User talk:EternalNothingnessXIII

MESSAGE FROM THE KINGDOM: I have gotten a new summer job that will keep me busy and away from the Wiki in every way possible from approximately 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM EST every day for the next few weeks, at the very least. I will still be around in the evenings to socialize and edit the Wiki, but if anyone needs to contact me before then, please leave a message in Where Nothing Gathers, and I will respond ASAP! Thank you!

"The" Keyblade
I think that adding "Keyblade" after the weapon name is superficial, and that the definite article isn't needed. Isn't the simplest, most concise way of wording these sentences be in the manner of "Oathkeeper has ____ as an equipment ability" and "Guardian Soul has ____ as an equipment ability". This makes sense because the Keyblade names are considered proper nouns, so they do not use articles (in the same why, you wouldn't use a person's name and say "the" or "a" before it). Thoughts? 13:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with you. The problem is, it's already so widespread across the Wiki in the form of the weapon articles. I personally prefer saying "Make sure you equip the Ultima Weapon" instead of "Make sure you equip Ultima Weapon," but I, too, do think that the definite article should be dropped, at least in most cases. I am tempted to use the Heartless/Nobody/Unversed/Dream Eater articles to counter your argument, but that is a whole new kettle of worms. - 13:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say there are two instances: weapon names that are entirely a name or proper noun (e.g. Oblivion) and weapon names that consist of an adjective and noun. With the former, it's natural to use without the article because it's like using a person's name ("Oblivion has..." and "John has...). The latter should have a definite article because that's what you'd use in natural speech (e.g. the Ultima Weapon, the Guardian Soul etc.). I'd say we should use whatever sounds more natural in each case, rather than having one consistent rule. 13:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. But now we face the challenge of changing pretty much everything to do with weapons on the Wiki to reflect this. There will probably be some arguments as to what "sounds natural" to someone, as well. - 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, what I can confirm is we cannot be saying the Oblivion, the Oathkeeper, or the Fenrir. Please, none of that. To be honest, it's a minor issue so I don't think it's worth going on a massive spree to change all of them. But it's just those three that are completely wrong.  14:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I completely agree with you. At least those three are an exception to the definite article placement "rule." But look at the Organization XIII weapons. Several of them should be exceptions, too. - 14:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, most probably. 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So I guess it's just a matter of sound appeal when you get right down to it. I'm more than willing to help go through the weapon articles and remove the definite articles where appropriate later today, once my classes are done with. It'll go faster if we split the work. - 14:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Something just sounds wrong about leaving "the" off of Oathkeeper, especially because it's a title, like "Guardian". "The" just sounds more natural to me. also, the fact that pretty much none of the weapons in the series are singular entities -- they're all forms of a weapon, and are often forms shared between wielders. I'm not familiar enough with the rules for definite articles to point to which bylaw it's violating, but it just sounds...wrong. 14:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Which proves ENX's point of "There will probably be some arguments as to what "sounds natural" to someone". Put it down to a vote? 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with both of you. At times, the direct article is not needed. But there are certainly plenty of times where it is needed, too, even if a certain weapon fits the category of "direct article not needed." If this is gonna turn into an all-out community discussion, I request that this conversation be continued in a forum (if it hasn't already) :P - 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday ENX. 22:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Happy birthday friend! :) 00:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

About Updating/Improving Userboxes
Excellent that the template size was expanded after I created a separate page for userboxes :P

I wasn't a part of Project:Music, but I do have a good grasp on when songs play in each KH game.

As for renovating old templates, it's just a matter of consistency, something I try to push for in all areas of the Wiki. I think we could make all the userboxes (save for ones like "This user is male" and "This user's native language is English") look a little better since, compared to the new ones, they're an eyesore to me. We could always have a "userbox archive" of sorts to display past versions of the templates...Here's what I mean: this is the present version of the KH1 clear accomplishment userbox...

And here's a new version made by KeybladeSpyMaster, which I like better...

Basically it's the accomplishments userboxes on the main userbox page that I feel need updating. As far as the weapons userboxes, that was just a model/example description. I'm not saying we have to use it. Something from the in-game descriptions would be just fine. But we shouldn't be implying that a user is a weapon, as we do with the enemy userboxes. I feel like the character/music userboxes made by TNE, as far as updates go, such as Riku's userbox and the "Hikari -PlanitB Remix-" userbox, look just fine. It's the ones where the images are low-quality or the descriptions make no sense that I feel need fixing. - 02:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)