Talk:Characters of Kingdom Hearts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Complete reworking of page

A idea I have is to merge all of the character articles (Sora (Kingdom Hearts), DiZ, Xehanort, et al) into this page and to merge all of the sections on minor world characters together. As in, "Port Royal" would just be a paragraph detailing the characters who live in this world, not just a bunch of short sections. This would result in a cleaner presentation, I think. Is this ideal or not? ' 01:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great idea. Most of the Disney characters are nothing more than glorified cameos anyway. Axem Titanium 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the paragraph idea for the minor characters, that'll definitely things clean up. But I think we should hold off merging the character articles for now. Currently they aren't in good shape, but I'm worried that merging them into this one would make this article too long. How about let's see what clean up we can do before we merge. Also, assuming we don't merge and we greatly improve the article, if it looks like the separate character articles don't look like they can be properly cleaned up, then we merge them into this one. How's that sound? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

That's alright with me. ' 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed this. Sora can probably sustain enough real-world content as main protagonist, but the rest need to be merged. — Deckiller 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's merge them.HadesDragon 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Voice actors

As a side thought to rewriting this page, what about the voice actors? How should that info be integrated? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Just say "x was voiced by y in the English version and z in the Japanese version."—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the approach I took at first, but with the number of characters and voice actors in the series, it might not turn out looking that great. Check out Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Twilight Town, third paragraph. Should a Voice cast section be made with an introductory paragraph like the game articles, and, I hate to suggest it, a table of the voice actors? I know a table wouldn't look that great, but I'm not sure how else to do this? Any ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I don't think the voice actors are that notable in the first place. Originally, I added them to appease the crowd who wanted a cast list on the main page but those guys are gone now. The notable voice actors can be named in a "Creation and influence" or "Reception" section. Axem Titanium 00:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Credits are not needed in game articles; voice actors lists aren't needed either in characters articles. Kariteh 09:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll remove most of the voice actors listed in the article. Thanks guys. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Rewrite

I've tried restructuring the article to better organize it. It's in one edit, so if y'all aren't happy with it it can be undone. Let me know what y'all think or if anyone has a better idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Most of the world sections are switched over from list from to paragraph form, but they are still in need of some trimming (especially Hollow Bastion) and copy editing. Anybody feel like working the same magic that turned KHII into the piece of art that it is today? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Sora Heartless

I didn't find this anywhere, so, should it be noted that if you use the transforms alot, Sora can turn into a Heartless temporarily?

68.5.28.194 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The occurence of Anti Form is already mentioned in Sora's article...HadesDragon 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry ,probably didn't notice. Thanks! 68.5.28.194 05:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding References

This page has been marked for not citing references. I think most of them could be found in the respective manuals for each of the games. Also, can the game itself be referenced? I haven't seen this done in other game articles, so I would guess not. Theris Faan 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, game dialog can be cited, but it is normally frowned upon if overused. This page has a mountain of work to be done before it's ready for GA, but hopefully we'll get there shortly. Feel free to help up if you'd like. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

DO NOT Merge

KEEP THE WAY THEY ARE!! About the recent merging of all pages, I STRONGLY disagree with this. Each character is too complex and important to just have their articles hacked up and merged. What if there is a future Kingdom Hearts game which gives the characters a more complex history behind them? Keep them they way they are please. Thank you. ZeroGiga 1:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax, it's only a suggestion right now. A consensus hasn't been reached. The pages are currently being worked on, so what's going to happen is still up in the air. Beside, even if they are merged, they can be split off again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

"What if there is a future Kingdom Hearts game which gives the characters a more complex history behind them?" LAWL. Anyway, WP:MASTODONS. Axem Titanium 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Sora, Kairi, and Riku should keep their pages. They are too important to the series in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.204.26 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictional importance does not trump WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That assumption has been proven wrong on many occasions. Popular consensus has often shooed away any petty rules originally put forth to protect Wikipedia but on other occasions are hindering it. I, of course, also strongly disagree with merging the articles into one. Merging the articles at this point would just bloat this current one. Even worse, it erases valuable information. I cannot see any positive reactions from doing this. I vote for keeping the articles as they originally were. Separate, individual constructs. Kageryushin 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, we're not trying to piss anyone off or ruin the information on these pages. We're only trying to improve the various Kingdom Hearts articles. In order to improve this character article, we've had to merge and condense a significant amount of plot information regarding the various characters in series. While it would be nice to have separate articles each with a detailed plot synopsis, we can't have that here on Wikipedia simply because we want it.
Unfortunately, the guidelines of Wikipedia restrict the amount of fictional information that can be in articles. This is according to the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) page:

• From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
• From Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Unfortunately, the various separate character articles contained little to no real world information and most did not have sources and citations for the content on those pages. Because of that we followed the guidelines under WP:FICT#Non-notable topics. Is the article very long now? Yes. Is that a major problem? Not really. The information is not erased either, all previous version are in the edit histories of the various character pages that are now redirect pages. Like I said, we're not out to destroy or ruin any of these pages, we're trying to improve them, but we still have to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines as we do it. If enough real world content can be found on a character, then it can maybe be split off again to its own article. Until then, they are a best fit merged into this article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

So let's hurry up and find enough info to fix the damn things! I always thought that major characters in a series always got their own articles no matter what, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? With all these rules about what to and what not to edit, I'd say that the whole "free encyclopedia" thing is just a big load of B.S. Sora, Riku, and Kairi, in my opinion, deserve their own articles, and I will not rest until their independent articles are up and running again! Nintendoman01 talk, 10:58, 10 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.236.98 (talk)

Aurora's fairies reviving Maleficent?

