Talk:List of Code Geass characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Code Geass characters article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
List of Code Geass characters is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Regarding two things

I removed those pictures for a reason. We don't need pictures of characters who hardly have any air-time, most of their names I can hardly remember. After looking through the article, I found out they actually named that female pilot (Villetta Nu) or that they really have someone named Kewell in the anime. Both of them are minor characters, both have exactly 3 sentances in their section. Surely those 3 sentances do not require an image.

It's still nice to have images, we of course don't have to have them but it makes the page look nicer, lighten' up man. --RavensIllusion 05:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, stop deleting the images. There is a reason why we place images there, so it's easier to identify the characters. And besides you have no place doing so without better reasoning.--RavensIllusion 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Then post useful pictures. I don't think anyone has any trouble identifing the characters using the group images. Want some more pictures to make the article look better? Sure, I have absolutly no problem with that, but add useful pictures, or at least, make it look better and not worse. Adding pictures to the Ashford Students section is utterly useless and ugly, because it's short and already has 3 pictures: Nunnally, Lelouch's sister, important chara. Shirley, Lelouch's friend and possible love intrest, less then Nunnally, still important. Group image of all of the character in the section and more, important. Milly, although my most favorite character in the show still only has 3 sentences exactly in her section and she is completly unrelated to the plot and so far was only used as comic-relief. tl;dr, Milly's picture is not needed. Also, I'd like to know what is the reason to add pictures, because I truly don't mind if there is a good reason. Kurigiri 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the pages look completely blank except for a couple of words. Also, if you want to get technical, both Clovis and Cornelia are more important then Shirley yet their pictures were removed. I don't understand why you think an image for each character isn't important, sure group pictures are fine but when the quality is crap and it's grotesque nobody likes looking at it.
This is an encyclopedia, "just a couple of words" is fine. The pictures in wikipedia are used to help identify or support, not to be the base of the article. I agree that looks a little dull without the +20 pictures I removed earlier, but it doesn't matter. When this article was a part of the main Geass article, you've had pictures for all of the characters. It was horrible, and the last thing I want is that to happen again. An image for each character isn't important because pepole don't care how do the minor characters look like, and we're already "showing" them using the group picture. Want more pictures to make the article look better? Use group pictures. I don't care, the new opening animation, the ending animation, the series itself. Group pictures are better bacuse it saves space, which the article didn't have "back then". By group pictures I mean like that scene with Jeremiah, Villetta and Diethard in ep.10. Kurigiri 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Horrible? It didn't look horrible at all and it was perfectly fine. Right now the article looks dull and empty. An encyclopedia isn't suppose to look empty. There is a reason why we had pictures for each character, you know. You're reasoning makes no sense, either. You removed them because it looked horrible to you? That isn't even a correct statement since there was nothing wrong with the article the way it was. RavensIllusion 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You want to say that this looks perfectly fine to you, and it's not picture-overloaded at all? This is what I want to avoid. Use pictures, sure. Don't make it look overloaded, or I'll just remove those pictures. And when you add pictures, think if it's actually needed, and just how important is that character. Kurigiri 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks bad because all the pictures are on one side, better spreading would get rid of that problem easily.--RavensIllusion 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said - sure, use pictures. There is a reason why we can use pictures. But again, as I said - think of how important that character is, don't go overboard and don't make the look worse. Good pics are a plus aswell. :P Kurigiri 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nunnally?

