Category talk:Entelechy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Category talk:Entelechy (edit)

Revision as of 14:37, 3 June 2019

34,537 bytes added , 4 years ago

m

Text replacement - "[[w:c:" to "[[wikia:"

Porplemontage

Bureaucrats, Developers, Administrators

16,605

edits

@@ 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 145: / Line 151: @@
 #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.
+#It's used in Digimon to refer to [[wikia: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 200: / Line 206: @@
 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:
+-Roxas: "If I had a heart...would that make me somebody?"  (358/2 Days)
+-Roxas: "If I had a heart, you think I could love somebody?"  (358/2 Days)
+-Larxene: "Rewrite Sora's heart, and you can be somebody, not just the shadow of somebody." (CoM)
+-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 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.