Editing Category talk:Entelechy

== Seriously? ==
We are using the term ''Somebody''? That is terrible.--[[User:XYZach|XYZ.]] 02:49, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
:Do you have a canon alternative? Because Axel uses this in CoM specifically to refer to a complete person.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 03:37, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Human, for one. But that is only in regards to human characters. I don't ever remember ''Somebody'' being used as the canon term for a complete being. Within the series there are times where the word nobody was used without a capitol n, Zexion really makes it clear. So Axel uses somebody with a capitol s?--[[User:XYZach|XYZ.]] 03:43, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
::As I explained earlier, Axel says, "Nobodies can never be Somebodies", specifically referring to a complete being. As I recall, it was Riku Replica talking about not having a heart. Maybe Namine.
::As you said, "Human" isn't fully applicable. It's even wrong on the basic issue, since Axel and Ansem, SoD are still humans - they're just also a Nobody and a Heartless.
::As of now, "Somebody" is the ''only'' term that has been used within the series to refer to a being that has its original heart, body, and soul. If you can find any other term, please list it.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 03:54, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
:The line is "We Nobodies can never hope to be somebodies" ("Nobodies can't be somebodies" in the original COM), which Axel says to Namine when Sora reaches the 9th floor. Since "somebodies" is lowercase, I figure he means that Nobodies can't hope to have a meaningful existence, rather than saying Nobodies can't hope to become complete beings. This is the only time anyone says the word, and it seems from the way it's used that it wasn't intended to be an actual term. However, the point remains that we have no good alternative to "Somebodies", unless we just say "complete beings" (which I would totally be up for).  --<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> 08:16, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
::When is "complete being" used?[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 15:32, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
:::ALSO:
*Roxas, Days: "If I had a heart...would that make me somebody?"
*Larxene, CoM: "Rewrite Sora's heart, and you can be somebody, not just the shadow of somebody."
*Larxene, ReCoM: "Just do a good job rewriting Sora's heart. Then you can actually be somebody---and no longer just Kairi's shadow."
*Axel, ReCoM: "Does it hurt, Naminé? Watching your two childhood friends fight all because of you? You have my sympathies. From the heart. But don't waste your time. We Nobodies can never hope to be somebodies."
:::I still can't find "complete being" or any variation in the scripts.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 15:42, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
while it does seem to be an extreeeeeeeeemel generic term, it is unfortunately the only one we have at the moment.--ShadowsTwilight 15:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

:::What about the Japanese scripts? Do they use the term "somebody"?  --<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> 16:50, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
::I don't have access to the Japanese scripts, sorry.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 19:23, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
I've rewatched the scene with Axel in Japanese, and apparently he doesn't even say the term "Nobody", let alone "Somebody". Don't know enough Japanese to know exactly what it says, though.  --<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> 20:11, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
::If you provide me a link, I can try to translate it.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 20:57, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6xecb5Xxtw Here you go.]  --<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> 22:51, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes well Larxene also calls Sora ''heartless'' when he can't remember Naminé and then calls him ''the heartless hero'' after they fight, but this does not mean that Sora is literally a Heartless. It is a true ambiguous duality, Heartless and Nobodies, but the difference is whether or not the terms are capitalized.--[[User:XYZach|XYZ.]] 00:38, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
:...Sora ''is'' a Heartless during CoM. That's why he needs to reunite with Roxas in KHII.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 00:40, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sora is a Heartless for five minutes before Kairi creates a vessel of light for his heart to reside in. Although he is less than human, he his not a Heartless.--[[User:XYZach|XYZ.]] 00:45, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
:He's still a Heartless, as much as Ansem SoD. Both of them have retrieved their human forms, but by nature, they only have their heart. That makes them a Heartless.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 06:45, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ansem Seeker of Darkness was not able to create a human form until after he possessed Riku and hijacked Riku's body. Before that he appeared as an amorphous, cloak.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 06:52, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
:1) Read the Ansem Reports again, 2) Even with that interpretation, he is still a Heartless in that form. The games are very clear on this - the characters even remark on it in CoM.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 22:49, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the scenes? The other scenes should be on the same channel, too.  --<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> 02:16, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sora would not have been able to use the Keyblade if he were a Heartless, end of discussion.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 21:55, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
:...based on what? Ansem wielded the Keyblade as Riku, and Roxas wielded the Keyblade as a Nobody. Nomura has never said that Heartless can't wield it - if anything, he's said that Nobodies ''shouldn't'' be able to wield it, since they don't have a heart.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 22:01, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Because a Heart alone cannot summon a Keyblade, there has to be a vessel for the heart to reside in. Riku can use the Keybalde because Terra performed the Inheritance Ceremony on him, the only influence that Xehanort's Heartless had was what Keybalde Riku used. When Riku's heart was stronger than Sora's, Riku stole the Kingdom Key, and after he loses it he uses a Keyblade that Xehanort's Heartless created. And Roxas can wield the Keyblade because:

*He was willingly created.

*He's the Nobody of a Keyblade Wielder.

*He coexists with his original self.

*He is harboring Ventus' heart.

Roxas is a Special Nobody, Naminé, Axel and Riku all know it.

