference would be pointless if it was some name we've never heard of before. ' 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The games have not revealed who decides the new name, and Xigbar only mentins that it was "Mar-something", from my understanding he was saying Marluxia's new name, then decided for some reason that he wouldn't bother saying his full name. BassxForte 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Roxas section

There is no mention of any of the new FM+ cutscenes involving Roxas in his section, and yet I see one for every member that was involved in them. I think they deserve a mention.HadesDragon 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

*Dies laughing* That conversation has been going on for a month, they think it doeesn't belong because its only a gameplay feature. I think it does belong to to the change in gameplay mechanics. BassxForte 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not really talking about the battle with Roxas being now playable, but the new scenes you get from beating him, like Roxas eating seasalt ice cream with Axel and being found and named by Xemnas.
But if they really think it isn't necessary to point that out, alright, that section is fine as it is anyway...HadesDragon 19:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Extra information/scenes, like the kind you pointed out, should be added, yes. They add to the character development, and the plot. Nique talk 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you agree. And it's not just Roxas either. I'm pretty sure Luxord and Saix appear in at least one of the new scenes( not necessarily together, or in the same one)...or it might just be my faulty memory...HadesDragon 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so I went and added the cutscenes bit into the Roxas section. If any of you feel it should be reworded, feel free to do so.HadesDragon 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Those scenes simply show us what we already knew. We know that Roxas was born in Twilight Town and found by Xemnas in the original version; this is mentioned in the article already. The Axel/Roxas scene is so indecipherable as to be pointless and irrelevant. ' 20:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, alright then, the section will remain the same.HadesDragon 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the scene of them eating the ice cream on youtube, Axel seems to cry at the end, that may have some significane in Axel's section, because supposedly Axel shouldn't be able to feel emotions being a nobody. BassxForte 21:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits

Apostrophe is claiming that I am introducing speculation - however, nothing that I have changed was not already there. All I did was reorganize it out of the poor form it was in - no info was introduced, merely form and grammar were changed. Since I assume he will revert it wholesale again, as he has done, without actually taking the time to change the parts he claims to dispute with, then I would like to ask if anyone else sees a problem with my edits. If others disagree with me, then I will of course acquiesce. However, if others agree with me, then I would like Apostrophe to respect that as well.

Thank you for your time.KrytenKoro 22:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained to you several times what was speculation. Instead of painting me out to be the aggressor, you could actually respond to my criticism. Lawl at the assertion that I only change your edits "wholesale". This is just my imagination, of course. ' 06:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That looks more like a problem on whether past or present tense is preferred. Check WP:MOS, if it doesn't say anything, there's not much point changing it, is there? - Zero1328 Talk? 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The first few times, you did, infact, revert everything I had edited wholesale - even places where I fixed grammar. The fact that rv was used kind of proves that. When I had posted that, that is all you had done. I did, in fact, respond to your criticisms, on your talk page. As for painting you out to be the agressor - You did revert it wholesale, instead of individually changing the points you disagreed with.

As for the history you point out - so you're showing a part where you changed a revert of my edits back to the form I had them in? Wouldn't that just be showing that you reverted my edits wholesale and THEN went back and actually changed certain parts where you may have agreed with me?

And I don't understand what's wrong with the post I made. I responded to your criticisms on your page, and ceased the revert war we were getting into by asking others to see if they agreed with me, instead of just editing without the support of others. Isn't that EXACTLY what you are supposed to do in this kind of situation?KrytenKoro 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If the result is the same, I'm not sure how I edit pages is relevant. ' 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you revert valid edits just to get rid of others that you disagree with, then that is inappropriate. And in a few early cases, that is what you did - the end result was only achieved because I (and eventually you) kept returning the grammar corrections.KrytenKoro 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragoon reference

Apperently, a nobody called a dragoon was ment to relate to the Final Fantasy class or job of the same name. That is also something to note in my findings.--Megamanfan3 14:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

When wikipedia had an entire article about the final fantasy dragoon it did menton this nobody, last I checked though the classes are just a big list. BassxForte 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesser Nobodies

I know that the lesser nobodies commanded by the various Organization members are listed, but shouldn't they be given more explanation and detail, like some images and reaction commands? Blahmaster 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is oversaturated with images, and I'm not sure how Reaction Commands are anything but trivia. ' 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction commands are simply a gameplay feature that does not expand the story, as such they should not be mentioned. BassxForte 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Do we have any source for these two statements:

"He is the second youngest in the Organization, next to Roxas. In the aftermath of Axel's death, Xemnas reveals that Axel's demise is the reason why Roxas resurfaced near the end."

