| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 129: |
Line 129: |
|
| |
|
| :''Purely'' speculation. Never mind the fact that the Unversed originated in the realm of light, you have no idea what lives in the realm of darkness besides Heartless. For all you know some kind of humans live there too. The different kinds of beings '''''can not''''' be defined by where they live. --<span style="font-size:10pt">[[User:Neumannz|'''<span style="font-size=12pt; font-family:Gisha; color:#005400">Neumannz</span>''']], [[User talk:Neumannz|''<span style="color:black; font-family:Agency FB Bold">The Dark Falcon</span>'']]</span> 00:03, June 25, 2010 (UTC) | | :''Purely'' speculation. Never mind the fact that the Unversed originated in the realm of light, you have no idea what lives in the realm of darkness besides Heartless. For all you know some kind of humans live there too. The different kinds of beings '''''can not''''' be defined by where they live. --<span style="font-size:10pt">[[User:Neumannz|'''<span style="font-size=12pt; font-family:Gisha; color:#005400">Neumannz</span>''']], [[User talk:Neumannz|''<span style="color:black; font-family:Agency FB Bold">The Dark Falcon</span>'']]</span> 00:03, June 25, 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
| ----------
| |
|
| |
| So, KH3. Pretty clearly uses "somebody" multiple times to refer to completed beings. Can we go back to that? It seems the portion of the fandom who had bugs up their asses about this has disappeared too, all I ever see is people using "somebody".{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
| |
| :That being said, I find it funny that gamefaqs is ''still'' bitching about the terms being used, and that this is apparently their main complaint with our "reliability", despite them consistently misstating how the wiki actually uses the word (or the word "somebody", for that matter). Almost like...hmm, they're contrarian and would prefer to say something sucks than to make something good?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
| |
| ::Also worth pointing out that the Journal labels Ienzo/Dilan/Aeleus/etc as the "human form" of <insert nobody here>. {{User:Chitalian8/Sig}} 20:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == "Being"? == | | == "Being"? == |
| Line 151: |
Line 145: |
| #It's a philosophical concept with a long and worthy history. | | #It's a philosophical concept with a long and worthy history. |
| #It absolutely fits this usage. | | #It absolutely fits this usage. |
| #It's used in Digimon to refer to [[wikia:Calumon|Calumon]], which will make me laugh whenever I hear Riku described as one. | | #It's used in Digimon to refer to [[w:c:Calumon|Calumon]], which will make me laugh whenever I hear Riku described as one. |
|
| |
|
| [[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 00:17, July 21, 2010 (UTC) | | [[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 00:17, July 21, 2010 (UTC) |
| Line 283: |
Line 277: |
| ::"Somebodies" is never used in any discussion of the fiction. It is only used to categorize the heart-body-soul characters, for the purposes of our enemy templates and list of characters in a world. Sooo....yes, we do need a term to use there, if only to have something to enter into the templates. | | ::"Somebodies" is never used in any discussion of the fiction. It is only used to categorize the heart-body-soul characters, for the purposes of our enemy templates and list of characters in a world. Sooo....yes, we do need a term to use there, if only to have something to enter into the templates. |
| ::The rest of your comment doesn't make any gotdamn sense. How is using a quote from the game equivalent to cutting the official terms apart?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | | ::The rest of your comment doesn't make any gotdamn sense. How is using a quote from the game equivalent to cutting the official terms apart?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
| We can't use human because unlike Sora not all complete beings in the KH universe are human same thing for people and person they're only used to refer to humans, besides as Shard said we are only using it for categorization and there is no real misinformation in here, there is no real damage in using it for categorization, although I must admit that it wouldn't kill us to mention in the [[:Category:Somebody|page]] that it isn't an official term {{User:Xabryn/Sig}} 00:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | | We can't use human because unlike Sora not all complete beings in the KH universe are human same thing for people and person they're only used to refer to humans, besides as Shard said we are only using it for categorization and there is no real misinformation in here, there is no real damage in using it for categorization, although I must admit that it wouldn't kill us to mention in the [[Category:Somebody|page]] that it isn't an official term {{User:Xabryn/Sig}} 00:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Anon, are you what's his name, NeutraVega? 'cause he came in and made the exact same complaints, without willing to put in one iota of work in finding a more satisfactory term. By your own standards, neither "characters", "people", "humans", nor "complete beings" are more official or accurate. Either lower your standards, or find us a quote. If you're not willing to do the actual research and ''contribute'', then you really have nothing to bring to this decision and should be quiet.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | | Anon, are you what's his name, NeutraVega? 'cause he came in and made the exact same complaints, without willing to put in one iota of work in finding a more satisfactory term. By your own standards, neither "characters", "people", "humans", nor "complete beings" are more official or accurate. Either lower your standards, or find us a quote. If you're not willing to do the actual research and ''contribute'', then you really have nothing to bring to this decision and should be quiet.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Line 309: |
Line 303: |
| ::I'm against it as well. "Other" and "Somebody", while not truly official terms, ''were'' used in-game. [[User:Maggosh|mag]][[User talk:Maggosh|gosh]] 21:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | | ::I'm against it as well. "Other" and "Somebody", while not truly official terms, ''were'' used in-game. [[User:Maggosh|mag]][[User talk:Maggosh|gosh]] 21:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
| :::Quick clarification: "[[wiktionary:entelechy|entelechy]]" is an actual word that means "the complete form of something, or a complex thing made from many simple parts", so Asif is basically suggesting an actual word, rather than a "Term". However, do you guys want to use "Other", then?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC) | | :::Quick clarification: "[[wiktionary:entelechy|entelechy]]" is an actual word that means "the complete form of something, or a complex thing made from many simple parts", so Asif is basically suggesting an actual word, rather than a "Term". However, do you guys want to use "Other", then?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