On another matter: The magazine scans do count. It's the only source of romanization we currently have. Even if it "doesn't count", as you said, it is way better than a shot in the dark. And if the magazines don't count, why keep Kallen when Karen sounds more resonable? Kurigiri 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the change to "Nunnally" being reverted? "Nunnally" is a name (See here). Nanaly is not. --81.23.48.7 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...Of a guy. -Atashi 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Magazine scans are not of verifiable authority as evidence of "official status", and therefore cannot be brought into question in a referenced article, so they indeed do not count, according to the policies explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Only a few names have been revealed within the actual course of the series i.e. Suzaku, Jeremiah and Rivalz, however the vast majority certainly have not. Sunrise have created numerous series in which the characters have unique or completely original, created names (like in Gundam), so a name, especially a fictional one, need not have any connection to established ones. Ganryuu (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say, romanizations of the names of the above few characters have only been revealed in the course of the series so far. The vast majority of the actual character names (in Japanese) have all been revealed in the series via the credits/cast or the official site. Ganryuu (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly a surname, actually. Even a male name holds more weight than a non-name. 81.23.48.7 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - there's nothing called a "non-name" in fiction; there have been many well-known fictional series in which completely new names have been created by the authors. Whatever the case, per Wikipedia:Verifiability the magazine scans do not hold any weight and therefore unless any official romanizations are revealed in the actual course of the series or the official website, these arguments do not hold any basis. Ganryuu (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And names taken down from sound by illegal fansubbers are somehow more correct than those in published Japanese sources? 81.23.48.7 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ganryuu, so far you have only voiced arguments against the naming "Nunnally":
  • Your first argument that there may be a fictional name. But that doesn't mean that they (Sunrise) haven't used any non-fictional names.
  • Your second argument is that magazine scans are not a good, reliable source. According to the "article in a nutshell", you should a) source your info, b) if it hasn't been sourced, a fellow editor may remove it, c) those who wish for the content to stay need to source, not those who want it to be removed. We have sourced the info, the animage scans. That basiclly covers the entire 3, but you ignore it saying that magazine scans are not reliable. Why aren't they reliable? It's the same as saying that newspapers lie. I'm not saying that they don't lie, but so far, they are the only (nearly?)official naming that we have so far. If you want Nanaly or Nanali to stay, you have to cover the entire 3 as well, which you haven't used anything that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability is acceptable. Also, I read the entire guide twice, but haven't seen anything there that says that magazine scans do not count as reliable sources. Kurigiri 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I've been saying, magazine scans are not official - whether or not it how close it is to the actual romanizations is nothing more than speculation and conjecture - it is entirely based upon one's point of view. When any romanization of particular characters are officially revealed, then they can be added to the article and treated as such, however, the fact of the matter remains that they haven't. I don't see why such a conflict at all should arise over a matter in which there has been no official say. Let's just wait until the romanizations are revealed officially, as there are numerous other more important things which can be improved further. Ganryuu (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But it has been officialy revealed. Do you know japanese, and are holding the Animage magazine in your hands? If not, you are only speculating that they, the magazine's editor, have no actual connenction to Sunrise and don't know the real way to write it in english. However, to "this side", there is also "that side" - you could think, speculate that the magazine's editors are resourcful, and that it was mass-published so it's probably true.
Both are speculations, so we have to rely on Wikipedia's guide lines on the matter: first, Wikipedia:Verifiability. According to this, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources. Well, we are talking about a magazine, so "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", which it is. But it seems that this isn't good enough, so let's see if we should use it on wikipedia with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Well, it says that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." but we verified a source. but that wasn't good enough. So you leave us with alternative of having to come up with some naming that will go with it, Nanaly. But let's do it al over again, so.. source? fansubs? doesn't count. Why? Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. But that is so way better than an official source, which means that we'll have to go and read again to see which of the two wrong names should we use: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
So, you need to give a verified source for Nanaly to be used. Care to share? Kurigiri 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Ganryuu added a comment in his edit that there have been "Transliterations" from episode 1. "Nanaly" is not a transliteration. If you want a transliteration, give all the names in Revised Hepburn. All of them. I don't recall seeing any of the "superior" fan names in anywhere but originally researched fansubs and fan websites. 81.23.48.7 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ganryuu, as a Wikipedian-kouhai, I am very disappointed of you. I went over it step by step, and quoted the specific lines so you won't have to dig through the article to see what I meant, and showed you what should be written according to Wikipedia's rules. Even so, you took the back door, and attempted a compromise - which I do not agree with, especially after explaining it. Whatever it may be, official or unofficial, it's not what we're talking about here. You are proposed a romanization, from a published source, but you keep rejecting it, saying that "your translation" is better. After going step by step, I explained (using the guides you repetedly linked to) and sourced. Now, according to a guide you repetdly mentioned, if you want your naming to be used, source it. Remember, The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. ("articler in a nutshell, Wikipedia:Verifiability). Now, until you source the Nanaly naming, I will keep reverting back to Nunnally. And if you won't source, that means it'll probably continue forever. Kurigiri 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read and mantain Wikipedia:Civility - your comments are bordering on rudeness and personal comments, please do not bring personal opinions while discussing articles. The entire article is unsourced, and even though you are stating that your edits are backed up by supposed "published sources", not a single source, reference nor note has been added to the actual article. The name Nanaly is not my choice, but was previously a part of this section before you decided to change it without reaching any consensus whatsoever with other editors involved with this entry nor adding a single reference or source to the article. If a third party source alleges something, then it should not be claimed as if it is an established fact, but in the lines of e.g. "The Animage magazine, in its December 2006 issue, romanized the character's name as ...". Even though I had added this particular statement to the article, you removed it without even so much as reaching consensus on how to mantain this particular problem. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Consensus. Ganryuu (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should brush up on what exactly Romanisation is. Neither Nunnally nor Nanaly is a romanisation. It's a spelling of the name using the alphabet. Romanisations are completely phonetic, while English names and words in general are notoriously unphonetic. Bnynms 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're completely correct there; my bad. Thanks for your clarification. Ganryuu (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From the top: My previous comment was pure outburst, which I am sorry for, but I believe that was the only way to get my messeage through. I'm bordering personal comments, as you said, because this mainly a personal discussion between the two of us. Now, I didn't add any refs in because that would mean complety forcing 'my side', but I did mention where did the name come from in the talkpage, the Animage magazine. I didn't attemp to reach any consent by keeping the statment you added because it was the same thing I was trying to avoid - completly forcing my opinions.
Now, my reply: I will try to keep it civil from now on; As I said earlier, quoting from Wikipedia:Verifiability, Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly., which basiclly justs the naming Nuunally in the article. It doesn't matter that Nanaly was used before I changed it, because it is a shot in the dark - it could hit, it could miss. Nunnally, a naming that was used in a published article and can be sourced. Kurigiri 10:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In the event that someone brings up AniMage not being an "official" source again, it should be noted that the Code Geass OST comes with a cast list - in roman letters - that matches up with the AniMages spellings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fall Showers (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 December, 2006 (UTC).