They seem new, and I personally can't remember any part in the games that reveals this. If anyone could post a link to the scenes that show this, even just in the Talk page, that would be wonderful. Thanks!KrytenKoro 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[2] ' 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zexion?

As far as I can see, several things in this paragraph need to be changed:

"Zexion, the "Cloaked Schemer" (『影歩む策士』ゼクシオン, "Kage Ayumu Sakushi" Zekushion?, lit. "'Shadow-walking Schemer' Zexion"), is a manipulator by nature. Appearing in Chain of Memories, his talents lie outside of battle. His original self was Ansem the Wise's youngest lab assistant, Ienzo (イエンツォ, Ientso?), who convinced Ansem the Wise that they should build an underground lab for research. He is voiced by Akira Ishida in Kingdom Hearts Re: Chain of Memories. He is the second youngest in the Organization, next to Roxas."

First off, I'm not sure "Kage Ayumu Sakushi" Zekushion?" is necessary. For one, anyone who can understand the japanese words should be able to read the japanese symbols. It seems redundant to have both the japanese, the romanization of the japanese, and the english all there. As it is, having the japanese at all seems a good bit fancrufty - having the romanization is just asking for trouble.

Second, this line ("his talents lie outside of battle") no longer seems necessary - he fights just as often as Lexaeus did, and it was slightly misleading in the first place - he did fight with Riku and Riku Replica, it just wasn't playable. Now that we fight him a full three times in the series, this should be removed or changed to something like "he prefers to get others to fight for him, but will fight for himself if necessary" or something like that.

Third, "He is the second youngest in the Organization, next to Roxas."" This should be better integrated. As it is, it's after the description of the VA! I think it would best fit with this: "Ansem the Wise's youngest lab assistant," as an addendum to that sentence ("He was Ansem the Wise's youngest lab assistant..., and was the second youngest member of the Organization, next to Roxas.")

I think the last two criticisms only apply to Zexion, but the romanization thing should probably be applied to all of the entries - we shouldn't be trying to shove so many different versions of japanese into an english wikipedia article.

Thanks for your time!KrytenKoro 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

...you're serious? Not everyone can read kanji or kana, pal. A layperson won't know 影 can be read kage or ei. Nor will he know καλoς is kalos (Greek). THe point is, what you're suggesting is a person will assume the Japanese is exactly the same as the English. For one example, you'd be allowing people to think Gyakuten Saiban translates to "Ace Attorney".—ウルタプ 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That's...Not at all what I was talking about. At all. What I was saying is that it would be reasonable for anyone who really cares to know the japanese form of the title (Kage Ayumu Sakushi) to also be able to read the japanese. Or, if you're seriously advocating that they would understand japanese but not know the symbols, then the kanji and kana are not needed. One or the other needs to go - it doesn't make sense for them both to be there.KrytenKoro 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove the title Kanji if you really want to. I don't care at this point. "He is the second youngest in the Organization, next to Roxas." has been removed. ' 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, '. Would people prefer the kanji or the romanization to be removed?KrytenKoro 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither should be removed. Many people can understand Japanese but can't read kanji (most foreign learners learn the kana and vocabulary first, then the kanji, since kanji are so much harder to learn) but if someone were looking for more information on something and the kanji weren't listed, only the romaji and the translation, they'd be stuck unless the best (original, close-to-the-source) webpages and articles had been translated, and with the multiple meanings for most kanji (even just using synonyms for a word) it could be impossible to find the information they're looking for anyway. That's why the Nihongo template is the way it is on Wiki: Translation, kanji, romaji. Nique talk 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to remove the Japanese for whatever concern, then remove both. Both or nothing. Feel free to do so. The Katakana and Romanization for the names stay, though. ' 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. I was unaware that their was any policy behind using Japanese character names on English Wikipedia. Thanks for informing me!KrytenKoro 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Final Mix Weapons

Okay, so Across Two, Bond of Flames, and Way to the Dawn are not the actual weapon.

