Talk:Roxas

Roxas Dual Wielding (Xion's Keyblade Not Ventus's)
Hey how everybody doin!

Wrong place for this, talk pages are for discussion of the article only. --Evnyofdeath 22:38, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, since it was over the content included in the article, 'tis fine. -- 20:34, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Tha tscreenshot of Roxas at the Dark Merdian isn't tah tsupposed to be Xemnas? I mean the yellow eye kinda says it.--NejiHyugaRocks 18:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's Roxas. Xemnas was sitting on the rock. Glorious  CHAOS!  18:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the trivia section.
Why do you guys keep bringing up the promotional artwork of Roxas where he apparently looks "older"? I don't see anything to suggest that he is in anyway older looking or anything. It's just the way he is drawn and the angle that he is at, and I've asked other people who said they don't see any difference either. He doesn't look any different so why do you guys keep adding it?
 * Because it's blinking obvious that he looks older. Ventus is right there in the same artwork - this Roxas has a more pronounced chin, a more muscular chest, a longer neck, a larger adam's apple - everything to suggest he is Axel's age. Glorious  CHAOS!  22:32, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. He doesn't look any older. It's the way he is drawn. I am an artist myself, and I know if you draw something at a certain angle, then the subject will look different than it would at another angle. His chin looks more pronounced? No, it simply looks like he's tilt his head up and to the side slightly, as is obviously meant to be the case. Those aren't muscles, those are his collar bones. Necks look long depending on the way you look at them. All that you've given me is stuff cannot irrefutably be given as evidence that Roxas looks older than he actually is.
 * Ventus's chin slopes back - Roxas's juts forward.
 * His hand looks to fill the entire guard of the Kingdom Key, when it usually leaves a lot of empty space
 * He has a muscle jutting out in his neck, and it is noticeably longer compared to how it looks in other images (ex: :File:KH Days trio.jpg)
 * His hair juts back instead of forward, and follows his neck all the way down to his shoulders, rather than projecting.
 * Yes, those are his collarbones, but his actual chest is more prounced - again, compare it to the trio image. You usually can't even see his collarbone, because he has a smooth chest.
 * This is a very rough approximation, but the length of his Keyblade, it looks like it only compares from the top of his head to midway down his chest. In his other images, it goes down to about his waist.
 * Maybe he's just drawn using elements from the other Organization members in that image, but he just doesn't look like the young little shorty he usually does. But it just doesn't look like him. Glorious  CHAOS!  13:24, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean he's supposed to look older, it's a just coincidence if he does. It's nothing worth noting, and that's what I'm trying to get across. Obviously Tetsuya Nomura tried to draw Roxas different to distinguish him from Ventus, seeing as at the time everyone was still convinced that Ventus was Roxas.
 * That's just a guess. The fact is, it's a significant departure from Roxas's normal character design, and whether it's a coincidence or deliberate, it's still notable. -- Neumannz ,  The Dark Falcon  19:54, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Nomura even had to specifically state that Ventus was not Roxas in an interview before and after this artwork was released.
 * So if he's drawing him different to distinguish him from Ventus, who he is essentially a doppelganger of...doesn't that mean he's drawn differently than normal? Glorious  CHAOS!  20:22, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't make him older, just different.

Yeah, it makes him look older, but this looks like a case of bad artwork more than anything else. I don't really think an artistic screw up is all that important, but then again we did mention that typo on Lea's page.21:52, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is just a case of bad artwork, then I don't understand even more why it's even important to mention it. Especially since there are probably better trivia to put in than that artwork.
 * Arg.