Well, whichever form of romanisation is chosen, Nunnally's name is romanised as Nunnally, Nanaly, Nanally and Nunally in different places on this page, so it would be good to pick something and use it consistently! Four variations of the same name seems a bit over the top. --59.167.110.253 13:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep everything organized

Please keep everything in order, discussion is fine but if it's not organized it's harder to find what topic you'd like to talk about and etcetera. --RavensIllusion 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Knights

I just noticed someone changed it, from Order of the Black Knights to The Black Knights. I remember reading in a blog about this: As you can see, I decided to go with the “Order of the Black” for 「黒の騎士団」 (Kuro no Kishidan). I believe the common translation that’s been floating around is the “Black League of Knights,” but league just doesn’t seem appropriate - silly even. Knight societies are typically called Orders and I think that would work best in this case given the word and the context. Actually, “Knights of the Black” or even “Black Knights” would be accurate direct translations. My point is that this can be translated various ways, but league is not among the best choices. How should we translate it? Keep it The Black Knights? Order/League of the Black Knights? Kurigiri 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Black Knights seems more reasonable, as he said League sounds silly, and "The Black Knights," is too simple. --RavensIllusion 23:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think so too. Changing to Order of the Black Knights~ Kurigiri 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CC

This is the response to Li Jianliang: MY source is the show itself, for that pic I don't undestand what I need to do whit that because I don't understand it. If she communicates with someone threw electromagnetic waves proof it, because it can also be by other means. It's not also certain that she observed Suzaku because what we have seen in eps 11 she doesn't care about him but only about Lelouch. If you say that show me my source then I can't say much because what I've been writing is not speculation but fact about what happened in the show.

You're saying that your source is the show, yet you can't understand the scan, so you don't understand most of the dialog in the show, either, is that correct? Do you just rely on the visuals and fansubs? Let me just say that the scan is an official source, though I'm not sure which magazine it came out of. I did not write the stuff about C.C. observing Suzaku, by the way. That was written by another user. -Atashi 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is there not to understand, if you just had stated it's a official source I would be happy. But a person hoe reeds this should be aware of that it came from a official source, it never been explaind in the show up until now, and if one reeds this it wouldn't make any sense because you wonder how you get this info. Also about observing Suzaku is also a part of been logical as of what we have seen uptill now, CC frightens him enought to make him go crazy, so it seems she doesn't have or hade any plans for him unlike Lelouch, so if you agree on that it should be changed to be more accurate. Also what does it mather if one can't understand the scans, if it's a decent show it doesn't meen aything.

[edit] Interesting Theory

I saw someone's conjecture about C.C's true identity and it sounds very interesting and is persuasive. I wish if I had time to translate his theory into English. I may do it within a couple of weeks, even though I know that conjecture cannot be added into the article --Paran pi 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section titles

Is there a reason to use Template:Nihongo in the characters' section titles, as opposed to fitting the character's name in their summary text and using it there? As it is, this creates unusable section anchors.

That, and I think the VA credit should be moved out of the template, as it does not contribute to the understanding of the Japanese, but that's just my personal opinion on what the template is for. —TangentCube /c /t  22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyoshiro Tohdoh

Same as the above post about Nunnally, official name from the OST should take priority, why are the edits being reverted? It is official english name, not some romanisation, the latter is also there in the nihongo part 89.178.105.106 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milly?

