Talk:List of Code Geass characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Characters page

The characters page is like a mess, everything chunk there, we should organize it. --|Monstez 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Minor character or not, I agree with RavensIllusion, it's not something of going "overboard", though they are minor characters, doesn't means that people don't want to know what they look like. Posting a group picture for people to identify is causing more inconvenience, people has to keep refering to the picture as they scroll up and see, then back down to the particular section. Unless you're suggesting to put a group picture on every character's section, that would be more overload. And the pictures are not bad. Monstez 17.25, 12 June 2007 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

As a closing comment for this section and in order to avoid further debate, I'll explicitly point out what everyone already knows by now: The official spelling was revealed on the telephone display in episode 23 to be Nunnally. From now on, any edits of her name should probably reflect this. --Darkbane 02:30, 30 April 2007 (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)

In fact, many of those do not need to be section titles at all... I'm gonna clean them up a bit. --Darkbane 01:59, 4 May 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?

Well, the official website put her name as Milly, instead of Millay. As for the mention of Lulu's non-immediate cousin, I think it's ok to put it in. :D --Monstez 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[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).

This section seems pointless. I propose removing it. --Darkbane 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I _finally_ got what this was referring to (yes, I am slow sometimes). Remember that one man's terrorist is often another man's freedom fighter. It doesn't matter if you sugar coat it. IIRC, Lulu does even admit himself in episode 21 that he is a "terrorist hiding behind a mask". --Darkbane 01:49, 4 May 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)
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 Kanji are from the credits.Darkbane 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, since the information has been more or less confirmed in the series itself. It'd still be nice if the article had more inline citations in general, though. --Koveras ☭ 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that V.V. was the one who transferred the folks to Kaminejima? Is it another "official magazine spoiler" again? --Koveras ☭ 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't think V.V had anything to do with it. C.C says that 'you' transported them there and its later shown that the 'you' is Marianne, not V.V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.170.14 (talk) 16:46, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Imperial' Conversation...

Ok, I totally underestand the argument here, but if this can be cited, I think it would benefit the article. Something like this i'm sure has a source, even if the part about 'he must have geass powers..' is incorrect. If there's a citation that rings true the part about the Emperor talking with Clovis, then i'm sure it's worthy of being added. All I was asking for was a citation, and would've added it myself if I knew where to look. -Biokinetica 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement stems from a translation in the episode where Clovis' body is delivered to the motherland. The emperor claims that he has just spoken with Clovis. Until we get more substantial information from the series itself, I think this is more of a plot detail than a character detail and should not warrant inclusion on the character page. However, the suspicion of having hidden Geass powers is pretty far afield and something that most certainly has no clear source but is rather speculation originating in the community (most likely from AnimeSuki Code Geass forum). I agree with Ganryuu in that such speculations do not belong in the article. --Darkbane 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Contract

What exactly is it that C.C. gave Lelouch the Geass for? I mean, it says in Episode 1 about C.C. giving Lelouch Geass but that he has to do something for her; call me a n00b, but did I miss something or is what she wants yet to be revealed? The Chinchou 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He has to fulfill a wish of hers. As to what exactly it entails, it hasn't been revealed yet, neither in the anime nor in other sources. Look forward to it. --Darkbane 05:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The Chinchou 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other members of Black Knights?

Should we add their names? Sunrise's site has their names on them. My kanji ain't that sharp yet.

The article is found here. http://www.sunrise-inc.co.jp/geas/character/27.html 70.68.55.148 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kallen/Karen, Nishiki/Mark II

I'm not sure why Karen is listed as Karen, but then all other references to her (including in her own section) are by Kallen. So I've changed it all instances of Kallen to Karen. Also, I think Guren Mark II is an appropriate translation of Guren Nishiki. If someone disagrees, feel free to change it. Serrin 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the choice should really be between "Crimson Lotus Mark II" and "Guren Nishiki". Since we're going with "Guren", let's stick to "Nishiki".--Darkbane 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed all instances of Karen to Kallen except in the Japanese pronunciation guides. In one episode, can't recall which, Lelouch's phone rings, and the caller ID clearly says "Kallen." You could treat it as just an instance of engrish, but it doesn't seem to be the case. --Anonymous 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From it's Official website: [1], it seems to be Kallen, not Karen. --Monstez 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes hard to be sure whether English text on a Japanese site is correct or just Engrish, though. We'll probably have to wait for a US release to find out for sure which one it is. — Red XIV (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe Kallen uses 'Kallen' for anything Britannia-related and 'Karen' for anything Black Knights/Japan-related. I'm in favor of restoring all instances of 'Karen' to 'Kallen' unless it is specifically Black Knights/Japan. I've seen tons of Japanese promotional material that indicate her name should be recognized as 'Kallen' unless used with her Japanese last name, Kozuki. The only piece that strays from the majority is her Ashford Academy student ID card from a CD. -Atashi 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. Others disagree. The article was a mess of both names being used willy-nilly and to fix that it has been changed to Karen throughout. Improvement of the article is good. Kyaa the Catlord 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Rewrites