Not to mention Sora was not able to use the Keyblade as a Heartless and Sora cannot use the Keyblade while in Anti Form, not necessarily a Heartless, but the closest Sora can get to being a Heartless.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 22:21, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
:"Concerning the conditions to wield one, at this stage, "Those with strong hearts" is the only obvious one."
:"To use a keyblade you must have been chosen to inherit as well as been chosen by the keyblade itself. "
:Riku, with Ansem in him, is still considered a Heartless, because Riku's heart was expelled. They have a cutscene showing that, as well. The Lingering Sentiment, which does not seem to have a heart, can also wield a Keyblade.
:"The Keyblade that Roxas used and the thing that Sora once lost in Castle Oblivion are the same thing. Furthermore, these two both used the Keyblade at the same time. This is can be explained by the relationship between Roxas and Sora. Thus, that both can wield two Keyblades in fact has an important meaning. This is also related to Xehanort's memories, but this point can't be touched on just yet."
:"He was willingly created" and "He coexists with his original self" have almost nothing to do with it, and the scripts make it exceedingly clear that a Nobody with a Keyblade is almost a miracle.
:"Concerning Sora's Anti Form, you could think that the reason is related to his changing into a Heartless once before. In fact, beyond Sora's Nobody, it is natural to assume that Sora is influenced by the Heartless"
:"Moreover, when Sora himself was changed into a heartless he was purified by Kairi. In order for Sora to be revived without following the essential course, the special way Roxas and Naminé were born from these types, special Nobodies ended up being left behind. Still, I get the feeling from the story so far that Xemnas might also be a special Nobody."
::So, again, while Sora regained his light and body shape, he is still, by nature, a Heartless, until the start of KHII.
:"Xehanort most certainly got rid of his heart, and at that time it's assumed a Nobody was born. The means of obtaining their goal is different due to the nature of Heartless and Nobodies. However. I think for both of them the desire "to become a complete existence" is the same. This time the new mysterious keyword "Xehanort's memories" is left behind."
:"One year after BbS, Apprentice Xehanort was separated into his Heartless (Ansem Seeker of Darkness) and his Nobody (Xemnas). The former took actions that were more like Master Xehanort, while the latter has said things that seem more like Terra, so how were Terra and Master Xehanort’s hearts and wills separated, and what sort of influences do they have over each?"
::So Ansem, even in his human form with Riku's body, is a Heartless.


::The only things Nomura has ever stressed about wielding a Keyblade are:
#Strong heart
#Performed inheritance ceremony

That's it. The Lingering Sentiment, a remnant of Terra, is able to wield its former Keyblade without a real heart, and Roxas, a Nobody of Sora who only has a ''hidden'' heart, and not quite the correct one, is able to wield its former Keyblade. Vanitas's Sentiment, an apparent Unversed, is also able to wield a Keyblade, without having anywhere for a heart to have come from, and with barely a grip on existence. From what we've been told, there's no reason to assume that a Heartless remnant, who is in fact the heart itself, would be unable to wield a Keyblade.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 22:50, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sora cannot be a Heartless if he is residing inside of a body of light that Kairi created. I totally agree that it is not his body and he is far from complete, but he is not a Heartless. And the Lingering Sentiment and Vanitas' Sentiment are Absent Silhouettes, they are the emotions left behind after someone has faded away, taking form by possessing a physical object. With the Organization Silhouettes, it was their weapons, Terra left his imprint in his armor and Keyblade and Vanitas appears to have done the same. And think about what the Keyblade is, it's the ultimate bane of the Heartless. It is the only weapon that they fear because it's the only weapon that can release them. Would it make sense for a Heartless to be able to wield a Keyblade?--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 23:04, June 21, 2010 (UTC)  
:Why would that stop him from being a Heartless? How has the games or Nomura defined Heartless? Simply as the hearts taken by Heartless. Ansem took Riku's body and was still a Heartless.
::"Sora and Xehanort retained their selfhood even after becoming Heartless."
::I grant you that in-game, DiZ and a few other characters no longer define Sora as a Heartless, because he has human form. However, his nature (a heart without body or soul) has only yet been categorized as "Heartless", and Nomura's interviews, barring translation errors, say that he has a strong overlap with the Heartless.
:As for the Sentiment's, yes, that was my point with them. Even though they lack what you had described, the fact that they are remnants of a Keyblade wielder lets them wield the Keyblade. Vanitas could even fit here, since his inheritance stemmed from Ventus. 
:According to the ''HBRC'', the Heartless fear the Keyblade. But still, we see AntiSora wielding a shadow-version of one. It's also not the only weapon effective against them, it's just the only one that brings them peace (like Zanpaktou, really). The Keyblade is one of the few weapons effective against Nobodies, too, and it is still used by Roxas.
::All in all, I think there is enough evidence to think that when Larxene called Sora "heartless", she was in fact calling him the eldritch horror, and not just "cold", "unfeeling", "cruel", or one of the many other terms that she could have used that mean the same thing.
::I finally had a chance to go over the scene. Axel uses the word {{nihongo|somebody|誰|dare}}, he says:
*{{nihongo|"We who are not even somebody cannot become somebody."|誰でもない俺たちは誰にもなれない|Dare demo nai ore-tachi wa dare nimo narenai}}

So, it basically says the same thing, it just uses the Japanese word instead of "So-mubodi-".[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 23:22, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