I thought it was later shown that Roxas released Diablo from his cage in Hollow Bastion per Xemnas's orders so she would rally the Heartless against Sora?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that is what happened. But, the fairies started remembering her, and that contributed to her revival. They couldn't have done that if Diablo hadn't been freed in the first place, however.HadesDragon 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gawd. Xemnas...and Nomura...are so ridiculously elaborate.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Terra, Ven, and Aqua

Shouldn't they be up there in the major characters section? I'm going to move them there, but if any of you disagree, please feel free to move them back and give a good reason as to why you did so.HadesDragon 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved them back before seeing this post on the talk page; but anyway, I'm having a hard time imagining why you would consider them "major" characters. I think you should be the one to give a good reason as to why they should be considered major. They are just some minor additions seen in optional, peripheral materials; they are anything but major... I also changed the term "introduced" to "features", since it's hard to talk about introduction when there's nothing beyond (yet). Kariteh 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to me it seems obvious that they will be important in the future, but I suppose for now it's best to keep them down there. Let's just wait for more info.HadesDragon 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right Hades, they probably will be more important in the future, but as they are now they are like Kariteh said. That's why I moved them down there in the first place, because we have no real basis to call them major characters other than our own speculation. Besides, it could turn out that they may stay minor characters in the Kingdom Hearts series, as they are going to appear in their own related but separate series. I guess let's wait and see. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, alright. Oh, something else: Nomura has confirmed that the three are connected to Xemnas in the Another Report interview, but when I put that there, it was removed. Am I going to need to find a source for it, or is it irrelevant?HadesDragon 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point I think the statement about them being related to characters already introduced covers it. Feel free to add it along with a source though. As long as it's a reliable source, adding citations are the best way to ensure content does not get deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Wait, before I do anything: fansites are usable if they're interview translations, right? If so, I'm going ahead and doing it.HadesDragon 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's correct. However after looking at the reference link you added, I don't think forum postings are allowed. I believe the rationale behind that is that because forums are so hard to regulate for accuracy and reliability they aren't acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. So, sorry, I removed the addition you added. If you happen to find it posted elsewhere on the site or another site under a "developer interviews" section or something like that, please add it back in or any other info you might find. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Ah, yes, I thought that might be a problem. I will try and see if I can find it elsewhere.HadesDragon 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the citation that was used for the sentence about Ven's nickname, because the article didn't mention anything about it. The article used in the citation for the information about the three character's names does, however, mention Ven's nickname. GuardianAcorn (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's placed back in. That was the actual interview conducted between the magazine Famitsu and Nomura, so naturally it's in Japanese and any reader who also understands Japanese can see in the fourth Q&A pertaining Ven's nickname. — Blue。 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

About the Merging

Alright, I need to say something about this. I strongly disagree with merging SORA, RIKU, KAIRI, and ORGANIZATION XIII on here, since they are too important to the plot and their articles don't need to be butchered to fit in here. However, I have a suggestion. How about we try to merge Xehanort and DiZ here instead? Their articles are short and "informative" enough for them to be merged into the Kingdom Hears characters, but DEFINATELY NOT Sora, Riku, Kairi, or Organization XIII.-- ZeroGiga 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not kept because they're "important" or something. They need to meet the criteria for WP:N and WP:FICT. Kariteh 10:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having a lot of people disagree with this won't keep them separate. What Kariteh says is true. The current character articles are the equivalent of fictional character biographies, which aren't really allowed on Wikipedia. They have few to no sources outside of the video games, and they don't talk about how the characters were created by Nomura or how the public reacted to them.
Right now, they are under construction and the subject is still up in the air, otherwise it would have been done already. If you'd like keep them separate, feel free to help out by expanding the articles with real world information. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

I would really like to see Org XIII merged here. It would cut down on the vandalism big time. Axem Titanium 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are my sentiments as well, Axem. DiZ, Xehanort, and Organization XIII DEFINITELY need to be merged, once they're cleaned up a bit.HadesDragon 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking over them more, I'd have to say that all the other character articles in their current state should be merged into this one. Just going off of my memory of the info found in the game articles, the one article that looks like it has a chance of standing on its own might be Organization XIII. Though, it could probably only make it up to B-Class, maybe GA if enough development info and reception info is found. But hey, this article is still being worked on too so it may be too soon to say right now. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Everything but the main character sections have been reasonably cleaned up. I think the article is at the point where we should to come to a conclusion on whether the separate character articles should be merged or not. There seems to be a general consensus towards merging most of them into this article. I'm in favor of selectively merging information from all of them. Most of them feature a lot of plot information which would be unnecessary for this article; all we need is a general role in the series. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

First, I think we should clean up all the character articles and see if they can stand on their own. If not, then we should merge them. That's what I think.HadesDragon 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure the information is out there to build them up. They'd need to be seriously trimmed down of the amount of plot info they currently have. They'd also need some outside info about their conception and creation. It's worth a shot though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I don't think most of them, perhaps not even one, could stand on its own when trimmed down. But that's exactly what needs to be done regardless, Wikipedia isn't a place for plot dumps, so if they don't have enough info when we're done cleaning (which they probably won't), then merging would be best.

