Talk:Organization XIII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Organization XIII article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Square Enix, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Organization XIII factsheet (READ FIRST)

Attributes, weapons, and Nobodies are taken from the Ultimania, with the exception of Zexion's attribute, which was taken from a Famitsu interview with Nomura; Zexion's weapon, which was shown in scans from magazines; and Lexaeus' weapon, which is referred to as a tomahawk in his profiles for Chain of Memories and II. Original selves come from in-game information, Secret Ansem Report #2 and #3 in the case of Xigbar, Xaldin, Vexen, Lexaeus, and Zexion, with big, obvious scenes revolving around the original selves of Xemnas and Roxas.
Gaps with no confirmed information are:
  • Original selves of Saïx, Axel, Demyx, Luxord, Marluxia, and Larxene.
  • Lesser Nobodies of Vexen, Lexaeus, Zexion, Marluxia, and Larxene.
  • I. Xemnas (ゼムナス zemunasu?)
    • Original self: Xehanort (ゼアノート zeanōto?), uses Ansem (アンセム ansemu?) for anagram
    • Attribute: Nothingness (無 mu?)
    • Weapon: Aerial Blade (エアリアルブレード eariaru burēdo?)
    • Nobody: Sorcerer (ソーサラー sōsarā?)
  • II. Xigbar (シグバール shigubāru?)
    • Original self: Braig (ブライグ buraigu?, mistranslated as Bleig)
    • Attribute: Space (空間 kūkan?)
    • Weapon: Gun Arrow (ガンアロー gan'arō?)
    • Nobody: Sniper (スナイパー sunaipā?)
  • III. Xaldin (ザルディン zarudin?)
    • Original self: Dilan (ディラン diran?, mistranslated as Dilin)
    • Attribute: Wind (風 kaze?)
    • Weapon: Lance (ランス ransu?)
    • Nobody: Dragoon (ドラグーン doragūn?)
  • IV. Vexen (ヴィクセン vikusen?)
    • Original self: Even (エヴェン?)
    • Attribute: Ice (氷 kōri?)
    • Weapon: Shield (シールド shīrudo?)
    • Nobody: –
  • V. Lexaeus (レクセウス rekuseusu?)
    • Original self: Aeleus (エレウス ereusu?, mistranslated as Eleus)
    • Attribute: Earth (土 tsuchi?)
    • Weapon: Tomahawk as given in Lexaeus's journal profiles in Chain of Memories and II, Axe Sword (アックスソード akkususōdo?) in the Ultimania
    • Nobody: –
  • VI. Zexion (ゼクシオン zekushion?)
    • Original self: Ienzo (イエンツォ Ientso?)
    • Attribute: Illusion (幻影 gen'ei?) [1]
    • Weapon: Book (本 hon?) [2]
    • Nobody: –
  • VII. Saïx (サイクス saikusu?, Romanized as Saix in the Ultimania, Japanese KHII site, etc)
    • Original self: –
    • Attribute: Moon (月 tsuki?)
    • Weapon: Claymore (クレイモア kureimoa?), Berserker weapons are referred to as hammers in their journal entry, but Saïx's weapon is not referred to
    • Nobody: Berserker (バーサーカー bāsākā?)
  • VIII. Axel (アクセル akuseru?)
    • Original self: –
    • Attribute: Flame (炎 Homura?)
    • Weapon: Chakram (チャクラム chakuramu?)
    • Nobody: Assassin (アサシン asashin?)
  • IX. Demyx (デミックス demikkusu?)
    • Original self: –
    • Attribute: Water (水 mizu?)
    • Weapon: Sitar (シタール shitāru?)
    • Nobody: Dancer (ダンサー dansā?)
  • X. Luxord (ルクソード rukusōdo?)
    • Original self: –
    • Attribute: Time (時 toki?)
    • Weapon: Card (カード kādo?)
    • Nobody: Gambler (ギャンブラー gyanburā?)
  • XI. Marluxia (マールーシャ mārūsha?)
    • Original self: –
    • Attribute: Flower (花 hana?)
    • Weapon: Scythe (サイズ saizu?)
    • Nobody: –
  • XII. Larxene (ラクシーヌ rakushīnu?)
    • Original self: –
    • Attribute: Thunder (雷 kaminari?)
    • Weapon: Knife (ナイフ naifu?)
    • Nobody: –
  • XIII. Roxas (ロクサス rokusasu?)
    • Original self: Sora (ソラ?)
    • Attribute: Light (光 hikari?)
    • Weapon: Keyblade (キーブレード kīburēdo?)
    • Nobody: Samurai (サムライ?)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[3]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

  • Vexen = To freeze scholar Vexen (needs some sorting out).
  • Demyx = Nocturne of Preparation/Investigation/Inspection Demyx Evilgidgit 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Xemnas's "Lightsabers"

Xamnas' Aerial blades look like lightsaber ripoffs. Should the resemblance be noted? Flashn00b 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

When we have a reliable source that says Square Enix based them on lightsabers. Otherwise is original research. ' 06:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/g/Talk%7EOrganization_XIII_38bd.html"