I don't have the OST list and therefore cannot source this, but wasn't her name "Millay Ashford"? --Ephyon 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from her name, should there be mention that she is Lulu's non-immediate cousin on his mother's side of the family yet?

[edit] Weasel Words

"starting a terrorist campaign against powerful individuals who oppress the helpless." It's not terrorism, more like vigilantism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychoneko (talk • contribs) 07:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Official magazine spoiler

OK, people, time to learn some basic things about Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia contains encyclopedic content. Second, encyclopedic content should be verifiable. Third, verifiable encyclopedic content should be verifiable with as little effort as as possible. For these reason, it is NOT enough to say "info comes from official magazine spoiler" in the edit history. Instead, you must explain which "magazine" you refer to (as well as its publication date and, possibly, the page where your material comes from) in an inline citation (you may even want to check out the {{cite journal}} template). That's what I added the <references /> tag at the bottom for, in case somebody missed it. And, look, I don't intend to delete the unsourced but consistant info and start an edit war, I just want to know where exactly the details come from. As, I'm sure, many readers do. --Koveras ☭ 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V.V.?

When I first saw it, I thought it made sense, as I have yet to seen the episode this 'guy' appears in. But, after discussing it with my friend, it doesn't fit. C.C. means "Chu Chulain", which is from the Irish folktale about the geass... But V.V. is not in that folktale. Plus, I have yet to find this 'interview' with Ichiro Okouchi, and until I see a credible source on the matter, I will change it if nobody objects to this, or somebody presents me with the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavensIllusion (talk • contribs).

  • Although there's good reason to believe that C.C. can stand for "Cuchulain", this person was also a guy; so what's stopping the writers from making a "V.V."? But more to the point, yes, it's "V.V."

And why the hell is there a source tag just for V.V. when there aren't any sources in the entire article? -Biokinetica 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because V.V. is the most controversial item in the list. So far, I've only seen some scans depicting him (?) with no proof of their authenticity and relevance, whatsoever. --Koveras ☭ 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If the magazine itself isn't proof enough for you, then what on earth is? -Biokinetica 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
O. M. F. G. WHICH BLOODY MAGAZINE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT???? I've been asking THAT VERY QUESTION since 13 March and still haven't received any answers to four basic questions:
  • What is the title, the name of the magazine containing the cited article?
  • What is the title of the cited article (translated, if possible)?
  • When was it published (month, year)?
  • Which page of the magazine was the article on?
Just tell me these and that'd suffice to build a good reference. Jeez, why do I always have to raise my voice and use strong language to get something done according to Wikipedia regulations? --Koveras ☭ 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Newtype (magazine); that's where most have been coming from. -Biokinetica 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. That makes one question answered. Keep it coming, please. =] --Koveras ☭ 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
V.V. has also made an appearance in the purported "Code Geass magazine+book". The scan looks official enough (see here), but I still don't have any exact bibliographic details for it. --212.236.15.132 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Just looking official won't do I'm afraid... Bibliographical identifiers make confirming information easy because written text is generally a very stable information source, whereas a scan may be gone in a month and no one will ever be able to confirm that it even existed... One more thing: it's not like I doubt any information in the scan, just that in this case, its background information can and should be confirmed. Just consider that "Unreferenced" tag a mere reminder, it's not like the article is any worse because it is there. ^^ --Koveras ☭ 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, with some luck, he might appear in the ending credits in one of the upcoming episodes, rendering the whole discussion moot ^_^. I jumped the gun when I initially edited out the tag, for which I apologize. I consider it overkill, but I can definitely see where you're coming from with your stance on it.212.236.15.132 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The tag itself only shows that some of the information can be unreliable, like a "Proceed with caution" sign (meaning, it's still got a long way to a candidate for deletion ^^). In a (temporarily) dynamic list like this, it's almost natural to have it posted somewhere but once the series finishes airing, one will have to do something about the refs... My point being: the sooner we start, the easier it'll be afterwards. Believe me, I've went through hell looking for reliable sources on Madlax... PS: Btw, 212.236.15.132, why don't you register an account here? You look like a good editor to my eyes... --Koveras ☭ 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess. As you can see, I actually do have an account here, even if I don't use it. T_T --Darkbane 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
V.V. has appeared today in episode 23, and was listed in the credits. I've removed the more dubious information about him, including wrong Seiyu, but left your tag up for your discretion.
About V.V.'s seiyu (冨澤風斗) - someone removed it again. It's apparently not Hōko Kuwashima, as stated by Ganryuu and others. According to aohige, a poster on AnimeSuki forums, the reading is either Tomizawa Kazato or Fuuto. I can't verify that, but the Knaji are from the credits.Darkbane 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Code_Geass_characters_10d2.html"