Besides, if we merged them all now, the article would be a bit too long, no? So I vote we clean them up first, and merge them when that's done. What is of particular concern to me is the Riku article: currently that one is probably the worst of the character articles, so I think that'd be a good place to start. It doesn't cite any sources at all.HadesDragon 22:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Do we happen to know who the editor(s) that facilitated the merger of the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and/or the Characters of Final Fantasy VII articles? Cause I keep hitting walls every time I think about trimming these character articles. It's like I'm stuck in a mental rut and can't get going on it. Perhaps we can ask them about what info from the current articles should be included in this one. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Deckiller, Kariteh, RockMFR, and myself helped out with Chars of FFVIII. Unfortunately, the first and last of those are probably too busy with real life to help for now. Axem Titanium 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Axem, I'll ask Kariteh and RockMFR for some insight. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

If I recall correctly, the Chars of FFVIII merges were done before I joined the site. I helped with the Chars of FFVII merges, but to be honest, it was kind of a half-baked job; the main Chars of FFVII page was far from perfect, and the individual character pages were also variously flawed, so the merging process was quick considering we didn't focus on making something perfect out of a collection of imperfect materials (we simply couldn't have, at least in a first phase). I'd like to help with these KH characters, but I never played a KH game so... At first glance, perhaps we could start with Xehanort though, since his section in Chars of KH is already well detailed (i.e. there may be few info to actually add). Kariteh 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We may have to do the same thing with these then, just merge them into a messy section for the time being and clean up as we go. Any help you could provide would be appreciated, especially since you haven't played the games, an outside perspective will help keep us grounded to our audience. Tell you what, you try merging the Xehanort article and I'll try merging the Riku article, and we'll see what we come with. It can all be undone, so I guess there's no need to strive for perfection on the first go anymore. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't think that the Sora and Kairi articles shiuld be merged, one reason being that they also house the information on their respective Nobodies.-Tempest115 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But such info could just as easily be housed here as well. Axem Titanium 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I visit articles about Kingdom Hearts, they contain less and less information. At first I tried to understand it, but now I'm puzzled. I don't believe what I see. I remember some people had done really good piece of work, but it has been recently deleted. I read discussion and what I saw? The articles had to be merged, because, blah, blah, blah, they're not important to the real world. And because after merging they were too long, they were shortened, the images were deleted etc. Gorgeously! I have to say, I didn't know deletionism is so strong on en.wiki. I didn't ever suspect the amount of information, the amount of knowledge could be too big. But well, I'm still learning. I've got only one question: why there are so many articles about Half-Life universe? Is it better than Kingdom Hearts? Or maybe some people claim that Xen really exists? Curious. And, by the way - sorry for my poor English, it's 02:57 here and I'm a bit tired. Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Half-Life stuff needs to be merged too, very likely. They haven't proved characters' relevance on their pages. Honestly, arguments like this. People act like every project is going to magically merge their characters at once like some kind of hive mind. One project that really needs to merge their characters is Yu-Gi-Oh.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging Organization XIII

Do you guys think there's enough real world content in the Organization XIII article now? I think I might find a few other tidbits of info and it needs much more copy editing, but it's an improvement from where it was. I'll try checking the KH ultimania alpha for some more info, it'll take a while though. Anyway I'd rather try to beef up that article than merge it into this one, but if you guys think it's still not enough then we'll merge them. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Meh, I think merging it would make the article a bit too long. Let's try and improve it first. If there's really not enough information, we'll do it.HadesDragon 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. There is too much information in this article to be merged into an already big article. It needs work though. The Prince of Darkness 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

While ordinarily, I would be okay with leaving it separate, it occurred to me that the Org members aren't really that special compared to the other main characters, except that some of them did less. I still think they should be merged as best as possible because it would just be a matter of not recounting plot issues and it would also limit the vandalism, which was one of the earlier reasons. Axem Titanium 15:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the only major issue left with the Org XIII article is the number of images. The content has been trimmed and copy edited to reduce the plot information. Information on the creation and influence of the characters has been added; additional reliable sources have been added as well. So I guess the main question still in my mind is "Can the Org XIII article stand on its own and make it to GA?" If not then I think it should be integrated into this character article.
To summarize, a concern with merging is the length of this article, and a concern with not merging is vandalism. Let's resolve this now and get it over with. Any final thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Holy crap, I didn't notice this page is still 93kb (waaaayyy too long, still). Hmmm... I guess the last obstacle to overcome is the desire to include every character. It should be assumed that characters from the movies appear in the worlds. Is it too much to ask to limit 1-2 paragraphs per world (except Hollow Bastion, which should be 2-3)? Also, stuff like "He also performs her courtly functions" for Wonderland sounds slightly OR. Also, I think it would be okay to remove the voice actor information. It's summarized much better on IMDB or something. Now, this is may be controversial, but it may be possible to just axe the entire world-based section (I'm sorry! I know how much work you put into it!) and say something to the effect of "Characters from movie x appear in world y" in place of explaining each character. Then leave the biggest minor characters like Leon, Cid, Cloud, Sephiroth and the three knights (in effect, the ones with the biggest subplots). If we go this route, Org XIII could easily be merged here because of the extra space. If all else fails, we can split the article by game since the new games may introduce too many new characters to cover here. Axem Titanium 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for trimming down the article length, everytime I skim through the article I think its too long. To be honest though, I'm not sure how to really split it up. I think the repetitiveness of articles divided by game would limit the level of quality they could reach. That's one of the reasons why I tried beefing up the Org XIII article so this one wouldn't get any longer. Given the length, I'm in favor of keeping the Org XIII separate. Trimming down on the voice cast wouldn't hurt either. I tried to keep the voice actors included throughout the article to minimum, but if we need to cut it then we need to cut it.
With the article pushing 100kb, you're right we may need to split it. Here are some ideas to try to split it up:

1. Two articles; Major characters of KH and Minor characters of KH
2. Two articles; Protagonists of KH and Antagonists of KH
3. One article and one list; Characters of KH and List of characters in the KH series