But Donald's Centurion and Goofy's Freeze Pride (Bride?) are not transformations of Order member weapons. Should we include this in the article at all, as revealed names for the weapons?

And are their any other revealed weapon names? Not weapon types like claymore or book, but actual names, like Oathkeeper and Oblivion.

Oh! I think that the earring shaped like Marluxia's scythe is called the Full Bloom - would that count as an actual name or a transformation - it's the exact same shape, just used differently.

Cause if it is, we have Freeze Pride, Centurion, Full Bloom, and Oathkeeper & Oblivion, which is a good start.

We could have something like:
Weapon: Centurion, an earth-elemental tomahawk

or

Weapon: Full Bloom, a nature-elemental scythe.

Maybe?KrytenKoro 01:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Xemnas' Title

Xemnas' Title really is "Seeker of Darkness".

Wait.

Hmm. I'm trying to find where you guys got "Luna Diviner" and all that, and I can't actually find any sources. Where did you guys get these titles, again?KrytenKoro 01:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the game itself. There's a room in the World That Never Was called Proof of Existance. It shows everybody's (except Xemnas) title, weapon, and whether they're alive or not. And no, Xemnas is not the Seeker of Darkness. That's Ansem (the Heartless). Xemnas has no officially endorsed title.—ウルタプ 01:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
On that note, do you know if Zexion's weapon is shown there in Final Mix? or is it still destroyed? or you don't have the game? - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't have Final Mix. >.>;—ウルタプ 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's right, I remember now. But wasn't Xemnas given the title "Seeker of Darkness" where they were all given there japanese titles? I was quite sure of it. In Ultimania, right?KrytenKoro 01:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Xemnas was never given an official title. Anywhere.—ウルタプ 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[3][4] Notice the Japanese text after "Organization XIII" for Xigbar and Xaldin, and the lack of it for Xemnas. "Seeker of Darkness", or "Pursuer of Darkness" according to Chain of Memories, is just Xehanort's Heartless's stupid title for himself, and makes no sense for Xemnas. ' 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In/Out Universe

Apparently, my edits to change "the player" to "Sora" are not acceptable, because we are "trying to keep the article out-of-universe". If this is a character article, we should just have to explain at the beginning that these are fictional characters, right?

And if not, then why can't BassxForte insert his little section into the Roxas area? If inserting "the player" is so useful to making it out-universe, surely the new boss battle would be much more appropriate.