::So he wasn't using "somebody" as a term. It also means the original COM text is more correct than ReCOM, since ReCOM capitalized "Nobodies". I can check the ReCOM scenes with Larxene, in case she used a term, but I'd lay money that she didn't.
::Which seems to make "Somebody" a fan term... Ugh. Now what?  --<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> 02:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)




Okay, I get wanting to use the official term. But I honestly don't understand why everyone is reacting in disgust to the term "Somebody". It's no less ridiculous than "Heartless", "Nobody", and "Unversed".[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 05:01, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

{{ST|time=05:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)|text= a) it sounds much more ridiculous b) it sounds extra crappy because it is a direct acronym of only one of above-mentioned entities}}
...Uh, "acronym"? In what way?  --<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> 05:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

{{ST|time=06:22, June 22, 2010 (UTC)|text=sorry i meant antonym}}
{{KrytenKoro|How is "Unversed" a less ridiculous thing to call somebody?}}
I don't know. Servusend is a way though, that doesn't make sense though...{{AurorSig}}

All of the characters mentioned on the page are technically Denizens of the Realm of Light. Perhaps the article could be changed to that.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 04:12, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
:What, even Anti-Riku and Lingering Sentiment? Or Sephiroth? What about Unversed or Mechanisms?[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 05:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Riku does not exist in the universe canon, only as a replacemt for Riku in mission mode. The Lingering Sentiment is an Absent Silhouette of Terra, it can go wherever the others are. KH canon Sephiroth is a part of Cloud. Why would any of the Unversed be in this category? Break the page into two sections:

'''Denizens of the Realm of Light'''

and

'''Disney Villains/ World Enemies'''

This would appear to be the most appropriate.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 05:45, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

::Why? Unlike "Heartless" and "Nobody" and "Unversed", those don't have anything to do with an enemy's nature.  --<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> 05:50, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. I felt like KrytenKoro was pointing out the oddity of having villains on a page called ''Denizens of the Realm of Light''. I was just making a suggestion as to not confuse people reading the page. That is if we are to change the name.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 06:05, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

:Leave it the same. Right now there's no other word with the same meaning, i.e. a being w/ a heart, body, and soul.  --<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> 13:05, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
::What I meant by mentioning Unversed is that they are also Denizens of the Realm of Light. Believe me, I understand you not wanting to use this term, but until we get something with the ''same'' meaning, this is what we need to use.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 17:03, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

But that is what a Denizen of the Realm of light is. Anything can reside in the Realm, but to truly be a Denizen, to tryuly belong there, you must be a complete being. In Nomura words, the Unversed are dark beings that feed on negative emotions and are the opposite of human life. Vanitas is a human with a heart of pure darkness and therefore cannot belong to the Realm of Light. That makes Vanitas a human from the Realm of Darkness, the exact opposite of a human. The Unversed are an extension of Vanitas which makes them of the Dark Realm as well. --[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 18:48, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
:You're going pretty deep into speculation again. As far as I know, Vanitas has never said to be a being of the Dark Realm, and Nomura has never said that only complete beings are denizens of the Realm of Light.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 19:14, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear enough, but I was only using Nomura's words in regards to the Unversed. And this is something that Nomura wouldn't really have to say.


The Heartless and the Unversed are Beings of the Realm of Darkness.

The Nobodies are born in the Realm of In Between, but are destined to fade away into the Realm of Nothingness.

So what is left over? All of the Square, Disney and original characters introduced in the series. The Denizens of the Realm of Light.--[[User:XYZach|ΧƳƵach.]] 19:24, June 24, 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)

== "Being"? ==

I trawled the scripts for instances of "being" again, and I did find that Ansem, in the English Secret Reports, does call Nobodies "non-beings". However, he immediately calls Roxas and Namine beings, and calls Heartless "beings of darkness".

Someone told me that Nomura used "complete being" somewhere, but I'll be buggered if I can figure out where. Does anyone know of an interview where he used that term?[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 08:40, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

:Probably one of the ones talking about Braig, though I don't know where to find them.  --<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> 17:47, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

== Idea ==

If we can't find an official name, and people absolutely revolt against "Somebody", I suggest [[wikipedia:Entelechy|Entelechy]].

#It sounds awesome.
#It's a philosophical concept with a long and worthy history.
#It absolutely fits this usage.
#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)

If we're going to use an unofficial term after all, why not just use "complete being"?{{User:LapisScarab/Sig}}03:54, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. We don't have any official terms, so the best option would be to use an accurate description, i.e. "Complete being".  --<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> 04:12, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

{{ST|text=as cool as "Entelechy" sounds, i too vote for "Complete Being"}}

Dudes, please, if we already have beings called "Nobodies", what's wrong with "Somebodies"? Could someone EXPLAIN what's so "ridiculous" and "crappy" about it? Besides, there are already creatures called "Unversed". THAT'S NOT EVEN A REAL WORD. Stop being such Douchey McNitpick's over Somebodies and either accept it or give VALID REASONS why it sucks. --[[Special:Contributions/84.249.211.221|84.249.211.221]] 20:50, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

{{ST|text=because, as i stated above, the fact that someboy is a direct antonym of Nobody makes it sound completely generic and fan-made, while others like complete being at least could sound official}}