Not all of them are good ideas, just throwing them out there. Any thoughts. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm not really happy with the splitting along game lines idea, nor am I too thrilled by the possibility of diluting the content among more than one article. I don't know what you think about just excising some of the minor characters in the worlds. Axem Titanium 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not split the article either, but it's so friggin long. As far as removing some minor characters, I guess it depends on the characters. But yeah, some of them may have to go. I think one thing we should get rid of is any extra plot info in the other characters section and unnecessary descriptions of them. Something more like the Space paranoids, Land of Dragons, and Port Royal sections. I think Apostrophe did those when we first went to paragraph format. Those were descriptive yet concise. When I switched most of them to paragraphs I left in too much extra stuff. How about let's do some more copy editing and see how much we can cut down. Apostrophe, you willing to lead the charge on this one? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Something I noticed, there are a lot of character articles that are well over 100kb, of course they are either start, B, or list class. But I'm thinking the length might not be too big of a deal. Still a concern, but I don't think it'll hurt us at GAN. It's currently 89kb, and with more copy editing I think it could be brought down some more. That being said though, I think merging the Org XIII article will push this one well over 100kb; its currently at 39kb. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Another possibility would be to include a sentence like "World x is home to characters Fi, Fie, Fo, and Fum" in the Universe article and just remove some of the overly minute descriptions here. Axem Titanium 00:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I'm game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Been trimming things down some more but I don't know what to do about the "Hollow Bastion" section. It's the longest out of all the world sections by a large margin. Every time I look at it I don't know what to cut. Anybody feel like giving it go and see what they can do. After this bit of clean up, then we can go for GA right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, definitely, it is by far one of the best character articles as is. Judgesurreal777 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Think it could make it to FA?(Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

I definitely think so. Personally, I think it needs a few more refferences here and there, but it's definitely FA material.HadesDragon 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs more refs. It already contains over 70 references, and an overuse of it makes it hard to read the article. The Prince of Darkness 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as too many refs. Anything that could be controversial needs a ref. It is better to have too many because then you can just point to the ref to explain it. As for Hollow Bastion, maybe move as much as you need into the characters' own articles. Many of them have kept their articles so it should be fine. Axem Titanium 01:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try that out. If I cut too much out it can always be undone. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

There is nothing controversial about this article and it doesn't need more refs. Articles like World War II or the Iraq War, however, are controversial and they can have such an amount of references. The Prince of Darkness 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Reception section

Obviously that section needs expanding. So I thought about checking reviews to see what they had to say about the characters.

First one I got my hands on is this:http://ps2.ign.com/articles/371/371125p2.html

They refer to the characters as an "engaging cast", and mention that "the majority of its best visual moments are based on original designs".

I'm new to wikipedia, so is this the kind of information that section needs?HadesDragon 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good stuff man. Stuff like "characters' acting is helped immensely by the facial expressions and body", "characters remain solid and convincing throughout", and the animation quality, that's what should be in the reception section for this article. Go ahead and add that and anything else you happen to find in there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Alright then, I added it. If you think something needs to be changed, go ahead and do so.HadesDragon 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Olette (Kingdom Hearts)

Olette lives in Twilight Town and hangs out with Roxas, Pence, and Hayner. She is the responsible one of the group who always cheers her friends on during a tight situation and always reminding the boys of their homework. She loves to shop on Market Street and hanging out with her friends while watching the sunset. She sort of have a crush on Roxas. In the English version, she is voiced by Jessica Di Cicco.

(please add this character to the list) Lostriceballs 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Olette is already listed under the Twilight Town section. Unfortunately, we are unable to add a separate section for each individual character. Doing so would make the article and table of contents excessively long and difficult to navigate. Also we are limited on the amount of in-game character information we can put in, especially without any proper citations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

"She has sort of a crush on Roxas." Um... When does the game ever mention that? --Sango4ever (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Article images

Hey guys, what do y'all want to do about images for this article. Of course a good group shot would probably be best. The most suitable one I've come across, other than fan created ones, is the Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+ image on Disney's KH game page, the one in the middle of the other four. It needs to be slightly cropped, but it shows the most number of major characters on it. If someone has found some better images, let us know, because it would be definite plus for the article. There are also the various single character images that are now orphaned from the mergers. Do y'all think any of those could be used on this article. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

I put that image in without seeing this section. Heh. With it, though, we have to keep redundant images out. ' 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, haha) Apostrophe just added a great one, but that still begs the question of how readers will be able to identify them. Since face portraits don't seem to exist, I was thinking maybe to crop them from existing artwork? Axem Titanium 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Axem's suggestion. I don't think the promotional artwork at the top makes the other images completely redundant.HadesDragon 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I'm just overly concerned with fair use. Cropping out the heads isn't a bad idea. ' 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, that's an awesome main image Apostrophe. Nice choice. As far as the specific character, I'm not sure what would be the best choice. I guess for the sake of simplicity were could leave them as the are. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Meh, I don't know. I still think cropping faces would be a decent idea, but if it's simplicity we're looking for, then maybe we should indeed leave them as they are.HadesDragon 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, give the length of the article we could probably get away with pushing the amount of fair use images a little, as long as we don't go overboard. The universe article currently has ten, we could probably get away with nine for this one. If someone objects during the GA nomination we'll just remove some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