Basically - even though I overall disagree with BassxForte's argument, you guys need to stop being hypocrites. Either make this a character article, or make it out-universe. But you can't claim one while using the other. The arguments against Bass only work if this is a purely character article with a disclaimer at the top or something. Otherwise, his addition is perfectly valid.KrytenKoro 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, "the player" versus "Sora" is moot, the player IS Sora for the game, so keeping it as the player keeps it a little more OOU, which the article could probably use a little more of. As for relating this to BassxForte's addition, it's a completely different situation. If you don't see how it's different, read the discussions (plural) that have taken place. Long story short: It's not even MENTIONED in the first place that it WAS a cutscene before, so saying that it was changed is silly and irrelevant; there's already a better place for information about game-related changes, i.e. the Final Mix section on the KHII article; and finally, this is ABOUT the characters, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING relating to them should be included. Besides, Out Of Universe was, I think, not even USED in the arguments with BassxForte, except for ONE mention by Nemu: "All fiction related articles should have out of universe information, but not if that information would go in a trivia section." (Formatting for emphasis.) So I still think it should remain "the player", not Sora. Nique talk 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually participated in those discussions. As for "The player" - not for half of Chain of Memories, the first few chapters of Kingdom Hearts II (technically), and some of the boss battles (Riku and Mickey). And no, it's not a different situation. In fact, it's completely analogous.
1) difference between using "Sora" vs "the player" = describing the game from Sora or the player's point of vie
2) difference between mentioning "cutscene" vs. "playable" = describing the game from Sora or the player's point of view
I would be perfectly fine with changing this article to reflect the player's point of view, which is the only context the reversions make since in - and as they are, they are incomplete - all instances of Sora generally need to be changed to "the player", unless it's mentioning Sora's link to Roxas, or a cutscene.
Unless, of course, they are being used to refer to how the battles are fought - making them game-guidish, and thus, not appropriate for this article.
The thing that bugs me, however, is that the "out-of-universe" claim is being used to, essentially, own the article. If we want to illustrate that "Sora" is "the player", fine. Do it for all instances, especially the Roxas section - that would be a clear difference of Sora and the player - in one version, Sora fights the battle, and in the other, the player does. That was, I think, the emphasis of the argument, wasn't it? On the other hand, if we want to make this more of an article relating to how the characters relate to the story, which would be the instance in which the Roxas battle need not be mentioned, then "the player" should never be mentioned unless there is a bizarre minigame involving the Organization that Sora plays ("Gun Arrow Tennis" or something, but I don't remember that one).KrytenKoro 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly is so in-universe about this article? We mention that these are characters from a game in almost every paragraph, and that the events we are talking about occur mostly in cutscenes. Besides doing that more in-depth to the point of destroying understand-ability (by organizing the events we talk about by cutscene, and not how they create a picture of the member), there's not much we could do. I suppose we could compare game related things, like HP or strength of attacks, but that would make this too game guide-ish, wouldn't it? I really can't see throwing in "the player" in a few random places to do anything to fix in-university - rather, it acts to disrupt the section by technically changing the subject of the sentence(from "Sora" to "the player"). KrytenKoro 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hold that - I can see how this article is probably too in-universe - The whole "Reliable Sources and Original Research" problem. The only sources we are using are pretty much the ones the games give us. The only thing about that is that so long as we use Jiminy's Memo for most of our descriptions, and make sure to say "Axel said Saix was a stuckup ponce, Saix replied that Axel was missing his "wife"" instead of "Saix is a stuckup ponce, and Axel is married to Roxas", then there would be no real problem. However, the term "the player" would still not address this problem. The problem with in-universe in this article is not that it describes things from the ingame perspective - the only alternative would be to offer the player's perspective, which wouldn't be any less skewed, or rely on Nomura and friend's quotes, which are purposefully vague and for the most part unhelpful. According to the game, though, the Jiminy Memo does not make any real inferences, relying instead on observation of what the characters DID.
So, to summarize my wall of text there - the solution to "in-universe" is to clarify where we are relying on trusting the character's word, where we are using the Journal, and where we are using direct observations from the games. NOT by trying to throw "the player" at the article in an attempt to "duct-tape" the problem.KrytenKoro 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I meant that on the whole, player = Sora. Even when player = Roxas, it's Sora, if you want to get pedantic. And if you REALLY want to get pedantic, you've proven my point that it should be the player, since the player isn't always Sora.
Secondly, I don't understand how the difference between a cutscene and a playable battle is the same as the "difference" between calling it Sora and "the player", so you may have to calm down and elaborate a little more clearly rather than just saying "sora versus player = cutscene versus battle zomg". Again, nobody used "keep it out-of-universe" this way as justification against BassxForte's attempts to add the information he did. Your analogy implies that someone did, and it's getting a little frustrating that you continue to imply it. I recommend taking another good look at that argument and try to make it a little more relevant, or at least make it make a little more sense as to why you're comparing the two.
Lastly, yes, we do need to clarify what source we're using where, but that's no excuse to consistently use character names (i.e. Sora) instead of "the player" when the character name isn't necessary, because we want to try to get/keep it as OOU as we can, don't we? Nique talk 18:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
""sora versus player = cutscene versus battle zomg". Again, nobody used "keep it out-of-universe" this way as justification against BassxForte's attempts to add the information he did. Your analogy implies that someone did, and it's getting a little frustrating that you continue to imply it"
That's actually quite the opposite of what I was saying. Let me say it again:
1) difference between using "Sora" vs "the player" = describing the game from Sora or the player's point of vie
2) difference between mentioning "cutscene" vs. "playable" = describing the game from Sora or the player's point of view

I don't see where I said that the similarity was the conflict between cutscene and gameplay. I think I focused on something else there, right?
As for the "implication" that someone used out-of-universe:
"On the other hand, if we want to make this more of an article relating to how the characters relate to the story, which would be the instance in which the Roxas battle need not be mentioned," Which is the opposite of the "frustrating implication" that you blame me for. I think I called the treatment hypocritical earlier - why would I then say that they were being treated consistently?

