User talk:TheSilentHero

Mirage Arena 2018
are we ready for it this year? Kunoichi101 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems the Union Cup is finished (at least on this wiki), so I suppose we could start the Mirage Arena again. 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * so we need some nominations Kunoichi101 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * things are getting slow at the Mirage arena. we got only two nominations after the time limit Kunoichi101 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll extend the time limit to this Friday, and try to come up with a couple fights myself. 17:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * can you do today's battle? thnx u Kunoichi101 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot. I've set the battle until the 16th. 18:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Note
Nice work on the Castle Oblivion and Destiny Islands pages for Chain of Memories. However I did notice that you did not put any the information down for Reverse/Rebirth in regards to the Cards that Riku collects, namely Zexion in Destiny Islands and Lexaeus in the Castle Oblivion Hallways. Perhaps finding a way to list them as well as the enemy cards that Riku gains in most of the levels would be a good solution, such as making a section exclusive for Riku to avoid any confusion with the Cards collected in Sora's game -Adv193 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I still need to work on that. I'm thinking of adding Riku's deck for each world, since I don't think we have them listed anywhere yet. 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just remember regarding Riku's deck, there are some differences between CoM and Re:CoM, particularly where some of the Item Cards and the Darkball Enemy Card is concerned. Probably just do the basic way and use the simple link tags for any version exclusives. -Adv193 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To help you with Riku's Deck for Hollow Bastion, he uses a Potion card that has a number 9, but only in the original Chain of Memories. Just remember except for Castle Oblivion, the worlds where the Item Cards are part of his Deck are different between the original and remake versions of the game. -Adv193 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and remember the Item Card page can be used to help you with this process since I updated it long ago when I using both the original CoM and the remake during a giant playthrough. -Adv193 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the original CoM game for the decks, and I'm using the Ultimania for the ReCoM decks, so I think I should have all the correct information. But if you see anything that isn't right, be sure to tell me, or change it yourself. And it seems some decks are completely different between versions, so I'll have to tab those instead of using the game tags. 18:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am taking care of the handling Darkball card, and the values of the other item cards right now for you. Also to help me identify the Potion Card for Hallow Bastion in CoM without need to use my Game copy, I simply used a Youtube video from World of Longplays.-Adv193 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

On a different note for Sora's Story, when Reverse/Rebirth is completed and the new cards can be collected in Castle Oblivion, they generally are always collected in a pre-arranged order, it always goes from Ultima Weapon, Lexaeus, and then Ansem (CoM only) in that particular order. -Adv193 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll add that to the table. 19:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Lastly I should note that the Room of Rewards was known as the Hidden Chamber in CoM. If you choose to, it can also be noted as a reference note, but either way is fine. -Adv193 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Another thing I have just been made aware of and confirmed personally is for the HD release only, the Riku Enemy Card has been renamed as the Riku Replica card. -Adv193 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was the one who added that to the page. As for the Room of Rewards, I don't think it's necessary to use both names. I think people get which room is meant. 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also I made sure to note the original CoM on the Enemy Card page for the Riku Card (which I verified first). Do you think it should be left like that for the treasures on the Castle Oblivion page or updated? -Adv193 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it to the most recent name. I just checked the GBA game, and the Maleficent card is named "Dragon Maleficent" there, but it's called "Maleficent" on the page. Can you check the other versions to see what it's called there? 18:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All versions of Re:Chain of Memories are confirmed as "Dragon Maleficent". -Adv193 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Also on the same note Jafar's card was called Jafar-Genie. Makes sense since these cards represent Jafar and Maleficent's transformed states. -Adv193 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, if you decide to in the future, you could eventually work towards making a Map Card section for Reverse/Rebirth, only on the grounds that not all the Map Cards are available in Riku's game and that a card like Mingling Worlds is collected much earlier in Riku's game when compared to Sora's. That should be the only main aspect of Riku's game that is left. -Adv193 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking those. Jafar's card is just called "Jafar" in the GBA version, though. For the Riku Map Cards, I don't think I've seen a table for it in the Ultimania, but I could check again. If there isn't, there isn't much information I can put on the pages. 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably not add the percentage rates and just add which map cards can appear is the next best thing. At least with the ReCoM-exclusive map cards there really is no difference between Riku and Sora since they both can use them. The only thing to worry about is which cards appear in which worlds. -Adv193 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Question
The only issue with the KH3 template right now is the Buzz Lightyear link which is a redirect due to previous attempt of adding Buzz and Woody to KHII. Would it be better to delete it, or just convert it to a regular page with some material written as a stopgap solution until the game comes out or just leave it alone? -Adv193 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to leave it alone for now. 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Happy birthday, TheSilentHero! :D I hope you're having a wonderful day in celebration of your birth.-- 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday, TSH! 21:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 22:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Image sizes
I tried uploading a new, bigger image of Kairi from KH, but the size of the image still appears the same, even though the dimensions claim to be bigger. SuperGamecube (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you tried refreshing the page? 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lauriam/Marluxia
I don't see the issue with simply mentioning that Lauriam could be the Somebody of Marluxia. Even before my edits, there was a "See also" link to each other's articles. Now there's nothing. I thought it would be a nice idea to simply elaborate on the extremely vague connection there.