The problem, Anon, is that THE REST ARE OFFICIAL TERMS, and we have a general policy on this wiki of NOT MAKING UP STUFF, including terms. THAT is why "Somebodies" sucks.  --[[User:Neumannz|'''<span style="font-family:Gisha; color:#005400">Neumannz</span>''']], [[User talk:Neumannz|''<span style="color:black; font-family:Agency FB Bold">The Dark Falcon</span>'']] 21:19, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think Complete Being doesn't cover all entities in the Somebody category ([[Ice Colossus]] for example), it's more like a descriptive term for the former incarnations of the Nobodies. My opinion is still that we should use "Other" for categorization. It's universal, it's short and we could easily split other groups off if we get more official terms. --[[User:ShardofTruth|ShardofTruth]] 21:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
::What do we fill in for the boss's "type", then? And how do we categorize it?[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 21:52, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

:EDIT CONFLICT:
:Well, as I think we discussed elsewhere, we already need to have a number of divisions in the "Other" category, to cover in addition to "complete beings": mechanical and magical entities, obstacles, remnants, and anyone else I've forgotten.
:We really should sit down and sort this out once and for all, already, it's getting old and painfully annoying.  --[[User:Neumannz|'''<span style="font-family:Gisha; color:#005400">Neumannz</span>''']], [[User talk:Neumannz|''<span style="color:black; font-family:Agency FB Bold">The Dark Falcon</span>'']] 21:54, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
{{ST|text=i'm still in favor of categorizing them by origin(e.g. final fantasy boss, kingdom hearts boss, heartless boss, etc.) at least with those we have something official and it gets rid of the misc. category that 'somebody' has become}}
:Except we're trying to categorize by nature, not by creative origin.  --[[User:Neumannz|'''<span style="font-family:Gisha; color:#005400">Neumannz</span>''']], [[User talk:Neumannz|''<span style="color:black; font-family:Agency FB Bold">The Dark Falcon</span>'']] 22:03, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
And look how well that's turning out --ShadowsTwilight 22:09, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
:In that it's not the total crapshoot that "FF/KH/D boss" would be? Quite well, I'd say. Especially since if you used "Disney boss", you'd have to deal with Spirit of the Magic Mirror, Scar's Ghost, Jafar's Shadow, Hostile Program, The Experiment, etc.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 22:34, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Magic mirror is an unversed, jafar's shadow and scar's ghost, while resembling disney characters originated from kh, and the hostile program and experiment are completely exclusive kingdom hearts bosses. voila. better than listing all of the above (excluding the magic mirror) plus the LS, Unknown, anitriku, etc. as 'somebodies' just because they don't fit under any other category--ShadowsTwilight 22:42, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

{{ErryTalk|text=I am actually fine with the term "Somebody" because of the fact that it is an antonym of "Nobody" which reflects the differences between the two. One cannot feel or wield a Keyblade, the other can. And regardless of '''sounding''' fan-made, it still applies in case of literacy and meaning because it is an antonym of "Nobody".}}
:And you completely missed the point, ST. The Magic Mirror would ALSO be a Disney Boss, BECAUSE IT'S A DAMN DISNEY CHARACTER. Same with Scar's Ghost, Jafar's Shadow, and The Experiment (each of which is based 100% on a Disney character). If you're trying to find all the bosses that are not Heartless, Unversed, or Nobodies, searching based on material of origin would have too much overlap, and would be time-consuming. Comparing "Disney Characters" to "Heartless" is apples to oranges, and frankly, it's a bad suggestion.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 23:54, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
then list the ghost, shadow as a disney character, whatever, i could care less. the point is that there is a lot less mess with origin-categorization then "species" categorization, not to mention more accurate. for example, the Experiment is listed as a Somebody, which im sure most would agree is a being with a soul, heart, and body, except Finklestein stated point-blank that the experiment did not have a heart, so it obviously isn't a somebody, but it isnt the other 3 either. while im on the subject, what disney character is the experiment based off of, might i ask? --ShadowsTwilight 00:06, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry, I was inexact about that. It's based off of props from that movie.
:The point is is that DISNEY/FF/KH BOSS IS NOT A PARALLEL CATEGORY TO HEARTLESS/UNVERSED/NOBODY/COMPLETE. We already DO list them as Disney characters, but that's where they are FROM, not what they ARE. I AM CAPITALIZING WORDS FOR EMPHASIS.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 00:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
::ok, so my idea is out, but the problem is that the Heartless/Unversed/Nobody/Complete system does not work, simply because a great deal of those listed as Complete are there because they don't fit under anything else, which, no offense, is rather sloppy and isn't a proper way to use that category --ShadowsTwilight 00:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
:::There's a few things that should be categorized under "Mechanism", and a few that should be categorized under "Manifestation". That's about it.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 02:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
::::You forgot 'unknown' for the things we really don't know what they are. admittedly uknown bbs is the only that comes to mind, but that doesn't make it any less neccessary. seriously though, if you have this solution, why are we not using it?--ShadowsTwilight 03:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
:Because people haven't been adding it. No one's stopping them. I already went through all of the damn effort coding the Enemy template on my own, it's up to others to actually implement the enemy types.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 03:45, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
::Fair enough --ShadowsTwilight 03:47, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

== Alrighty...  ==

{{Falcos|mask=I have combed the games carefully, and there IS a canon alternative to "Somebody". To quote Roxas: "You make a good Other."