| :My position is still to have multiple categories under the "other" symbol, such as humans, beasts, constructs (magical or mechanical), etc. Trying to pick an overarching category causes issues, in my opinion. --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::...Why was this a giant Wiki War? Does it really matter whether someone uses "Somebody," "Other," "Entelechy," or "Regular Ol' Jagoff"? No matter which of these you prefer, it will be clear from the context what you mean. What is slapped on the Wiki page is just a label, because a web page can't link to an abstract concept, unlike the human brain. I don't care what the page is called. But that's the point: -I- don't care. In time, we're going to find that a lot of people don't particularly like "Entelechy," & this whole debate is going to inflame again. Is the page just going to be changed every time that happens? Because that seems like an ineffective solution.[[User:Neo Bahamut|Neo Bahamut]] 08:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :"Somebody" was a semi-canon phrase that many editors were uncomfortable interpreting as a term for complete beings. "Other" is a pretty weak and mostly useless term for this object, as it is very indiscriminate. "Entelechy", however, is simply an English word with this exact meaning, and will not be ''possible'' to replace without Nomura releasing an official term (which would eliminate any future argument), or a major shift in the English language.[[Special:Contributions/70.34.147.3|70.34.147.3]] 20:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::The fact that people were so split over this means the argument is likely to occur again. That was the point I was trying to make. Correct, if an official term is released, that would clear up the issue. However, that might be far off or never happen.[[User:Neo Bahamut|Neo Bahamut]] 20:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::Which is why we are going with "Entelechy". Unless an official term for a being with heart, mind, and body is released by Nomura, which would permanently end all debate, then the only possible way to debate the use of "entelechy" is if English becomes a dead language and linguists cannot agree on what the words of "that ancient and forgotten language" are supposed to mean. If that is to occur, an argument over what the beings should be called is the last of our worries.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 22:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::Okay, I've been trying to ignore targeting the word itself, but I just can't keep ignoring bad logic. Entelechy is not the only English phrase that encompasses the meaning you're looking for. In fact, entelechy has [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entelechy a few different definitions], depending on what philosopher you're talking about. Secondly, language is not either "all dead" or "all common." Entelechy is a highly esoteric term, I doubt more than a handful of users here had ever heard of it before the Wiki adopted it. "Transdifferentiation" is also an English word, but you will never see me use it in favor of "transformation" or "shapeshift," because it's not a common term.[[User:Neo Bahamut|Neo Bahamut]] 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :I didn't say it was the only word with this meaning, I said that it was an English word with exactly this meaning. There may very well be synonyms, but this is the one we prefer to use. It's not arguable that this word means this thing, and starting an argument on it is akin to quibbling what the definition of "is" is.
| |
| :My point is, with the word we are currently using, there is seriously no point arguing it. It means what it means, and it would take a major event to make it stop meaning that.
| |
| :(Also, each of the definitions given there are simply different approaches to the necessary concept: something that is complete).{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 05:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::This is not the route I wanted to go down, so this is the last note I'll make on the subject: In some senses, the word can arguably be used as you are using. Still, other definitions, such as "the realization of potential" & "the supposed vital principle that guides he functioning of an organism or system" have absolutely no relation to the idea you're trying to communicate. It's important to realize, this is a philosophy term, & philosophers often spend pages upon pages elaborating on what they mean. Saying, "It can't be argued" is fine if the other person doesn't care enough to pursue the issue, but it just would not hold up under serious scrutiny.[[User:Neo Bahamut|Neo Bahamut]] 15:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::Again, I'm ''still'' not saying that the word only has only one meaning, although the specific definitions you linked to do ''not'', as far as I can see, introduce any confusion about the intended meaning (see below). Where used on this wiki, the word even links to a dictionary entry to make that meaning explicitly clear, so it's pretty impossible to have any confusion about it. What I'm saying is, the word has a meaning that is clear in context, and is accurate to one of its definitions. Arguing over its appropriateness is both an unproductive use of time, and exactly analagous to arguing what the meaning of "is" is. Again, I don't understand what the point of this discussion is unless you have a specific complaint about using "entelechy" in favor of some other word; your earlier posts seem to just be saying "well, it's possible that this word will get derided as well", and my response to such derision is the same as above: it comes from troglodytes, since this word contains this meaning in plain English.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.177|192.249.47.177]] 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ;Definitions:
| |
| #In the philosophy of Aristotle, the condition of a thing whose essence is fully realized; actuality./(Aristotelian philosophy) The complete actualization and final form of a potency or potentiality, or of a conception.
| |
| ##As clarified by wikipedia ''They both refer to something being in its own type of action or at work, as all things are when they are real in the fullest sense, and not just potentially real.'' and ''Aristotle invents the word by combining entelēs (complete, full-grown) with echein (= hexis, to be a certain way by the continuing effort of holding on in that condition), while at the same time punning on endelecheia (persistence) by inserting telos (completion). This is a three-ring circus of a word, at the heart of everything in Aristotle's thinking, including the definition of motion.'' That this means "a being that is complete and completely real" is obvious.
| |
| #In some philosophical systems, a vital force that directs an organism toward self-fulfillment./A particular type of motivation, need for self-determination, and inner strength directing life and growth to become all one is capable of being. It is the need to actualize one’s beliefs. It is having a personal vision and being able to actualize that vision from within.
| |
| ##A slightly different flavor, in which entelechy is a process that directs beings toward becoming complete. Thus, still points to the meaning desired here, but also irrelevant since it is clear from context that we are talking about beings, not processes.
| |
| #Something complex that emerges when you put a large number of simple objects together.
| |
| ##An exact synonym for what we want.
| |