This is what I hate about wikis with zero tolerance "no speculation" policies. While it is technically speculation, not allowing the possible Marluxia-Lauriam connection to be mentioned is extremism. We're not claiming it's a fact. Do you think it's just a big coincidence that a pink-haired man with an anagram of Marluxia's name (minus an x, of course) exists? Soroxas (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say we're not claiming it's a fact, but we're supposed to list facts, and only facts. This is not a place for speculation. And yes, it's almost certain that Lauriam is Marluxia's original self, but we can't say for sure until the game(s) or Nomura actually confirm it. 18:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The "This is not a place for speculation" rule only exists because people like you with this mindset are often in positions of power on wikis. If the majority of people agree, wikis can have speculation, and there are many out there that do. My opinion is that speculation can be great and healthy at times, especially in situations like this when something is so blatantly obviously implied. In such cases where something is so blatantly obviously implied, I don't see why we can't make some exceptions here and there. I don't see why we have to adopt an "all-or-nothing" approach to this situation. I would prefer it if this wiki could relax its rules on speculation just a tad bit. Soroxas (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, the real cause of this rule is that the wiki tries to be as official as possible. Unlike most websites and other wiki communities, the Kingdom Hearts Wiki's best interest is in presenting the most current and official take on the Kingdom Hearts series. That's been defined as either being discussed by the developers/series director, or being in the actual game itself. In years past (before I was even around here), the wiki did have more speculation, but when you allow a little speculation, it opens the door to more speculation in more places, and the exact limit on how much you can speculate or how implausible the claims can be begins to disappear. You can ask the community and see for yourself; most of the community here agrees with this policy.


 * Yes, it's much more than a coincidence. No, it's not likely that Marluxia and Lauriam aren't related, as you say. But our role in the community, what we try to do, is state all the facts as they are present today, not as we suspect they will be tomorrow. Yeah, that means ignoring, at least in mainspace content, very obvious but otherwise unconfirmed connections and information. Consider this: Wikipedia would never allow content that may be assumptions not based in fact. They have tons of editors that are cycling through the entire site, ensuring each statement is sourced, official, and true, and removing that which may be controversial or simply assumption. They strive to be an encyclopedia that presents the facts of the world as they exist today, regardless of possible connections between ideas and their own personal assumptions or beliefs. That's what we try to do here. 18:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This philosophy ("if we add even a little speculation which is based on more blatantly obvious stuff, then speculation based on wild theories will run rampant") implies distrust of the community - that we can't handle things on a case-by-case basis. That's why speculative debates exist. In any case, I'm not going to push the Marluxia issue further. If the consensus decides against any and all speculation, then I can't change that, although I am very disappointed. All I can hope is that it's confirmed in KH3 or something. Soroxas (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "because people like you with this mindset are often in positions of power on wikis."
 * Which makes sense, since such rules encourage high-quality edits, reliable sourcing that makes the wiki useful to readers instead of "isn't it obvious", and prevents citogenesis (which run rampant in fandoms without such hardline rules -- see TVtropes articles on a given fandom for examples of fan myths that have spread around a fandom).
 * "implies distrust of the community"
 * It implies pattern recognition. Each time the wiki has relaxed its rules on speculation, it gets abused, and then when the staff tried to police the abuse, fights started from said users who complained "you allow some speculation, why is mine not okay?!" Like on all moderated sites (reddit, forums, etc.), the need for some black-and-white rules is pretty noncontroversial. For example -- theories that Unknown BbS was Saix, that the name was Master Erauqxs, that DiZ was the leader of the Organization, and so on. The entire purpose of a wiki is to be a resource for fans to find the confirmed info, not a place to promote one's pet theories. I have myself had pet theories scrubbed from the wiki because they were improperly sourced, and found to be unsupportable.
 * "That's why speculative debates exist." -- and they are fair game in the userspace, or on talk pages, or on forums. Which we have, and which editors are encouraged to use. But if it's put on the mainspace articles, it is by definition portraying itself as being spoken with the authority of the encyclopedia. 21:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)