 * 1) It's a distinctly different design that was used as a prominent piece of advertising when these three games were announced.
 * 2) Trivia is NEVER desired. There is no such thing as "better trivia to put in." Everything there should be necessary, and this is. Glorious  CHAOS!  23:35, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, it is a promotional piece of work that has nothing to do with the games other than being promotional. Why don't you put cover art for Kingdom Hearts II on display and say, hey the Ultima Weapon keychain from the first game is featured, that must mean it is important. And you know what, I'm done with this. If you want to put stuff up that doesn't have any IMPORTANT meaning, then go right the hell ahead. I'm wasting my time with this.
 * We, ah, do have coverage on that kind of stuff, actually. And, huh, being the only public piece of promotion at the first announcement of this three-game set seems pretty relevant to me. Glorious  CHAOS!  05:44, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say. And you completely missed my sarcasm.
 * Didn't miss it, you just picked an example that fails as sarcasm. Glorious  CHAOS!  13:46, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't really care that much about that picture, but I don't see what the point of putting that link to the puzzle mechanic from KHII Final Mix was. I mean, it's a gameplay mechanic, not an actual piece of the story. The pictures don't have any effect on the story, so I don't see how putting up that link helps your argument for the supposedly older Roxas picture. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that?
 * ...really? You asked why "we don't have coverage of the cover arts", and I link you to where we do? Pretty spastic you are, young padawan. 15:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Appeared In KH1 and Final Mix
TECHNICALLY, Roxas appeared in Kingdom Hearts 1 and Kingdom Hearts Final Mix during the secret episode. So how come it is not shown on his page.

That can't be true than how did Roxas,Xion & Axel are in BBS?

Anagrams
Is it worth metioning that Roxas is an anagram of Sora, with the trademake X of the Orginisation added in. He seems to be the only member like that and I think its purposeful, although I am not sure if Xemnas or who ever picked his name that he was Sora's nobody.
 * ...wow. Just...wow. maggosh 22:04, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:05, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, quite new to the series... What about Xion, she is also sora's nobody kind of and yet she is not an anagram. I understand the mistake. Sorry about that one, I didnt know about the other peoples names, I feel a bit stupid now... Sorry

Xion is an imperfect Replica of Roxas made from memories of Sora. Xion is an anagram of "No. i" where "i" is the imaginary number, "i". 19:55, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that one up for me :D

Speculation?
Eh, I guess it would make sense for it to be Ansem/DiZ, considering what we know about how Roxas feels about him. -- 04:25, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Just because he says "he" doesn't necessarily mean that he's not talking about the Keyblade. I know that most languages besides English use gender-specific articles on all nouns, and that would likely include the Keyblade if Japanese does that as well.
 * It doesn't, at least not in that way. And nothing ever indicates that the Keyblade "chose" Sora. It's unlikely to be Ansem, since he was a blatant racist, so Roxas would know exactly why Ansem picked Sora, and Roxas hated Ansem anyway. It's probably Axel, though - the Organization specifically state that the episode is due to Axel's sacrifice reawakening Roxas within Sora's heart. It's probably due to Axel sacrificing himself for Sora, rather than going forward with his plan to retrieve Roxas out of Sora. 23:14, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Its just a mistranslation in the game.--The Dark Master 23:23, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

@The Dark Master: How do we know? If you read my bubble up there ^^ you'd know that I was asking if there was a source. @Kryten: Ansem could have not wanted Roxas to defeat Xemnas because he doesn't think Roxas's heart is strong enough, same as Xion did. I do see that it might not mean Ansem, since it could be Axel as well. And I see your point. what scene specifically did orgxiii talk about that? 23:57, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the "Where Nothing Gathers" scene after the Roxas battle. I think it was only in KHIIFM. 00:28, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. So are we going with Roxas referring to Axel then? 23:40, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

About Roxas' original name
For those editing Roxas's Infobox, do remember that Xemnas used Sora's name to rename the Nobody, not Ventus's. So as to keep the fact that Xemnas named that "Ventus" that way, I edited the Infobox with the Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days and II Final Mix factual info. And to anyone who delete that bit of true info (which no way the admins I respect will do) are the ones who never played KH358/2 Days before and see the near ending of the opening. Smackdown599 14:33, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Replica Data and Stats
I don't believe these belong here, as they are on the gameplay page. I tried deleting them and got reverted, are they supposed to be here?--Burgundy 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The infobox situation is still complicated. At least for now, assume that it's ok that they're there. -- 01:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk with Axel
The scene on Twilight Town after Roxas fought Sora, it felt like a flashback and Axel's sacrifice awakened Roxas. It felt like that was when they had that talk. I want to discuss this before putting it in.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a flashback, it's happening right then and there. Ultima Spark   (talk)  Lofty Fantasy KH3D.png 17:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Throwing the Oblivion to Riku
Was it ever explained explicitly? I heard from somewhere it was Xion that made him do it but I was never able to confirm it.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so, no.-- 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nomura states that Xion made him do it in one of the Ultimania. I don't remember which one, though. 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Geez, we need start sourcing these things on the spot. Trying to find the Ultimania interviews are a pain. But I think I found the on you were referring to. It's this one, right? Nomura-sensei is asked, "When Roxas tries to do what Xion has asked of him, Riku hears Xion's voice asking him to stop Roxas. Why?"