I've started a series of complete rewrites, because the current content is too verbose and contains too many plot references. --Darkbane 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Character descriptions are free to contain as many plot references as possible, as Wikipedia does not censor spoilers and the such. If the article gets too large, then the respective sections can be instead split into different articles. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the character section is not to be a place for plot summaries. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Sections, it should contain "modest detail". Describing what the character has been doing for the last 23 episodes in minute detail, rather than giving digested information about the character itself, is, in my humble opinion, counter to the spirit of the character section. There is a plot section for plot details. --Darkbane 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the argument about TOC formatting is not relevant, because the various characters don't show up in the TOC. Furthermore, this formatting adds "edit" links all over the place, further promoting the addition of fancruft and unnecessary detail in an article that already requires significant cleanup. --Darkbane 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your latest change for now. But I've looked over Help:Reverting more closely, and am thinking that my decision to do this may not be justified. Revert back to your version if you feel that it was not (well, your initial revert was unjustified in my opinion, also ^_^). Whatever the case, I hope we can reach some kind of agreement here as to the contents of this article. I strongly disagree with the current prose style and content. --Darkbane 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The current formatting is better suited to the current TOC style, so please do not change an already existent and useful manual of style, as this is most certainly correct and helps in the further expansion of characters, as this is a characters page, so each character should deserve its own section. Also, as I cited earlier, your edits removed a substantial amount of character information essential to that particular character, and removal of such details cannot be done. As I said earlier, if sections become too large, they can instead be expanded onto their own articles instead. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Just calling it "correct" and "useful" will not make it so. However, this is peanuts compared to the problem of content. But since you are citing "WikiMedia TOC", please provide a relevant link that supports your opinion. I can't seem to find it :(
I honestly do not believe that my edits removed any essential information at all. When rewriting, I went over each original paragraph and meticulously compressed the information. The only things removed was what was in my opinion excessive Wikipedia:Fancruft. Detailed plot summaries for each character are not of interest to anyone but the hardcore fan (actually, even for the hardcore fan it's useless - I've seen Code Geass over twenty times already and I feel no particular need to read these detailed plot event lists). Also, excessive plot detail is against policy. --Darkbane 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing up plot summaries with character information, which are two completely different matters altogether. Please see WP:FICTION, where it is stated quite clearly: "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Therefore, if the character sections become too large, they can instead be given a separate article. Your edits did indeed remove important details regarding the main characters, which were most certainly important and concern details regarding the character's history, abilities and other related information, which should never be removed, as doing so would be deleting the efforts of several other hardworking editors who have worked on this article for months. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I definitely do appreciate the work of all individuals involved in writing the previous entries. Please don't think that I am removing stuff just because I can or feel like it. Yet it pains me to see the article in such a sorry state because I appreciate this anime very much.
You are mixing up "encyclopedic treatment" with "indiscriminate collection of information", which encyclopedic content most certainly should never be. Encyclopedic treatment involves in-depth analysis that is not present on this page right now. Characters can only be given separate articles when there is enough citation material to support such a move, and this is highly unlikely to happen for Code Geass. Most of my edits concern (or were meant to concern) plot events starting with episode 1, not background history.
Anyway, most of the character descriptions just need heavy copy-editing. I'll work on those eventually. It's just the exceptionally long entries for Lelouch, Suzaku, Kallen and such that need rewrites in my opinion. They also contain several instances of original research, such as "Since approving of what Zero is doing now would also mean his actions against his father were for naught, he still serves in the Britannian army." --Darkbane 09:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
There are most definitely enough references and citations (from the series's official website, the anime itself and its numerous published adaptations, from which numerous citations can be cited) for character articles to be created, and this is a simple matter which can easily be completed in the future. Please see Wikipedia:References more clearly. A thorough article, containing information cited from the series itself, can be as large as possible, and an encyclopedic treatment of such an article can easily be met, no matter its size; it is far more important to cite as much expandable content as possible. Content from articles should never be removed, especially if they meet the criteria guidelines. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 09:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am only trying to remove content that does not meet criteria for inclusion. But my approach to the issue may have been heavy-handed. Rather than rewrites, I will try to do extensive copy-editing to the article, and we'll work from there. --Darkbane 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have enough credible sources to split the articles into respective characters' articles. --Monstez 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not going to edit war over this

Just going to say, I'm not supportive of the removal of images that zscout370 has forced through over protest and question, without trying to build consensus for his edit on the talk page. Kyaa the Catlord 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am using our policy on fair use images as my reasoning for the removing of the various photographs. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I saw that. I don't agree with your rationale despite that policy. Removing a good means to identify the character for a second, less adequate one does not seem like it improves the encyclopedia. I actually feel it does the opposite. Kyaa the Catlord 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What I also been trying to do is find a similar screenshot without the credits, so that is making my goal of reducing the fair use easier to do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is a good reason, why is the main characters image removed? --Monstez 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
They are in the screenshots below and they also have their own articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • What I also been trying to do is find a similar screenshot without the credits, so that is making my goal of reducing the fair use easier to do.