What characters need images, though? The Disney characters should be obvious (and they have their own articles). I think we can save ourselves an Organization XIII image by just saying that they're at the bottom of the group shot. ' 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent) I guess the big three, Sora, Riku, and Kairi, and their Nobodies are the important ones. Then maybe DiZ and Xehanort's Heartless. Including the main one at the top, that totals only 8 images, which should be perfectly fine. Axem Titanium 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not list the characters' names in the image caption and image page? Something like: Top row, from left to right: Whoever, Kairi, Goofy, etc. Bottom row, from left to right: Whoever1, Whoever2, etc. Kariteh 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm worried that the caption will become too long, it makes sense though. But it probably should be added to the image page. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

The caption would definitely get too long. A more thorough description on the image page is fine but still does not preclude having individual images for said major characters (not every reader would know to click on the image to see its own page and it would be a breach of style to tell them in the caption). Axem Titanium 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, should we switch out Roxas' Org XIII picture for the one with him in normal clothes? A tiny detail, but I think it's a better representation of him. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't really know. Both work well enough.HadesDragon 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm right here, but on the Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2 article all the images were removed due to some guideline. I'm concerned the same thing will happen to this article. The Prince of Darkness 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No Merging!

There is no need to have all charicters on one single page. Sora, Riku, Kari and the Organization have a lot of infomation and to compress it all would be very bad. And as there will be much more infomation about the organization from future games it will be very awkward to comprese all that info into one page that also has every other major and minor charicter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.168.11 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see above - Talk:Characters of Kingdom Hearts#DO NOT Merge. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Look, as stated in the section linked above, we can't have excessive amounts of plot information. Doing so is a sure fire way to get the articles deleted. Trust me, there is plenty of plot info and character connections that I, and I'm sure other editors as well, find very interesting and would like to include. But since we're on Wikipedia's playground, we have to play be their rules. We're doing our very best to make to create the best group Kingdom Hearts articles we can, but we have to adhere to the guidelines set by Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Disney characters

Why aren't there any images of the Disney characters? The Prince of Darkness 11:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're limited on the number of fair use images we can use in an article. Too many and we violate the copyrights. Also most of the Disney characters have images on their own pages which are wikilinked here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Page moved

When did the page get moved? Isn't this something that should be discussed first? And shouldn't the "Series" be lower case instead of upper? How about we discuss this and see if this is something everyone agrees with. To be honest, I'm not opposed to it, makes more sense, except for the "S", but let's get some input on it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree. But the user who moved this page should have discussed it first though. The Prince of Darkness 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It was I who moved the page, and I apologise for not notifying anyone before doing so, but I believe that "Characters of the Kingdom Hearts Series" is a much better name, since it refers to the characters of the entire series and not just the first game. The bit about the capital "S", well, does it really make any difference? Jienum 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:NC. The Prince of Darkness 14:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessarily wordy. The series is also called "Kingdom Hearts" and the fact that the article is about characters from the whole series is made evident in the lead paragraph. Axem Titanium 14:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page. I'm rating this article as B-class, Low-importance. Here are a few tips to improve it!

Not much to recommend, I'd say to fix the contents box so that it doesn't stretch down the page, leaving such a hughe gap, but other than that I would go ahead and propose this for GA class. --PresN 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and nominated the article for GA. Axem Titanium 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Xehanort

I think that Xehanort does not belong in this article. His character isn't exactly exploding with information, but this is ridiculous. There's plenty to say about Xehanort to make an entire page on him, especially with a game coming out focousing on his past and one on Organization XIII. The information that is already known is also extensive; how he made the heartless, took Ansem's name, ect. He has had two forms, his heartless and his nobody. The old article was probably consolidated into this one because it was very, very poorly written and did not give a good amount of information, just vague details. This article hardly says anything about Xehanort who has a more extensive background than any other character as far as we know now. The information that's mentioned is not as important as some other details. There's no mention of the room of sleep, the organization, and numerous scenes with him in it that are iconic to the games and the series as a whole. I'm just suggesting that Xehanort should get his own article back because there's a lot on his background to write about, Organization XIII, his heartless form, ect. We will have to do it anyway as there are games coming out that will reveal his whole past, which is said to be a very long and complex story, and one game showing how he ran Organization XIII.-Darknessofhearts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reason it was merged into this article was because of the mention of various scenes and the amount of background information. Basically, all the separate KH character articles were just fictional character biographies, which aren't really allowed. If someone random person can read the article and feel like they've played the games in depth, then that's too much game information. For articles to stand on their own, they require real-world information in addition to in-game fictional information per WP:FICT. It's actually preferred to have as little fictional information as possible. So while there is a lot of information out there about Xehanort and the other main characters, very little of it was real-world information. That's why they were all merged, so this one big article would have a chance to reach Good Article or Featured Article instead of having a bunch of smaller articles with no chance of making it past B-Class. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh, all right. Thanks for the info.-Darknessofhearts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise image

Two questions, what would everyone think of a picture of some of the character merchandise in the "Merchandise" section? And what restrictions and licensing tag would apply? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

I think it's a good idea, since only the upper half of the article contains images. It would look a lot more balanced. The Prince of Darkness 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a picture. So does anybody know what type of licensing tag it would need and if there are any restrictions on how the photo can be taken, stuff like that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, I went and checked the Action Figure article, and the license used for the picture there is this one:

Dunno if it's the right one or not though.HadesDragon 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks right to me. If there's no other ideas as to which tag to use, I'll use that one and try to get it on the page by tomorrow. Thanks Hades. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Removal of images

