Talk:Organization XIII/Archive 2

message: Removed aerial blades' link to lightsabers. A slight similarity in appearance is no reason for a link to a completely different weapon in an entirely different franchise.
Reverted again. Please stop linking to lightsabers. 5:18, April 17
:Then please provide some way to explain what they look like. "Aerial blades" isn't very descriptive of what they look like. Also, four tildes, not just three to sign your comments. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did just that, and somebody reverted it back. Yeesh. 141.149.9.9 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerial blades

message: So far, these are the ones voicing the members for KH2. They'll be staying here until they are confirmed via ending credits. Though 
* Axel: Quinton Flynn (true)
* Saix: Kirk Thornton (This is offically true, though ironic.)
* Xigbar: Lex Lang (false)
* Luxord: Robin Atkin Downes Letter of confirmation (True)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fractyl (talk • contribs) .
* Uh, what do you mean by "here"? on the talk page or article itself? I don't think it should go on any of the articles yet, since we're not definitely sure. Keeping the list on the talk page is ok though, for quick reference or a quick copy paste when it's confirmed. - Zero1328 08:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's right in the credits. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English version

message: Wow. who put that there? --Malomeat 06:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.. they were right.. but at the time it couldn't be confirmed. But lets end the conversation at that, shall we? I don't want to start it all over again. - Zero1328 06:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight addition. They weren't all correct. Xigbar isn't voiced by Lex Lang, and Xemnas isn't voiced by Paul Dobson. That's why we were reverting the names on the cast list. As I said several times, it's just speculation and it shouldn't belong on Wikipedia as there's a chance the information was wrong, and as it turned out, some of it was wrong. Geg 23:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Xemnas/Mansex

message: A quick google search of マールーシャ スペクタ－ (the kana for Marluxia and Specter) turns up only ONE result. And that's a message board topic in which someone asks what its called, and a person basically replies, "Maybe it's supekutaa, that's a scary ghost in English." It is also not named in the Chain of Memories Ultimania, only listing the final battle as "Marluxia Final".
The name "Spectre" actually started out, IIRC, when someone asked if it had a name, and someone replied "it's Spectre". When asked where he got it, there was never a reply. It just spread like a disease from there. WtW-Suzaku 14:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. I've changed the article so that it's unnamed. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spectre/Specter isn't Official

message: Naminé admits to being Kairi's unknown. Naminé neither has an X in it, nor is it an anagram of Kairi.
This proves the statements of naming of the nobodies untrue.
I think this should be taken out and dropped from the discussion.
:...this seems so incredibly useless. >>  Naminé holds no voluntary affiliation to the Organization, and as such, wasn't named by the same process.  Naminé's name also refers to Kairi's, anyway--the "Kai" of Kairi is "ocean," while the "nami" of Naminé is "wave." urutapu 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just beat me to it, Urutapu. Namine isn't in the Organisation. - Zero1328 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Nomura's word not good enough? "Before this I've mentioned that when their names are spelt in Roman alphabets, there will surely be an "X", right? The truth is that when the "X" is taken away, the alphabets that are left behind is an anagram of the members' real names when they were humans. I actually wanted to insert an event scene showing how Roxas got his name. First the word "SORA" popped up and those letters were rearranged into "ROAS" and BAM, suddenly the "X" got inserted in the middle and he was told "Take this name...." Well, I had an image like that but it was something difficult to do time-wise so I gave up." ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in naming! 

message: Just something I think I should bring up. The article lists which Nobody enemy is controlled by which Organization member (Dancers controlled by Demyx, Samurai controlled by Roxas, etc.). My question is in regards to the foundation of the claim. On one hand, half of them make sense: Berserkers, Dragoons, Snipers, and Gamblers were all first seen being summoned by a particular Organization member. They even have the same reaction commands. On the other hand, I haven't seen material suggesting connections between the remaining Nobodys and the other Org. members, unless it was broken down so that the remaining Nobodys teamed up with whichever Org. member made the most sense.
I suppose all I'm asking is, should we reference an official source indicating this kind of hierarchy? Or should we list it as speculation?
::Kingdom Hearts II Ultimania strategy / plot / character guide + artbook. Official Square Enix publication. There's scans of the thing floating all over the place, all it takes is an ounce of research. Here's an example. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/WtW_Suzaku/xemnas.jpg
::: An ounce of research? I don't know if you know this, but KH2 Ultimania is a 700+ page document, and it's impossible to find scans by yourself, unless you search the ends of the earth around it. I'd expect a little bit more help. Cerealchan 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the original poster - I happen to have found a picture gallery with all of the information to their Nobodies, from the KH2 Ultimania guide, but it's untranslated. It's under their Organization name, and it's the third bullet point. http://pics.livejournal.com/nunuu/gallery/0000r7a6?page=2&.view=grid Cerealchan 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobodys that "belong" to Org. members. 

message: The description for Organization member XI, Marluxia, appears to be missing at the moment. - 22:08 (CDT) 19 April 2006
:: Somebody's been messing around with the Organization XIII page, changing "Ienzo" to "Enzo", claiming that Misterious Boy is MisterYous Boy for Roxas. I'll go look around for the History to revert it. Cerealchan 03:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marluxia?

message: I don't know if this really deserves to be stated anywhere, but does anyone else think it's interesting that ALL of the Organization members wear the same boots, which Xehanort also wears in the flashbacks to when he was a disciple, and all through KH1-CoM as "Ansem"? Guess they all shop at the same store. WtW-Suzaku 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, I don't see anything that shows that there, but I agree, it's definitely not needed. Cerealchan 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inane Trivia?