But at the cost of how much descriptive quality? And even with this solution, the images are still being used, just not in this article. Besides degrading the quality of this page, what does that do in the grand scheme of things? I also have a few choice words for the Britannian sector of the page. Why were Euphemia and Cornelia's images removed when Scheizel and Marrianne are of the same circumstances (have entries on this page coupled with their own solitary character pages) and both retain theirs on this page? Assuming Clovis is there simply due to his status, why were Cecile and Lloyd's images removed when they are nowhere to be seen outside of the poor OP screenshot at the top? And who on earth put this this list together? The Four Holy Swords aren't even in that screen, and nobody else lines up in the summary. So now nobody knows who Ougi, Laksharta, Tamaki and Diethard are. Aside from the mis-matching, nobody knows who the two on each end are, so doing a 'from left to right' list at all is cumbersome and difficult. This is one of the situations in which a portrait for each character makes sense. It's cleaner, simple, and raises the browsability of the page. -Biokinetica 03:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Or make it easier by removing all photos from the article. It isn't our job to use many images to say "here, this is what X looks like." I have not dealt with all of the photos, I am still working on different sections, since other editors are in the process of changing the layout of the page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to say that the most recent change really strikes me as a POINT violation. Your changes are being discussed and it doesn't look like anyone agrees with you so based on your edit summary you remove all the pictures out of spite? What next? Will you blank the article? Kyaa the Catlord 07:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Group images are better suited such as the ones for the Academy and the Empire. If anyone can obtain one of the 4 central characters (Kallen, CC, Suzuka, and Lelouch) all together then that would be enough so as to not spark so much arguement and to keep within the WP boundaries (That'd put the image count at 3 as of now with the Academy and Empire, 1 or 2 just won't do since the major characters are in groups and putting in mind quality and being able to actually identify each one). As much as I'd like to see the individual images, grouping would be widely better. Fox816 04:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And Fox, I agree with you. Just having between 15-20 images is way too many. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Gino

Stop changing the name!!! The official name of The Knight of Round No.3 name is Zino Weinberg, not Gino, not Jino...just Zino

According the the official R2 postcards, it's Gino. http://moe.imouto.org/post/show/22615/ --Robtf (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It IS Gino, not Jino, not Zino >_> 70.187.185.200 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prince odysseus

he gets like 2 instances of screentime in season 1, he's at least worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.83.27 (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Info of Code Geass: Lost Colours

Will it be alright to add some info on the characters from the Lost Colours game about each characters who met Rai.

Adding on the person above's comment, Imperial Princes Pollux and Castor appear only the video games and I think have more details than Odysseus U Britannia, who has made two very brief appearences in the television series (at least season 1) and has made very little impact in the story. If Odysseus garners an entry, I think Pollux and Castor should have something about the same length at least. 24.84.218.226 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be alright, but please be aware that the section on the two characters was previously removed by another editor. I believe the reasoning might have been lack of content, so the added section likely needs to be substantial. Also, I am considering moving non-canon characters like Rai and Alice to a seperate section.
-- Fallacies (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Add More Info & Article of Code Geass: Nightmare of Nunnally

I know there are more chapters and volumes, and each characters from the anime series have appeared in the manga series. So should each of the anime characters that have appeared in the manga series get added an info, and if possible an article of new characters that have appeared in the manga series.

Considering that the manga series really isn't all too notable in the grand scheme of things, giving characters of the sidestory a section in the list is sufficient ... Unless we really do have enough mentionworthy information that can fill an entire article. That besides, other than Lelouch, Nunnally, and C.C., most of the main characters are fairly identical to TV canon. Do you have information to contribute beyond what's here?
If there is information that absolutely must be added to independent character articles from Nightmare, it should go in "appearances in other media."
-- Fallacies (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Character in Ashford Academy

I looked up in the official Code Geass website and it shows a new character who will make her apperance in Ashford Academy, and will probably make her apperance in episode 12. She is the same height as Shirley and has light purple hair. Who is she?

[edit] 1st Princess & 5th Princess

Image from Newtype July 08
-- Fallacies (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)