Now, I know that people probably aren't going to accept this, but I was challenged to find a canon alternative to "Somebody", and now I have. Other. Used by a Nobody to refer to a "Somebody".}}

{{ST|text=when Roxas says Other, do the subtitles capitalize it?}}

{{Falcos|mask=I believe so, but I shall check in a second.}}

{{ST|text=cuz if it is its indisputedly the title, if it's not there are plenty more times the term Somebody is used than this one instance of Other}}
{{Falcos|think=Okay, no, it isn't. :(. However, although I know this isn't going to make any difference, I would like to point out that "somebody" has never been capitalized, and has never been used undisputedly in this situation, like "other" was. But I digress, and concede.}}
That's true, it's not capitalized, and the Japanese script doesn't use any term in that scene. Also, at best, "other" can only really be used for complete counterparts to Nobodies/Org. members.

On the other hand, you are entirely correct about "somebodies" having the same problem, which is the main reason why I don't like it myself.  --[[User:Neumannz|'''<span style="font-family:Gisha; color:#005400">Neumannz</span>''']], [[User talk:Neumannz|''<span style="color:black; font-family:Agency FB Bold">The Dark Falcon</span>'']] 16:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with any terms that are to be used, be it Other or Somebody, but it has to have been used in the series, and I assume the more frequent, the more it applies.[[User:Erry|Er]][[User talk:Erry|ry]] 17:00, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

{{ST|text=i agree, but it still sounds sloppy and generic}}
{{Falcos|think=I dislike the term "somebody", as it is too ambiguous. "Other" doesn't have that problem, and although it is still slightly ambiguous, it is pretty clearly used to define a non-nobody. (I'm well aware that it's technically being used to refer to a heartless, but eh.) Also, ST, which one sounds sloppy and generic?}}
{{ST|text=Somebody. Other sounds like it at least ''could'' be official, while Somebody just screams fan-name}}
{{Falcos|think=So. What do we do? Move it, leave it, what?}}

{{Organization 13|sad=Other sounds better to me.}}
:Got-dammit. ST, sometimes you really piss me off.
:As I've outlined before both "somebody" and "other" are used multiple times throughout the series. Neither is considered an "official term" (no katakana, usually no capitalization), which is why we allow other synonyms, such as "original/complete persona". Neither is used to refer to ANYTHING ELSE except for the meanings outlined here:
*Somebody - a complete being - while related to the term Nobody, it is specifically used to refer to "becoming complete again"
*Other - the other parts to a complete being, minus a Nobody, or possibly the original being that has birthed a Nobody.
:There is no "fan-name" about this. People need to stop claiming that bullshit, because that's what it is. ''HOWEVER'', they are absolutely not "terms", and so have plenty of wiggle room. However however, THEY ARE ALL WE HAVE FOR WHAT THEY MEAN. As soon as Nomura says ''anything'' in an official context that has the same meaning and sounds better, we can use them. Seriously, if you guys hate the term so much, stop complaining about how it sounds and do the interview-diving like we had to to get these in the first place. The main usage of this term right now is within my Enemy template, and I'm not recoding the entire damn thing until people put some work into getting actual sources.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 18:00, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

{{ST|text=geez-la-weez, Kryten, calm down i was just stating my personal opinion didnt know that such a crime around here}}
{{Falcos|mask=Sorry, Kryten, I was the one who started this up. And I'd just like to point out that I don't like the term, and as a result, I have been trawling through everything I can find to find a better term, as you suggested to ST just now. I am not asking you to change anything, I was asking if this name is good enough. Now that I know the answer is no, I shall resume trawling. My apologies again, I wasn't aware you'd react so negatively.}}
:I am absolutely fine with discussion, but it irks me when people keep saying it is a "fan-made" name. In no way is that true, but certain people keep posting that everywhere that this topic is discussed. The truth of the matter is that it is absolutely a canon word, but is not an official ''term''. Everybody wants Nomura to present an official, better term, but to say that "Somebody" is in someway deficient to any other option is absurd.
:Falcos: No need to apologize. You said nothing false, so I have no complaint whatsoever with you.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 19:57, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
{{ST|text=I meant that it sounds like a fan-name, not that it actually is one. I know that it was derived from official material and that it wouldn't be in use if it wasn't. I just think that the nature of it and everything gives it the appearance of a fan-name. 
Sorry if I offended you}}

== Mis-picture ==

Why is there a picture of Terra instead of Ventus? I can't figure out how to edit those pictures, or I would change it.-Wooden Keyblade

=="Somebody" is a HUGE Mistake!==
Normally, I would've pasted this here:  http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Somebody  Buuut...nobody really pays attention to that talk page anymore.

It's been argued left and right about the validity of using "Somebody" as a canonical reference for complete beings.  I'll just get right to my own personal bias:  It sounds bloody retarded.  But I'm not here to flaunt my own personal experience, I'm here to question it's validity, and provide some nice evidence against it - both '''solid''', ''and'' '''contextual'''.  