message: Is there any information out there about the cloaks?  Most notibly, why Riku and Mickey wear them until they're fully 'revealled' despite having no organization connections whatsoever? 216.221.88.108 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 01:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, they were running around their LIVING QUARTERS.  Couldn't they just steal them?  Well, except for Mickey.  He's got ears sewn into the hood. urutapu 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but why?  It's not as if Mickey, for instance could be using it as a disguise?  There's gotta be a reason for it, Mickey wouldn't just grab the cloak trying to be inconspicuous, not with those ears.  They had to put him in a cloak for a reason. 216.185.76.77 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ears or no ears, a black cloak is still much better for sneaking around than those bright-red clothes he usually wears. 64.12.117.7 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really better for sneaking around a bright grey omni-lit castle or a world locked in an eternally orange sunset?   And it seems to me that Organization XIII wouldn't have them just lying around, especially in Mickey's size.  A black cloak is pretty easy to get your hands on, but Mickey's cloak was an Organization uniform Webrunner 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloaks 

message: I restored the last 2 members of the organization to the page.
Superway25 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you didn't. I did. It's not that difficult, either. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Vandalized this page 

message: I was rereading the script of KH:CoM, when suddently I saw something I didn't remember.
"I don't know... But the scent was very similar to the Superior's. Exactly similar, if I may say."
This is Zexion's, refering to Riku. He's comparing Riku to their Superior, Xemnas.
Well, in the article, it says the Superior's element is "nothingness". Can someone confirm where it is refered to as such? In the game, in the Ultimania book, well, in any official resource? Because, I don't think Riku controls "nothingness", you know.
Compared to Riku, Xemnas' element could be either "twilight" (between light and dark, if you don't remember from the games) and "darkness". But, as Zexion and Vexen discuss in the game:
"
Zexion: Riku once shouldered the darkness. Perhaps that made him half-dark.
Vexen: And that's why you mistook him for the Superior.
"
We must consider that Xemnas is then half-dark - and, unless you want to hit me with some "he's half-dark and half-nothing" weird thing, I gotta say he's between light and dark - twilight.
"Nothingness"... it doesn't fit neither of Zexion's description.
Oh, and I found something else:
"He belongs to neither the light nor the dark, but walks the twilight between."
About Xemnas, the Superior. While the article considers that all Nobodies are in the twilight, to Riku be confounded especially with the Superior... he had Xehanort's darkness, and that obviously make them very close. But that "that made him half-dark/that's why you mistook him for the Superior" thingy doesn't leave my head.
What do you think? Should we consider Xemnas twilight or even darkness? Or keep the nothingess?
: Sorry. No debate there. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto.  From my interperatation, Riku's scent is similar because he has darkness, the same darkness present in Xemnas (probably because they are both connected to Xehanort).  I don't think the Superior is half-dark (or that he even has any light, thus making "twilight" somewhat unlikely); it's that he and Riku share the same kind of darkness, a scent that Zexion recognizes as being the same and is probably very strong.  Zexion isn't sensing they are exactly the same, but because of the strength of the darkness in them, he initially mistook that darkness in Riku as Xemnas' darkness.  And just because Xemnas is filled with darkness doesn't mean his element is automatically darkness.  Keep it as nothingness. 24.84.208.203 01:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the Ultimania guide, the 'Element' section of Xemnas' profile lists 無.  As a Japanese speaker, I read this as "Element: None," meaning that he has no associated element. - Rikoshi 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My dictionary says the kanji 無 mu is "nothing, naught, nought, nil, zero", while 無い nai is  "there isn't, doesn't have"...oh, you probably know better than me. urutapu 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, back before Ultimania came out, the Japanese Wikipedia had "なし" (nashi) for Zexion's element to signify that he didn't have one. So yeah, there's a difference between mu and the actual lack of an element. Geg 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, there's even an article on mu. I've heard mu can mean void, but the Japanese element is 空, so it's unlikely it's that. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here're the scans, for anybody curious. And for me to not lose the link. Yes, they're acting like No. XIII is some big secret that certainly isn't revealed three hours in the game, unlike Xemnas. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xemnas' element (yes, again) 

message: Technically, Axel's weapons are more similar to wind-and-fire wheels, not chakrams (i.e. they aren't thrown, but used as melee weapons).  I would go as far as to say they are wind-and-fire wheels.  Is there any official material stating that his weapons are chakrams?  Jiminy's Journal lists him as carrying "a uniquely-shaped weapon," but that's about it.
Divineline 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are thrown. Sources like Ultimanias also indicate them as chakrams in... katakana, I believe (so it's simply phonetic translation). ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. . チャクラム. Cha ku ra mu. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axel's Weapons 

message: If we arrange the members of the Organization XIII by rank and match them up with a corresponding playing card, there are a few things that seem to stand out.
*A. Xemnas
*2. Xigbar
*3. Xaldin
*4. Vexen
*5. Lexaeus
*6. Zexion
*7. Sa'ix
*8. Axel
*9. Demyx
*0. Luxord
*J. Marluxia
*Q. Larxene
*K. Roxas
Notice right away that Xemnas is the Ace, and Roxas is the King.  Seems to make sense so far.  Larxene, being the only female, lands the queen's spot.  Also, Luxord, being the gambler of the group, is given the 10 spot.  There might be more significant connections (possibly with tarot?) that should be looked into. Xagest 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not. Geg 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOR. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 22:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Organization and Playing Cards

message: Really....this should have been done a longgggggg time ago. the only reason i could think of otherwise is that it would make the article too long...but then again,who wouldn't like the sheer exilaration of having all the org13 people and the nobody types on the same page-GRAHAMR
:No. No. No. No. No. And no. For starters, the format would be ugly. Secondly, individual primitive Nobodies are not notable. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thats a stupid thing to say. - Malomeat 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make pics and descriptions for the diffrent nobody types