The answer he gives is: "First he have to look at things in order. First, the reason why Roxas throws a Keyblade to Riku, and we then see a vision of Xion, is that there is a small remaining part of Xion in Roxas that wants to stop him, and makes him take those actions. The name of the Keyblade that is given to Riku suggests that it has something to do with Xion. Xion wants Roxas to set Kingdom Hearts free, but doesn't want him to face Xemnas right now. She sees that he would most likely lose. So she begs Riku to stop him."-- 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cognitive Functions
Can we say having Ventus's heart enabled him to feel real emotions, which helped improve his cognitive functions?Cloudtheavenger (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you basing that off of conjecture?-- 23:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In 358/2 Days, Roxas admitted he was basically a zombie the first 7 days, did he not?Cloudtheavenger (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But how do you know it was Ventus's heart that made him feel emotions after those 7 days? 13:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cloudtheavenger, you're basing this off your own conjecture, which I know you habit of doing. By the way, if you're going bring this to the talk page first, you shouldn't add information to the article first.-- 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't put Ventus's heart making him feel emotions into the article. I put Roxas was a shell in the literal sense because he was basically a zombie because he had no memories beforehand, which was elaborated in the manga, which I was wondering why it was deleted.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I felt that was out of place. You put it in his Kingdom Hearts section, right? Shouldn't it be more appropriate to put in Days section? Also, where in the manga was this elaborated on? The manga is not canon to the series, and it's pretty silly, so I, for one, don't read it.-- 23:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, did not know that. But that information was regarding the circumstances of his creation, which took place during Kingdom Hearts, which is why I put it there.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Was there anywhere in the canon games that explains why Roxas was a zombie or shell then? The manga and games are quite similar.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We sometimes put information from the manga on pages in an "Other appearances" section, if they are noteworthy or very different from what happens in the game. However, I don't think this is noteworthy enough to be put on the page. 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Roxas was born with his essence all tangled up with Sora and Kairi, so it's probably just that it took a while (or until Sora got his shape back) for memories to start flowing his way. Roxas keeps getting knocked out later in the game whenever memories are drained away from him, so it's likely that he just took time to "boot up". 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Variations
Should Shadow Roxas be added? 15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rex Ronald Rilander (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Emotions
"Unlike other Nobodies, Roxas possesses real emotions, due to his possession of Ventus's heart that stayed with him once he and Sora were separated during Roxas's creation."
 * The way it's worded really makes it sound like Nobodies are absolutely incapable of emotion, which KH3D debunked. So, that anon that kept changing the article a few days ago really had a point, but just one. Is there no way to reword it to reflect the KH3D reveal? 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He may have had a point, but he was going about it all wrong. (Claiming that the Ultimania was non-canon? What a joke.) Yeah, that first line is more than a little outdated. Not sure how it should be (re)worded though. Rex Ronald Rilander (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it just need to be tweaked a little. How about this: "Due to his possession of Ventus's heart that stayed with him once he and Sora were separated during Roxas's creation, Roxas was born with the capability to feel real emotions."? What did KH3D say, exactly, about Nobodies feeling emotions again, though?-- 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Luckily I had my 3DS with KH3D in it when I read your post.
 * Xemnas: "A heart is never lost for good.", "Once born, the heart can also be nurtured. Our experiments creating Heartless were attempts to control the mind, and convince it to renounce its sense of self. But understand, one can banish the heart from the body, but the body will try to replace it the first chance it gets, for as many times as it takes. And so I knew, even after we were divided into Heartless and Nobodies, it was just a temporary seperation.".
 * Data-Ansem the Wise: "The heart has always been quick to grow. Each exposure to light, to the natural world, to other people, shapes this most malleable part inside of us. Nobodies are not different from us in that manner.".
 * Also, maybe go with something like "Due to having Ventus's heart inside of him when he was born, Roxas possessed the inate ability to feel emotions." or something. Use "inate" though, I think that'd help. Rex Ronald Rilander (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely the point is using innate, and possibly "unique". The question Nomura was answering was why Roxas felt emotions from the beginning, and had a unique personality, and didn't develop mannerisms based on his original self over time like the other Nobodies. The anon was misunderstanding that distinction, and yeah, the section can be reworded to be clearer about what it's trying to communicate:


 * Roxas started off with strong, non-Sora-based (and non-Xehanort-based!) emotions from his creation. This is due to possessing Ventus's heart.
 * Nobodies recover their emotions over time anyway. This is due to regrowing a heart via connections with others (basically, everything in the KH universe is a ). 15:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, let's go with what Rex Ronald Rilander proposed: "Due to having Ventus's heart inside of him when he was born, Roxas possessed the innate ability to feel emotions." If there's no objections, I'll add it to the page. :) We should also add a sentence that explains the fact that due to Ventus's heart being born inside and gives him the capability is what separates from other Nobodies, who eventually grow their own hearts over time, for clarification's sake?-- 20:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity and amusement, was using my full name really nescessary? Rex Ronald Rilander (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol! XD I'm being formal, so it's only proper I address with your username. I don't know you very well personally, so it felt inappropriate to address you by a nickname.
 * In any case, I made the change. I don't really like I worded the last part of the sentence, though. :(-- 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can my first name really be considered a nickname? {He said, more talking to himself than anything.}
 * Yeah, it doesn't sit quite right with me either. I would have changed it, if I had something better to change it to. Rex Ronald Rilander (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'll have another go at the sentence when I think of something better.-- 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here. Don't you just hate it when there's something on the tip of your tongue but you just can't put your finger on it? Rex Ronald Rilander (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, yep. Hmm, KrytenKoro tweaked it a bit, but it's still the same. I do feel like there is better way to write it, but I don't have any ideas at the moment. ^_^; I need some time to think about it, and see if I can make it better.-- 20:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody
Is he still a Nobody after the events of KH3? - JTD95 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, his Heart resides in a Replica, and Replicas are special forms of Nobodies. As It is, his existence came about as a Nobody, and despite growing a Heart of his own, Roxas has still always been considered as such. (Levi657 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC))
 * The game say that now Vexen can create Replicas to replicate humans, or to be more correct "they will no more replicate". The game itself say now the Replicas are humans. So all the replicas pre-KH3 are Nobodies, but the replicas of KH3 are humans--93.150.192.195 17:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Promotional Artwork - Older Roxas?
This isn't the first time this conversation got brought up between two users or more (e.g. The picture in the trivia section"), so let's settled this once and for all civilly instead of edit warring. User 71.222.103.177 and KrytenKoro (and maybe a couple more users) have been having this edit war about the promotional artwork where Roxas depicted looking older from how Nomura-sensei typically draws him. Take a look at the old debate and the points addressed. I agree that Roxas does look older, having more mature features as listed in the old debate. And aside from that, the placement of where that info belongs to was brought up, and I think it should belong in the Trivia section instead in the main body of the article.-- 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Ninja on this one. It's not related to any of the "meat" of the article, it's not ultimately related to the games. His actual appearance drawn before and after is not at all in line with this one, so it doesn't make sense to pretend it was some sort of "early concept art" or anything. Just a random drawing, Nomura choosing to make him out older than usual for no apparent reason. At best, it belongs in Trivia. 18:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading the previous discussion and the comments of the current users involved, both sides make good points. I'm no artist, but whether Roxas looks older or not, whether it was unintentional or intentional on Nomura-sensei's part, is unknown, and as an encyclopedia, we need to remain objective as possible. We need to revisit the topic if the artwork itself is noteworthy to be mentioned at all?-- 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This really is all anyone against the inclusion of it is saying. It doesn't work because there's nowhere in any related media suggesting it was ever a thing and I don't understand why it's been a bigger issue than it needs to be. Sometimes a person is drawn off model or different then usual, it doesn't mean it's necessarily something meaningful. The reason I proposed, though, to make it a Trivia entry is because it best fits there. And I'm perfectly willing to just let it stay there, because some people really like the information for reasons I don't understand. To me, as an artist myself, it really does seem like a non-issue, but clearly plenty of people think otherwise. When I went to delete it the first time, I legitimately didn't realize that it was a bigger issue and that people were deleting and then re-adding it, so I didn't mean to start an edit war or add into one. It was only when I actually got a message from the person pretty much saying "no, you're wrong" that I got irritable. However, I will stand by that it doesn't belong in the main body of the article and if it stays there, that's good enough for me.---71.222.103.177 18:46 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this really is a non-issue and has no place on this wiki. Whether Roxas looks older or not in that picture is not an objective matter, it’s a subjective one. Nomura does not have one defiended art-style. Roxas on the cover of KH2 looks drastically different from how Roxas appears on the cover of 358/2 Days. We aren’t mentioning Xehanort’s face looking warped on the cover of 2.5 because it’s a stylistic choice. Same with Roxas. - JTD95 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The way Roxas looks in the image isn't that different from how he usually looks to warrant a mention on the page. I think we should just move the image to the gallery. 19:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The trivia should be removed and the image goes to Roxas's Gallery, if it isn't there already.-- 19:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not trivia because it's covering his appearance in officially published material. The design section is the correct location for that. The design section is not required to focus solely on the games, or the "canon depiction". It's meant for the topic overall, which does include information about the out-universe design process, marketing decisions, and depictions in non-game material. We are not wikipedia. "Notability" is not a requirement, citability and accuracy are.
 * This issue isn't about "liking" or "not liking" information, this is about following wiki policy-- and it's inappropriate behavior to frame a discussion about article content in that manner in the first place. If you are framing a discussion based on what somebody "wants" rather than what policies and consensus dictate, you have lost the plot. In addition, if you don't want to start an edit war, don't push your edits after they've been reverted, unless you've achieved policy-coherent consensus.
 * Neither the discussion nor the article ever claimed there was some deeper significance to the distinction, and it's not required for there to be any deeper significance in order to be in the article in the first place. All that's necessary is that it be accurate, demonstrable, and a published part of the franchise -- and it is: Roxas is drawn differently from Ventus, which is unusual, in a major piece of artwork used to publicize three different games. It does not matter how he was depicted in other games -- what matters is that in this artwork he is noticeably off-model. As a reminder, Kingdom Hearts The Story So Far includes coverage of a smudge, much more clearly accidental than the drawing of an entire, control-arted character.
 * Xehanort on 2.5 cover, or Goofy-Riku and Donald-Kairi in KHUX, are absolutely fair game to be covered on the wiki, specifically in design sections, as Key Arts are official parts of the franchise (and for what it's worth, have frequently appeared within the games themselves). The design and origin sections are both ones in which we cover the topics from an out of universe viewpoint, which means including information that would not be part of the "inner truth" within the setting.
 * As a reminder to all the recurring editors involved: long-standing wiki-policy is that information should not be placed in trivia unless absolutely necessary. If a relevant section on the article can be found, the info must be placed there. Information about the design of a character in a piece of official material falls under the Design header, ergo it is a violation of policy to move the material to the Trivia section -- as I've explained several times, including directly to the IP. Policy is also that in the event of an edit war, the article should be reverted to its pre-edit war state, and that consensus should be derived based on wiki policies, not on personal preferences. It's pretty troubling that this issue has even gotten to this point, as there are a multitude of wiki policies that should have been followed preventing this, and that the previous consensus discussed earlier in the article, with clear references to wiki policy by trusted users, appears to have been wholly ignored. 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No policy, no matter what how old it is or how significant it may have once been, should trump the consensus reached by the community in the present day. The Kingdom Hearts Wiki is written and run by its editors and contributors, not its policies and procedures.
 * Having said that, you've cited many different policies in your argument, and have explicitly called the staff out for failing to uphold them in favor of a "non-consensus-demonstrated version" of the page. So I'll bite. Your post (including your previous post, which you significantly altered and removed content from, in violation of site policies) boils down to at least four matters of policy: what qualifies as trivia, what the "Appearance" section of a character article's page covers, whether there is a policy on notability, and what the Kingdom Hearts Wiki's scope covers. I throw in here my once-a-year-or-more plug that, because many of our policies are not written down somewhere easily-findable, we ought to do something to make them more easily referenceable so that new editors can become familiar with them, rather than belittle them when they make repeated edits that violate a heretofore unfindable policy.
 * What qualifies as trivia?: Only the Manual of Style defines trivia. It is defined as "information that is not significant or vital to either the game or gameplay, does not fit in other places of the article, and is of interest to note. Examples include seemingly unintentional recurrences, real-world references, or seemingly unintentional but marked similarities between two subjects. Trivia must be true and verified; neither speculation nor opinion-based conjectures are trivia." It's also of interest, in my search today through the wiki archives (for which I'm now very dusty, thank you), that you once defined trivia as "notable oddities and uniqueness, as well as purposeful references". Whether this artwork counts as trivia is up for debate: it is not vital or significant to either the game or gameplay, and it is odd and unique. But it could potentially fit in another place in the article, namely, the "Appearance section.
 * What does the "Appearance" section cover?: Again, we refer to the Manual of Style, which states: "Explain the character's physical appearance". Pretty straight forward. This would be considered describing Roxas's physical appearance in a single piece of artwork.