I just reverted the removal of all the images in the article. My reasoning behind this revert is that all images, have a valid fair use rationale, and there is not an excessive amount of fair use images in the article. If there is a valid reason to remove them, then let's discuss it. Otherwise, we'll leave the images as they are. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but the rationale should explain why they are necessary on this particular article, serving as more than just decoration. Danny 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why the current rationales do not explain that. And please stop removing them. Let's discuss this, come to a conclusion/concensus, and then take action. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Consensus has already been reached. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use is the signpost article about that. β^_command 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That deals with lists. Does this article look like a list? ' 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right, this article is not a list of characters. This article contains information on the character creation, voice actors, and cultural impact. In addition, the content is organized into paragraph form rather than tables and lists. The only thing that implies a list is the length and title of the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Still looks like overuse to me. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that does not tell us much. How is it overuse? If you can give us some guideline or aspect of a guideline that says this, it will help us understand the reason behind the action and whether or not it is valid. If it is valid, we will back off, but if it is not, we would like to discuss it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

What do you have to base that on, besides personal opinion? The current number, 8, which doesn't include the public domain merchandise image, appropriately illustrates the non-Disney characters who don't have their own articles. Axem Titanium 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, summarizes my point. See User:Durin/Fair_use_overuse_explanation#Q:_Including_one_image_for_each_character_on_a_.22List_of_....22_type_article_IS_minimal_use.3B_it.27s_one_image_per_character.21. I"m not saying remove them all, but whats there is overuse. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, however we did not have an image for every single character in the series. we had 7 total for some of the main characters. That argument cites "dozens", which we tried to take into account when constructing the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Elsewhere on the same page, is... User:Durin/Fair_use_overuse_explanation#Q:_How_can_one_image_be_excessive_fair_use.3F_That.27s_impossible.21. Which I think applies here. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I think that example doesn't fit this article. First off, this is an article, not a "character list". Also, the characters that have images were recently merged here from separate articles. This article doesn't merely list characters; it gives out-of-universe perspective like development and reception which you can't understand without seeing exactly what the reviewers or developers are talking about, design-wise. Axem Titanium 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With the existence of the main image, there really is no need to illustrate any of the other characters separately. It's pretty clear, and it shows all of the important ones. TTN 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But how would you know who is who unless you had a ridiculous and confusing caption? Axem Titanium 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the consensus here? I presented the argument that using a single image does not suitably identify which character is who, an important distinction on any level. Also, this page is not a list so guidelines for fair use content concerning lists do not apply here. I have tried to identify some of the people in the image but it would be unwieldy if I tried to include more. I think we need a few more images to clarify who is who. Axem Titanium 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Axem, to be honest I don't have a clue. I don't know what to really make of it. They had some valid points but I think there are still some gray areas. I guess the thing that really took me by surprise was how we had to almost beat an explanation out of them. At least Eagle was willing to discuss some with us. The caption you added is good though, a little lengthy, but still concise enough. But you're right, adding in every character listed there would be crazy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

It may be slightly WP:POINT-y but one way to get them back here to actually conduct a discussion wherein both parties thoroughly explain their arguments would be to simply add some of the fair use images back and hope they notice. Maybe Kairi, DiZ and Xehanort? Axem Titanium 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that could lead to a couple different things. One, they may not notice at all. Two, they come back, assert their position again, and just stop responding like before. Three, they come back and discuss with us until it is resolved. I think the chances of actually finding some resolution to this is slim though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I think it's better than doing nothing though. If they don't notice it, perfect. If they do, assert their position and leave, well, we tried. And if they come back and actually discuss this with us until it's resolved, even better.HadesDragon 22:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the above mentioned pictures, which brings the total up to four (not including the public domain figurine image). Axem Titanium 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sighs) They were removed again. Well, I really don't know what to do about this.HadesDragon 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I've reverted it because said "foundation resolution" only tangentially applies to this non-list article. Further discussion is required to see how this article fits in. Axem Titanium 03:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• You've all been shown by above discussion why this article can not have the images as you want them. Several people have patiently attempted to explain this to you. The Foundation has spoken on this issue in clear terms. It MUST be minimal use. Having an image for each character does not constitute minimal use no matter how you attempt to phrase the issue. Consensus can not override the Foundation's stance on this, nor can it override policy which is also equally clear on the matter. I am reverting. If the images are put back, blocks will be recommended and in order. --Hammersoft 03:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First let me offer our apologies for our little stunt. While you mentioned that "several people patiently attempted to explain to us", we disagree. Very short answers similar to "policy states" were all that was given to us at first. We simply wanted to better understand why, and discuss the reasoning behind the policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