For half of Chain of Memories, you play as Riku, and for most of the boss battles in KH2, you can play as Mickey, and for one as Riku. So the player is not always Sora - and technically, Roxas is NOT Sora - he is a PART of Sora. My liver isn't me. That's why Xehanort and Xemnas are not the same.
I don't understand why you are telling me to calm down and elaborate - I was pretty calm.
"And if you REALLY want to get pedantic, you've proven my point that it should be the player, since the player isn't always Sora." No, because in that instance, it IS Sora. You can't even get a summon Mickey on that battle. Again, using "the player" makes it vaguer than it needs to be - it IS Sora for that battle, and adding that detail does nothing to confuse the reader.
Parts where the difference between in-game and out-game point of view was mentioned:
"it's more of a gameplay element than a character description."
"l. I say there's no proof that the fight being playable has any new effect on the storyline then say we're not mentioning the COM members can be battled in 2FM" "
"the fact you can actually fight him is a pointless fact to mention as it has no actual impact on the character's development or personality"
"From Sora's viewpoint, which is the main viewpoint we are using to describe these characters, the same exact thing happense in KH2 and in KH2FM+. Whether WE the player, are able to control Sora during the event has no bearing on the STORY."
"I would be very surprised if Roxas noticed a difference between a cutscene and gameplay battle"
"It has nothing to do with the actual character's development."
"It doesn't belong here because it does nothing for character development"
"You say that it's about characters, yet you want to include game mechanics in it as well. Make up your mind, or better yet, let the fact that it's about the characters determine what should or shouldn't be included, such as (surprise, surprise) changes in the mechanics of the game." - from you yourself
"Wikipedia's definition of Trivial, taken from WP:TRIVIA: not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to. The change from cutscene to playable battle is meaningless on character pages. (See point number 1)" - again from you
"Holds little weight? Only if you're ignorant of the fact that it makes no sense in relation to the rest of the article." - just wanted to add this, since it seems relevant

In fact, the only other type of argument against BassxForte in that section that I saw was that it was trivia and not important enough to be included.

"because we want to try to get/keep it as OOU as we can, don't we?"
No, we don't. We want to eliminate all the problems that In-universe can cause - which is making invalid inferences (solved by relying on Jiminy Memo and not taking quotes at face-value), fair use (as long as we don't include TOO MUCH detail from the games and thus violate copyrights), and undue weight (assigning these characters more notability than they deserve - they are the major villains spanning three games of a highly-popular game series, and we haven't gone overboard assigning a page for each one, so we're fine there). Again, inserting "the player" where "Sora" is correct and valid does nothing to address that problem. In fact, if that method was extended to the rest of the article, then everything would be described in cutscene order, not comprehensive order - and furthermore, the distinction between cutscene and gameplay would be important.KrytenKoro 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My Maruxia Edit

I edited Marluxia's section to include the extra form of him in Re: Chain of memories. Does anyone have any comments or criticism?

Marluxia's name

Now, I understand that Xigbar didn't finish the name. However, does it ever actually say that he is talking about Marluxia's new name? I know it sounds very reasonable in your heads, but this IS still wikipedia, and we are obligated to go with what the source gives us, not our own research.

I think the issue could be resolved (until Nomura finally finishes the Organization, with their own nobodies and names) by saying something like
"In Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix, Xigbar starts to name the new member he recruited "Mar-something" "sic", evidently referring to Marluxia. It is unclear whether this is Marluxia's original or Nobody name."

It could definitely be worded better, but that should be accurate enough until something is definitively stated by Square or the games.KrytenKoro 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not mentioned at all. I completely fail to see the issue. ' 01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Xigbar says that he recruited "Mar-something" in the same scene that he talks about the Room of Sleep. You're the one who was always arguing with me over that scene!KrytenKoro 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the article. ' 01:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organization_XIII/Archive_4&oldid=1144731203"