The first bout of evidence I will provide is contextual, since it makes for a more intellectual argument.  Here are ''exact'' quotes from the games:

1-Roxas: "If I had a heart...would that make me somebody?"  (358/2 Days)
2-Roxas: "If I had a heart, you think I could love somebody?"  (358/2 Days)
3-Larxene: "Rewrite Sora's heart, and you can be somebody, not just the shadow of somebody." (CoM)
4-Larxene: "Then you can actually be somebody---and no longer just Kairi's shadow." (Re:Com)

I looked through all the transcripts of the game dialogue, and these are all the ones I found relevant to the context of which "Somebody" is referred.  I might've missed one or two, but I doubt very much they're all that different.  So, in the contextual argument, why is "Somebody" an incorrect reference?  It all lies in the English language, and sentence structure, actually.  In context of individual sentences, "somebody" is almost always referred to in the same sense as "living a life" is ("I wanna make lotsa munny!  I WANNA BE SOMEBODY!").  In that same sense, we don't refer to people as the "Alive" or "Living", just because they're in their own way living a fulfilling life.  Sure, they're exactly that, "living", but we do have terminology that focuses on specificity.  In the same, "somebody" is always used as a metaphorical allegory in the context of the story.  Not to mention, Roxas's own interpretation:  Early on in the game, he takes the name "Nobody" quite literally, to where Zexion further expands on it, and simply tells him that an incomplete being is referred to as that.  As common sense dictates, if you were to ask yourself a question opposite of the answer, you would use wording that's the exact opposite of the terminology you're familiar with ("If I'm a Nobody now...would I be somebody later?").  Not to mention, the general application of "Somebody" is far too literal.  Take a look at quote #4.  With an equivalent literal application, would that make Namine Kairi's literal shadow?  I thought she just a Nobody?  Now she's a Shadow?  Same thing, really.  A deeper look into the context ''outside'' of the single sentence is required for full understanding before application.  Not to mention, Nobodies, Heartless, Unversed, and Dream Eaters all have one magical thing preceding the names:  Count nouns, and plurals!  "A", "the", they", "them", etc etc.  "Somebody" has I believe only once had a count noun preceding it, and even then, it was used in a metaphorical context.  Not once has been referred in a plural sense in any of the games.  "A Nobody."  "The Heartless."  "The Unversed." "An Unversed."  "A Heartless."  "Nobodies."  Need I go on?

Now, that was contextual evidence...largely based on a deeper understanding of English, as well as sentence structure, more importantly.  The '''solid''' evidence?   I'll let a certain dialogue exchange from Days do the talking:

(Day 10 Mission - The first mission with Zexion)
Zexion: "Roxas, you and I and all the Organization's members are what we call 
Nobodies."
Roxas: "Well, that's not very nice."
Zexion: "With a capital N. It's a name, for those of us who are missing a vital 
piece of who we are: our hearts."
Roxas: "I don't have a heart?"

Capitalization!  Heartless, Nobodies, Unversed, and Dream Eaters, all contain capitalized first letters!  Once again, it denotes ''naming''.  Not once has somebody ever been capitalized in the games outside of the word being the first word in a sentence, and in every one of those instances, it was used a ''terribly different'' context ("Somebody's comin'!").  That right there should be the biggest alarm bell.  The second solid proof?  Japanese pronunciations.  If every one of the games, Heartless, Nobodies, Unversed, and Dream Eaters, are all written in Japanese in a way that they're pronounced in their roman forms:  Hātoresu, Nōbadi, Anvāsu, Dorīmu ītā.  In short, it's the opposite of Romanji (Don't really know the technical term of pronouncing Latin phonics in Japanese...sorry!).  However, the application of "somebody" in Japanese has always been used in native Japanese (the romanji might be a bit off...again, sorry!):  Dareka, or hitokadonojinbutsu.  Which one depends on the context of the sentence, really.

In short?  I'm sorry to say this, but your application of "Somebody" towards "complete beings" is '''''dead wrong'''''.  Many before have made this argument, some out of bias, some out of partial proof.  I at the very least wanted to provide something solid, and present it in a ''convincing and sensible way''.  Am I asking you all to change it to something else?  Yeah, I am.  This is a wiki, and a wiki should pride itself on providing ''concrete information'', and ''not speculation''.  It's a lot of work, but it's worth it.  What should you change it to?  Just like how "Somebody" isn't a canonical term, there really isn't a canonical term for complete beings.  Sure, you ''could'' change it to "Complete Beings", but that's sort of a mouthful, and too literal.  So, just go with it the standard, proven route:  "Characters", or "Other Characters."  I mean, it's ''exactly right''.  

In any case, I apologize for this humongous wall of text, but I was really going for something presentable and easy to understand.  Everyone who has thus far argued against it has been right, but they've been wrong in their approach.  I'm really hoping to change that here.  --[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 17:25, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

:You forgot Axel's quote: "We Nobodies can never hope to be somebodies" {{User:Chitalian8/Sig}} 19:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
::Everything you've just said is a rehash of previous discussions, and your proposed solution is completely unworkable. Are you saying that Axel isn't a character? I doubt it, but that implies you haven't really thought your solution through. Furthermore, your main argument against using "somebody" is full of more speculation than what you're criticizing in the use of "somebody".
::We already are well aware that "somebody" is not a fully official term, just like "Master Xehanort's Keyblade". However, it ''is'' a term used within the scripts to refer to a specific kind of thing, and we are in need of a term to describe this type of being. "Somebody" is neither speculation, nor is it "dead wrong". As we have ''always'' said, if you can provide evidence of "complete being"/"complete person"/"''any other term''" even being ''spoken'' within the scripts, we'll consider it. The last person we had claiming it was used swore up and down it was in one of Nomura's interviews, then buggered off when we asked him to prove it. The closest we've ever found is "humans" or "beings", which is used laughably imprecisely -- Scar is in no way a human, and the script also calls Heartless "beings". If "beings" even means anything in the series, it means "not a Nobody", which is hardly useful.
::On another note, I find it laughable that you denigrate somebody as "retarded", in a series where enemy races have been known as "Unversed". Calling fulfilled people "somebodies" (a term that's, well, ''actually used in the real world'' in a similar context, as opposed to this "Heartless", "Nobody", "Unversed", "Dream Eater", etc.) is hardly the least of this series's worries with being nonsensical.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Lol, I do agree.  However, I'm a patron of proper citations.  "Somebody" is nothing more than made up crap.  In any case, I feel this is relevant to share:  http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_Hearts_Wiki#.22Somebody.22_is_a_HUGE_Mistake