I whole-heartedly disagree that this isn't minimal use. Each character does NOT have his own image. That is patently false. The policy is NOT clear on this issue and neither is fair use law itself. Also, are you referring to the Wikimedia Foundation when you say "Foundation"? Finally, can you point to where the "Foundation" has ukase'd this decision? Axem Titanium 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Edit warring in an attempt to force additional discussion is absolutely repulsive. You've been shown policy and rationale for removal of the images. Per character images are simply not permitted. If the character warrants their own article, an image can appear there. You are WAY out in left field Axem. Hammersoft 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown me any policy! All you've done is referred to this nebulous decision by "the Foundation" which you have not once linked to. Neither does each character get his/her own image. I have only readded the ones whose identities are not made clear by the group picture at the top. That is hardly "per character". I am here, refuting your rationale and you are simply standing by while it gets beaten to death by the lack of logical support behind it. Now, please continue responding to this discussion, in the spirit of basic human respect. It doesn't look like you've been doing anything else. Axem Titanium 13:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Axem, this is your last warning if you revert the images you will be blocked for edit warring and violating our Non-free content policy. see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy for the text of the resolution, But our non-free content clearly states that such usage is not allowed. β^_command 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need of all these images. On almost all the other wikis, only free use images are allowed. Why should the English wiki have more privileges than the others? The Prince 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the claim that "Several people have patiently attempted to explain this to you" is true at all, Hammersoft. We were just given short "policy states", as Guy noted. They didn't stick around. Really, though, the claim that each character has his own image; I don't think it's true either. Though, now that I think about it, all you'd need to do to know which character was who would just be to click the image to go its page and read the image summary there. So, if it really is overuse, meh, leave the article as it is.HadesDragon 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is something we want to find out then perhaps this talk page is not the best place to do it. I'm not sure where the appropriate place to do this is though. Perhaps this is a lost cause. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Betacommand, you seem like a reasonable guy. Can you explain exactly why this article does not follow policy? I'd prefer if I didn't have to chafe at a cookie-cutter response that does quite fit the description of this article. Axem Titanium 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Axem Titanium. the m:Mission of the WikiMedia Foundation is to provide free content, this kinda explains what free is. to that point non-free material should be avoided at all cost. (as soon as you introduce non-free material into an article the article is no longer free). To that degree if there is a character that is notable enough for a image then it stands that the same is true for their own article. Even then the image is not a given. A simple test of whether or not you need an image is: Can this article exist without the image? would not including the image hurt the understanding of the article? this article is a list, whether or not "List of" is in the title. the community has stated that we dont allow NFC images in list. β^_command 13:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I understand that images may need their own article to exist. Now I may be stepping over the line with this comment; but if part of your rationale is that this article is a list I can't help but feel that this article is part of some example that is trying to be made. If this is a list then why is it listed as a Good Article. Simply because it was a list before, does not mean it still. Like I said before, the only thing that implies a list is the length and title of the article. We've tried to expand this beyond any list. Also, if NFC images are not allowed, then why has the lead image been allowed to stay? And why respond to Axem's comments and not mine? The more I read this the more questions I have and the more they seem to be avoided. Please, if you don't want to help us understand the answers, then we'd like to know where we can find those answers. We have tried to make it abundantly clear that we do not fully understand the policy because some of the reasons given seem gray. I'm sorry If I come across a bit flustered, but I can't help but feel that we are being tossed aside simply because we don't understand something and we're trying to make a genuine attempt to. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry about not answering all the questions, I had about 5 minutes before I had to leave for work earlier. As for the GA status of this page most of the GA doesn't care about NFC they are focused mainly on the text. I wasn't saying that the images are not allowed here because this page is a "List". What this page does is summarize the major characters and has content on the minor ones. My point is that if a character is notable enough it should have its own article. if the character is not important enough then why is it important to have an image of the character? As for the lead image its a group shot of the characters (I don't know much about the game), It may contain the major ones, but it also contains the minor ones too. Per WP:NFCC#3a we are using the fewest number of images to convey the same material. Also a key part of why NFC images are limited on List like pages is because of WP:NFCC#8 the significance of the image in relationship to the whole of the article. (If I missed anything please let me know) β^_command 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to discuss this with us. I'm sure you'd much rather go about your business and we appreciate it. I believe the gray area in our minds is that the wording of the non-free content criteria has probably changed since we first read it. In retrospect, this make sense because it is an ever changing policy on an ever changing website. The two criteria seem stricter now.
We do understand that a single image would be preferred to multiple. However, we believed that the separate images helped increase the reader's understanding in that the main article image isn't the actual visual style of the characters in the game. It is done by the same character designer, but it is more stylized and is promotional artwork.
The other topic that we believe is a gray area is that most of the examples given to us applied to lists. The reason I mentioned the GA status is that lists are not eligible for GA. Our rationale was that because this is an article and not list, that many of the points presented shouldn't apply. These are some of the gray areas that we believe have been the cause of confusion. Hopefully we can clear the air on this matter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

• And I'd prefer if we didn't have to argue ever single time images are removed from articles under this policy. It's not up for discussion. The Foundation has ruled on this, and it is simply and frankly not permitted. --Hammersoft 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you'd rather not argue, neither would we. Perhaps we can discuss this instead. We understand that you and others are acting in good faith. We've all been on that side of maintaining and enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines. When you encounter people who don't want to reason, then sometimes you have to resort to strong arming. But we're not just ignorant new editors; we want to know and understand the policies. I'm sorry that you've probably received a lot of flack for removing images; but I have a feeling you and others saw that coming. And with all due respect, if you're not willing to share the information you know and help others understand it, then why edit on Wikipedia? If we don't understand the policy, how are we going to properly follow it in the future. We really like and believe in the idea behind this site, and we plan on staying to help improve it. Please, if you don't want to help us understand the answers, then we'd like to know where we can find those answers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Amen, Guy, thanks for keeping your cool when I might have not. Still, I echo his sentiments towards understanding rather than being doomed to repeat it out of ignorance. Axem Titanium 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well nuts, that apparently didn't go well. I'm not sure what to do about this guys. This doesn't look to be going anywhere right now. Perhaps we should switch our focus on getting this article to FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Eh, I say we drop it and try to get it to FA. To be completely honest, anyone who clicked on the image and read the summary would be able to know who was who. I don't think this will get anyone anywhere.HadesDragon 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Grammar and prose are good (though the word "that" is occasionally used where "who" should be), and in general the article complies with WP:MoS. Most of it is pretty interesting, but parts of the section on DiZ are needlessly reiterated within itself. Also, I don't really find the Creation and influences particularly interesting - that, and it doesn't seem to mention actual influences - and could probably be rewritten to appear more engaging.

2. Factually accurate?: Everything is cited properly, the article has a References section, and the article does not appear to contain original research. Overall, a solid pass here.

