Talk:Possessor

Similar to what I did here, I have print screened yet another scene. This time its for the Thresholder (Final Mix); it can be found here. Again, this is not the greatest image by any means, however, it should suffice until we fine a better image. Opinions?-- Xion 4  ever  04:04, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Its the best we've got so far. Organization 13 22:32, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We use it until we get a render. Unless someone can clean up the image for us and extract the render... 01:50, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Possessor and the Thresholder should have two separate articles
Why are the Possessor and the Thresholder sharing one article? This article make it seem like ALL Possessors are connected to the Thresholder just because one Possessor possessed it. If the Possessor shall share an article with the Thresholder, shouldn't the Gargoyle Knights and the Gargoyle Warriors be included in this article too? Because you know, when you defeat a Gargoyle Knight or a Gargoyle Warrior a Possessor comes flying out of it.

Also, if the Possessor and the Thresholder shares one article, why doesn't the Guard Armor and the Opposite Armor do so too. They have at least a better reason to share one article than this has. The Guard Armor actually transforms into the Opposite Armor while the Possessor and the Thresholder are two different things, just like Terra and Master Xehanort. We don't see them sharing one article. Instead we see the possessed version (Terra-Xehanort) having an article of its own. Now you might say "But that's what we're doing here too". Actully, no, you're not. If this article were equal to the Terra-Xehanort article then Master Xehanort (the possessor of Terra) would have its main article to be fused inside the Terra-Xehanort article. Master Xehanort wouldn't have its own article.

The Possessor and the Thresholder sharing a boss battle is simply not a good enough reason to keep these two in one article. At least not in my opinion. - JTD 11:34, 4 June 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree with JTD's proposal of a split. With the current logic of this article, then the Gargoyle Knight/Warrior would also have to be merged with this page. 13:58, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

There was a similar discussion quite a while ago. Not exactly the same, but following a similar principle.14:11, 4 June 2011 (EDT)


 * I've read that discussion before, and if it hadn't been for that one, I probably wouldn't have started this one.

I can understand why the Shadow Stalker and the Dark Thorn share one article. Once you defeat the Shadow Stalker it transform into Dark Thorn. In other words, it evolved. It got a different shape, it got a different name, but is still the same (same thing goes for the Guard Armor and the Opposite Armor, but that's not point here).

However, with the Possessor and the Thresholder; they're not the same. The Thresholder is a door. The Possessor is a Heartless, and it doesn't exist only one single Possessor, but thousands of them. We've only seen one of them possessing the Thresholder. Some of the others possessed some Gargoyle Knights, some possessed the Gargoyle Warriors and some just flew around and attacked Roxas during Days.

Again, the Thresholder is a door and the Possessor is a Heartless. These two should be separated. - JTD 14:43, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I am in favor of the argument, but not the.... arguments. The Thresholder is a boss fight and the Possessor is an enemy. The Possessor stopped being a direct boss fight when it was introduced in Days, where you actually fight it. This article covers the boss fight well, but doesn't really cover the enemy itself; there is no strategy section for the Days Possessor. It is by this reasoning that I believe the articles should be separate. Give the Possessor its own page, because it certainly could use one. If not, then we should, as was stated above, merge the Gargoyle Night and Warrior with this article, because they are essentially the same thing as the Thresholder, albeit not having to fight the Possessor directly when you encounter the Night/Warrior.
 * On an unrelated note, Christ I was immature back in the day. Obnoxious, too. How did you guys put up with me? -- 15:02, 4 June 2011 (EDT)