I'm assuming from their posts that there's some bad blood between you guys.  However, I implore you to read each and every post in that discussion, as it's every bit relevant to your wiki as well.  Your credibility hinges on it.  Dozens of bits of misinformation and misinterpretations are flying around, and I aim to put an end to it.  However you approach it, "Somebody" is not a canonical term.  Hence, citing it as such is misinformation.  Not to mention that "somebody symbol.  It's bloody fake, and once more, misinformation.  How you approach this issue will ultimately decide where your place in the community is, whether you'll be just another joke, or a valuable source of information.  That's how I've set this whole thing up.  --[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 21:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:::"Somebody" is not made up, and the symbol is from the ''gotdamn Ultimania''. Somebody is also ''not cited as an official term'', and is left as term for our use only. Gotdammit, if you haven't actually read either ''our'' discussions or SE's OFFICIAL BLOODY PUBLICATIONS, then please don't barge in here and tell us that we're wrong and should do whatever you say. If people who don't know what the f*** they're talking about think we don't have "credibility" because they haven't actually ''researched the bloody series''.
::::That "symbol" doesn't denote "somebodies", you fool.  And once more, it is NOT a canonical term.  And when there ISN'T one, you don't just make shit up!  Is that so bloody difficult to understand? Also, YOUR uses of the term many differ - placeholder, whatever.  But when you CITE it as such, people take it at face value!  It's like the motherfucker of false advertisements.  You know it's wrong, but you put it up there anyway.  And because of THAT, misinformation is spreading.  Chain reaction much?--[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:The symbol denotes non-Heartless, non-Nobodies. We reviewed every profile it was used on. If you can't shell out to check the Ultimania yourself, then deal with it.
:No one has ever said that "somebody" is the canonically official term. Please stop making up strawmen.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::Like I said earlier -- it is vital that we have something to use to refer to this type of being. "Somebody" is not nearly as official as "Heartless", no one's disputing that, but unless you can actually provide a suitable alternative, then you're not being helpful.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Lol.  Do you NEED one?  What you had before was perfectly fine.  You saw no people complaining.  However, all of the sudden, there are now TWO Wikis?  I'm sorry.  But even you have to realize, you're just plain wrong on this one.  Here, to help out, I'll quote a commenter from KHU:  "Somebodies? How about people? Just ordinary people. That word does exist in the KH universe right?"  Or how about "King Mickey refers to Sora as the "human with the key." In such meaning, "Somebodies" would not be an appropriate title. They would just be considered "people," whereas Nobodies are referred to as Nobodies, only because they are, in fact of the series, Nobodies. They are also "people" at times, such as the Organization XIII, but because they are on the brink of existence, and empty shells without hearts, they must also be considered Nobodies. The same goes with the Heartless. We called Xehanort's Heartless by the name of "Ansem" in Kingdom Hearts. This virtually depicts him as a "person" who has lost his heart to the Heartless, therefore making him a Heartless, as well as an individual character simultaneously."  Helpful enough?  I'll admit I've exhausted my own argument.  Which is exactly why I've opened the doors for others to step in.  At this point, you're just being stubborn.--[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 22:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Hm, I thought we used the term just for categorization of images and articles and not in the text itself. --[[User:ShardofTruth|ShardofTruth]] 22:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Categorization is still a form of citation.  "Dialectical Materialism" is a very long word.  Yet, you won't find somebody abbreviating it "dialism" for sake of categorization.  You still need to use factual information.  --[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Do you happen to be a user on any prominent KH sites, anon?  {{The Inexistentsig}} 23:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I don't really see how that's relevant.  This isn't about me - it's about you guys.--[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 23:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think you're missing the point. Categorization is about finding the greatest common divisor, not about exact description or even abbreviations. The premise is to use "fan terms" as little as possible. That's why somebodies is used for everything that is not named specifically by the games or by Nomura etc.. It's broad enough to hold them and is already used in the game (instead of complete being for example) even if the context is debatable. If we use more decriptive terms it would be harder and harder to keep the overview and most characters & enemies would be categorizied up to five times before everyone is satisfied. If you could make three or maybe four terms that can hold all the different beings we collect under somebodies now, that would be really helpful.--[[User:ShardofTruth|ShardofTruth]] 23:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
::"People" is not used to refer to this kind of being, so your friend on KHU is wrong. I'd advise them to actually do any amount of research before mouthing off.
::"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)
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)
:I find it extremely relevant, if my suspisions are correct.  Also, I don't think he's NV, because he would be cursing up a storm if he was.  {{The Inexistentsig}} 01:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