3. Broad in coverage?: All the key aspects of the article are covered, and in general no unnecessary details are entered into, and nothing is too heavily elaborated on. A good pass here.

4. Neutral point of view?: The whole article remains NPOV throughout; no violations here.

5. Article stability? The article has remained quite stable, with only a few minor edits each day. Pass here as well.

6. Images?: The images which appear on the article have solid fair-use rationales, are apropriately captioned and are suitable to the topic. No problems here whatsoever.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Overall, the article is nearly a GA, but there are some minor issues with GAC1 which need to to be addressed before I can pass it. Until then, I'm putting the nomination on hold until 27-10-2007, to allow for the issues outlined to be addressed. Until then, keep up the good work you've done so far - as I've said, this article is nearly a GA. L337 kybldmstr 07:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Creation and influences" has had some minor copy editing and the "DiZ" section has had the repeated information removed. For the creation section, the influences are some what mixed in with the creation process. The world selection process was influenced by which characters are from that particular Disney continuity. Final Fantasy characters were picked partially based on popularity among fans and staff. The director lightened his restrictions on Final Fantasy character inclusion after pressure from his staff. As far as making it more engaging, I'm not quite sure how to do that, though I wasn't aware that how interesting it is was a factor for the manual of style. There are a few more editors that have worked on this article that may do some more copy editing once they log on. They may have better insight into this than I do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Not counting that I did a little more minor copyediting on the Influences bit, everything seems to be ok now (the wierd sentencing in that section was pretty detracting from its appeal, I'll admit). I'm now passing this article; congratulations to everyone who contributed to this article and keep up the good work. L337 kybldmstr 10:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Going for FA

Anybody else think this has a shot at FA? If so, any suggestions or ideas to improve the article? The only thing that comes to mind are additional citations and references, but I worry that will make the article size even bigger. Of course, given its current size, any idea will probably make it even bigger. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Axel

Axel doesn't have his own little section on this character page... He is plot significant enough for his own section right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.112.172 (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He's briefly mentioned in the "Organization XIII" section under the "Main protagonist". He mentioned in more detail in the "Axel" section on the Organization XIII page. Though in both places, plot details are kept at a minimum because of the guidelines of Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Infoboxes

What's up with the lack of infoboxes? Smile Lee (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are normally only used in single character articles as they unfortunately tend to clutter group character articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Character creation

Perhaps a picture of anthropomorphic lion Sora would be better? It certainly shows how drastically his character concept changed.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the you're talking about the one where he has a tail, furry ears, and some darker hair? Honestly, there are plenty of images that would probably be better than what is currently there. I put that one up because we just had all the single character images removed, and I wanted those three main characters to be better identified. But if you think it'll be better, go for it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Main Characters

Um, how come NONE of the main characters have their own pages? Not even Sora! 12.206.95.207 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, there was not enough real-world content to justify the page on Wikipedia. Real-world content would have been information about each character's separate development and creation by Square Enix, and pulbished content on the reception from critics and fans. That kind of information is what was need for the characters to have their own separate encyclopedic page.

There was plenty of other information, but it all pertained to each character's in-game background and story. Content like that is fictional content, like the story of a book or movie. There was only a few bits and pieces for each separate character, but enough to combine them all into one page. Sora had the most, but it still wasn't enough for his own page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Maleficent article

Isn't the Kingdom Hearts section in that article a bit much? what should we do about it? Kariteh (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of reference

I've seen links to ffkh-online.net popping up on this page and the three new game articles. I wasn't able to find much about the website, but didn't look too deep. Does anybody know how reliable this website is—who owns it, any editorial oversight, etc.? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Kenja Ansemu

He first appeared in the Reverse/Rebirth mode of Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories under the guise of a mysterious man named DiZ (ディズ, Dizu)

This looks very much like Disney (ディズニー, Dizunii); in fact, it looks as if Square took that name, but removed the last two (Japanese) characters. Is there any information about this that could be used on this page?

Main antagonist section

Could Xehanort really be described as the main antagonist of the games? After all, he doesn't actually appear once. I think Xemnas fits the bill much more decisively. Also why is there no mention of the Heartless, the true main antagonists of the game in this section? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your correct xehanort has not appeared as a villain so far. His heartless who calls himself Ansem and Xemnas have been the main antagonist so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightprince10 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Though Xehanort does not directly act as an antagonist in the games, his actions led to the conflict that is central to the games. Also, his two parts (Heartless and Nobody) served as the antagonists of the games. That and it was easier to group them altogether in one section to provide the necessary background to understand Ansem and Xemnas in the series. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

This response is about that request to include the Heartless. The thing is that the Heartless are little more than henchmen to the other main antagonists (Xehanort's Heartless, Maleficent and (near the ending of Kingdom Hearts II) Xemnas) and thus aren't truly considered antagonists. Only if you include the Nobodies would it be acceptable to include Heartless as well. I'd also like to ask shouldn't we also include Marluxia in the Main Antagonist section since he was the main villain in Kingdom Hearts II. He tried to turn Sora into a puppet and played him for a sap so as to just take over the Organization (which he would probably gain nothing from). I also think that Vexen should be included in the main antagonist section since he's one of the 2 main antagonists in Riku's section of the game (the other being Xehanort's Heartless) and a secondary antagonist in Sora's section.Flashpenny (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)FlashpennyFlashpenny (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

...but we have the Organization XIII page. What would we possibly put on this page that wouldn't be completely redundant?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kairi's name

I don't know if this is worth mentioning, but the entirity of Kairi's name is homophonous with the word for "knot" and "nautical mile" (海里/浬; kairi). 98.212.176.218 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)