Talk:Larxene

A few things on this article:


 * 1) Vexen had originally conspired with Marluxia and Larxene, though he was acting as a spy for Zexion and the Org. Marluxia refers to Vexen as a traitor even.
 * 2) There is no reason to remove the details about Sora being a part in Marluxia's plot - they give context for the unusual nature of Marluxia's order to Vexen.
 * 3) The concern over Vexen was that he was going to tell Sora about "the other side" and Roxas - this was done for the Organization's purposes.

So, why the reverting of these accurate statements? All the edits seem to do is subtract detail. Scottch 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see this talk page before continuing to revert without comment. Scottch 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) His first appearance implies no such thing, simply that he's a recluse scientist who decided to lend his hand to test Riku Replica. None of his other appearances state such a thing either. "Traitor" is a reference to the fact that Vexen went against Marluxia's and thus Organization XIII's will, not because of some betrayal to the conspiracy.
 * 2) Look at the sentence. "They decide to order him to kill Sora by threatening to tell "the Superior" of the failure of the Riku Replica, even Sora's death that would ruin their plans to use him against the Organization's head members." It makes no sense, and it's not unusual with the fact that they didn't expect Vexen to succeed.
 * Yes, the inital concern was over Roxas' existence. But Vexen died revealing Marluxia's plan. Read the script. Also, please prove that it was for the Organization's purposes. Interrobang 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Marluxia wouldn't consider him a traitor to the Organization because he wouldn't join Marluxia in betraying the organization. That's circular - the "traitor" remark is certainly as a traitor to Marluzia, not the Organization. The second sentence is missing a word and I'll fix that, but the point isn't that their orders to Vexen made sense - the point of it being against their real ends to eliminate Sora is that it caused Vexen confusion - just a contextual detail. It's nothing big, but there's no reason to leave it out either. As for Vexen's last words - it should be obvious it was for the Organization, because it was to reveal the traitors. I'll combine the wordings to reduce the confusion. Scottch 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Weapon
What are everyone's thoughts on what Larxene's weapon is?

It's called knives officially I believe... as far as I know the "kunai" reference is just a comparison to kunai made by fans. Much like calling Xemnas' blades "lightsabers" or Zexion's weapon a dictionary. It seems like we should just go with what's official... and mention that they are often called kunai by fans? How does that sound?  Scott ch  04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well many call it a Kunai due to its design. Plus the way Larxene uses them is identical to ninja using the kunai as a throwing weapon. pic of Kunai Fractyl
 * It may "officially" knives, but if we did everything the "official way" many articles would come into question, the fact is that her weapons are 100% kunai, they are between her fingers and thrown, knives are generally held one-at-a-time, by hand and may be thrown.Therequiembellishere 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we changing it or not?Therequiembellishere 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean "many articles would come into question"? How could any articles about fictional people come into question by using the people who created them as the official word?  I'm not seeing anything other than what some fans think her weapons look like to support this, and that's not really enough to contradict the people who designed her as a character.  Besides, she's not the only character with an odd weapon name.  Does this look like Saïx's weapon to you?  Probably not, but it's still a claymore, and it wouldn't make it smart to change his weapon to "club" or something just because it makes more sense to me.   Scott  ch  12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yes. Therequiembellishere 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)