*sigh*  No, I ain't him.  I'm JC from Kingdom Hearts Ultimania.  http://www.kh2.co.uk/kingdom-hearts-ultimania/news/the-application-of-kingdom-hearts-terminology.php  As you can see, I've made no mention whatsoever of any arguments going on anywhere.  And I'd like for it to remain that way.  And honestly, I don't really care about any guys you've had problems with whereever.  ''I'' brought this forward.  Not anyone else.
:You might have brought it up on your own, but you're making the exact same arguments we've heard and countered a thousand times before. Still waiting on ''any'' better alternative you can come up with. "Somebody" is the only option available that's even semi-official, since it was used in the actual games. Not perfect or completely official by any means, but it's all we have to go on unless you have an alternative. {{User:LapisScarab/Sig}}03:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::Lol, it's not semi-official.  It's not even official at all!  Once more, it's just crap that you guys made up.  And why do you so desperately need alternatives?  You DON'T need them.  I mean, just read the reader comments at that guest blog.  At this point, I can't offer more.  But they can.  And from what I can tell...they just find the whole thing silly, unnecessary, and plainly nonfactual.  And no matter which alternatives are provided, I'm 100% you'll just ignore them and move on...right?  Like I said, "Characters" and "Other Characters" works perfectly, compared to "Complete Beings" being far too literal.  All I'm saying is...even as a placeholder, it's still under categorization, which means it's a citation.  And in this case, it's a WRONG citation.  Secondly, the quote that you guys like to flaunt around as being "proof"...once more, please read my argument up there.  That quote is debunked under the argument of sentence structure and context.  But, I really don't wish to argue that point.  I really like to believe that you guys are reasonable enough to just accept that.  As it stands, the pickle is now solely in categorization.  You need something to replace "Somebody".  And I'm saying all you need is BASE categorization.   If they aren't of any particular denotations, then they're just characters...--[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 04:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
:::It's semi-official because it's used in the script, even without the capital "S", and it's the best thing we have right now to tell what a "complete being" is. Now please, by all means, give us an idea on what term shall we use instead of ranting "this term is wrong guis, plz correct it nao while I sit here and have a sip at my hot cup of tea." {{User:17master/Sign}} 05:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::...are you seriously arguing that Axel isn't a character? Or are you just trolling? Because it seems like you're not providing even the semblance of mental effort in your suggestions. Again, we've gone through all the interviews and scripts we could find, and found five or so quotes that use "somebody" to refer to exactly the kind of being we're talking about. If you're so sure there's a better alternative, provide it and prove that it's used in that context.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
:::"Complete being" is never used in the games or anywhere else from what we can tell. That was never an option. "Characters" is ridiculously too general and literally covers every single character, Heartless, Nobodies, everything. "Other Characters" is ''barely'' better, and is still far too generic. The only other term that really applies to this category ''and'' was used in the games is "Other". You're not contributing anything, and clearly haven't read any of the mountains of comments above, since every one of your grievances ahs been responded to. You're just trolling now. Side note, everyone, stop doing the "plz correct it nao" thing. It's in poor taste to treat this guy like he's an idiot, when he seems very articulate. Berate him for being petulant and a poor listener. {{User:LapisScarab/Sig}}05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 
::::Sorry, my bad, it won't happen again. And sorry to you too, anon. {{User:17master/Sign}} 05:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::::...*sig*  Sorry for wasting your time, then.  And please, keep this discussion on here.  It might become relevant later.  Oh!  And one more thing....call me a troll again.  I'd really like that.  --[[Special:Contributions/68.230.252.5|68.230.252.5]] 05:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Okay. You're a troll. {{User:LightRoxas/Sig}} 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::... Was that really necessary? {{User:Chitalian8/Sig}} 01:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::And you're feeding him. The issue is over. {{User:LapisScarab/Sig}}01:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
:The point is, this is not a new problem, it's one we've asked and debated multiple times, and while what we decided to go with might not be terribly satisfying to you (or to me, to be perfectly honest), we have yet to come across a more satisfactory alternative. So unless you have a good suggestion (one that includes a rationalization that hasn't already been considered), there's not much of a point to continuing this discussion. Also, why the devil did you bring it up HERE, of all places? This is not a general discussion talk page, you know.  --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes "Kingdom Hearts Ultimania"... the site that ''consistently steals our content without crediting us or Square Enix''.  Yes, we should ''definitely'' listen to you!  >_<  {{The Inexistentsig}} 20:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

==Well...==
{{Asif|sho=Since the name "Entelechy" seems to have been approved on [[Game talk:Sark#Why is he considered a "somebody"?|this page]], when (if at all) should we change it? Unless, of course, anyone objects to changing the name.}}

:Well, Im still against renaming a category that is still solely based on a term heard in-game, for another term that is still both not official, and not even mentioned in game. The fact that it sounds "fancy" doesnt make it more accurated than what we have.--{{User:Dark-EnigmaXIII/Sig}} 21:29, 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)

: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 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" just would not hold up under serious scrutiny.[[User:Neo Bahamut|Neo Bahamut]] 15:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
@@ 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)
-----------
-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"? ==
@@ Line 151: / Line 145: @@
 #It's a philosophical concept with a long and worthy history.
 #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)
@@ Line 320: / Line 314: @@
 :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)
+::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 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" 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.