 * What is the policy on notability?: Fact is, we don't have one. However, several previous discussions cite notability as a limit for coverage, including that earlier quote of yours. Fact is, though there is no official policy that limits the wiki to notability, we do in fact limit the wiki's coverage and content to notable information. I should point out that comparing the significance of a piece of art to the significance of enemy articles (the latter of which are prescribed, per the Manual of Style) is a false equivalency. That's like saying that because Sora has an article, so, too, should Sora's raft from the first game. Of note, the Manual of Style uses the terms "minor" and "insignificant" to identify items that should not have their own page. Additionally, you employ the same concept of notability in determining whether content should allow to remain on a page, as seen here. So clearly, while there's no explicit rule about notability or significance to determine coverage, the concept of such a limit is certainly employed throughout the wiki (see multiple discussions seen here)
 * What is the scope or coverage of the wiki?: The About page states that we "document all things related to Kingdom Hearts, from elements of storyline to gameplay." TheFifteenthMember once said we are the "most comprehensive database and [we aim] to document almost everything Kingdom Hearts" the last time we officially considered our coverage. I suggested, as a result of your own feedback to updates to the Manual of Style in 2017, that we should have a discussion on "how broad we want our coverage on the wiki to be and come to a consensus on that", but we never did. Still something we ought to consider. While it certainly seems like we have a huge breadth and depth to what we cover, it's clear that there are limits on what information warrants a place on the wiki and what information does not, no matter if all of it is official or not. Previously mentioned as a limit is the concept of notability. Another limit pertinent to this discussion is the one found in the Manual of Style for Character pages, where it states that "Coverage in an article should focus on appearance in the Kingdom Hearts series." I frankly doubt that a particular artwork, no matter how official, counts as being an appearance in the Kingdom Hearts series in the spirit of this sentence.
 * None of the other things you cite, like policies on edit-war procedures, viewpoints to be taken in Appearance and Origin sections, or the procedure for justifying trivia, are to be found on the Kingdom Hearts Wiki. I checked. Frankly, for all I know, you're pulling them out of your butt, but I'm sure they were part of a discussion at some point sometime ago. Again, I push my belief that we should have such policies and procedures more easily findable rather than in the memory of whoever was there at the time and is still here today, a group that is getting increasingly small. In any case, you know what is in the policies, though, aside from the ones I already cited? This: "Should exceptions occur [to the Manual of Style], these should be discussed in the article's talk page." In other words, even if your points were in the Manual of Style or some other agreed-upon consensus, the process of discussing them on the article's talk page and reaching a consensus as a community has been carried out. With the exception of your post, the decision was reached with unanimous consent. I think we've upheld the most important policies of allowing the community's voice to determine what and how a topic should be covered on this site, how this site is to be run. 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from the points that KSM addressed, which I agree with, Kryten, you need to drop the attitude. It's true that while you're the user on the wiki with the most seniority aside from Neumannz, you have a very long history of resorting to insults and being hypocritical in your arguments whenever something doesn't go your way. Despite being a long-time editor here, you constantly engage in heated debates instead of defusing the situation and display disrespectful behavior towards others. Telling someone "okay, well with all due respect, your opinion is wrong" is not appropriate since we advocate to keep things civil and professional, and does not give an impression that you open to dialogue but rather forcing your own rules onto the community. Using shaming tactics to guilt the editors for not living up to your expectations and ideas of the rules are like instead of what they actually are is insulting. I advise you to watch your tone and understand that policies/rules change over time, and that is something we need to decide as a community. I agree that we should revise our MoS and make things a lot more explicit as KSM recommended.
 * Until you can be open to dialogue and behave civilly regarding this matter, the majority of users here agreed that the passage should be removed since it's far too subjective and it should be removed.-- 02:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Kingdom Hearts Wiki is written and run by its editors and contributors, not its policies and procedures." -- that consensus consists of more than four editors and an anon over a weekend.
 * "which you significantly altered and removed content from, in violation of site policies" -- that refers to altering other editors' posts, not rephrasing your own content. I rephrased what I had written, without removing any of the actual meaning, in order to deescalate.
 * "I throw in here my once-a-year-or-more plug that, because many of our policies are not written down somewhere easily-findable, we ought to do something to make them more easily referenceable so that new editors can become familiar with them, rather than belittle them when they make repeated edits that violate a heretofore unfindable policy." -- I am not staff. I have experience and memory, but it is the staff's responsibility to codify and concentrate the wiki policies if they feel they are not suitably publicized. You are staff. You have full ability to update the MoS with said policies, or open up a forum on whether they should be obsoleted. That being said:


 * The policy I referred to regarding what counts as trivia is already in the MoS.
 * The definition of the Appearance section is already in the MoS.
 * The lack of a notability requirement is inherent in there not being a stated requirement for notability, as well as stating that we cover everything that is an official part of the franchise.
 * The scope is already in the About page.
 * The edit war policy is already on the vandalism policy page (i.e., discussion before controversial change to existing state of article). In addition, the wider wiki community policy on edit warring is covered here, which we base a lot of our behavioral policies on.
 * The out-universe nature of Appearance and Origin sections is displayed in the consensus formats, as called out in the edit window every time you edit a mainspace article.
 * The move-trivia-at-all-costs explicit policy is covered on the trivia template, here and in the previous version of the MoS. Granted, it looks like you revised the MoS in 2017 to remove that rule. It looks to me like no one caught that, as it's not discussed at all on the talk page, but granted it could have been something everyone else saw and agreed with and just failed to call out, so I've opened a thread on the MoS talk page to confirm that. However, it was a longstanding rule of the wiki that you personally rewrote, so I most definitely did not make it up.
 * So I really don't get where you're basing the accusation that I belittled anyone for things that are "unfindable".
 * "That's like saying that because Sora has an article, so, too, should Sora's raft from the first game." -- Highwind (raft)
 * "I frankly doubt that a particular artwork, no matter how official, counts as being an appearance in the Kingdom Hearts series in the spirit of this sentence." -- This is not correct. The wiki's scope has long been agreed to include all pieces of the series, including the Key Arts. That's why we have articles on the toys, the manga chapters, the novels, and even the facebook minigames. That's why we cover Key Arts to begin with. The community has for ages agreed that we cover everything, and if you want to change that, you owe the community far more than your own four-person discussion over a weekend. (to be clear -- moving the image to the gallery falls within policy. Removing the notation entirely is not justified or required by policy, and therefore a new evaluation of the existing discussion, either relying on existing policy or reaching out to the wider community to ensure that the obsoletion/deviation from policy is consented to, should be sought. To that end: I'm on board with moving the image to the gallery, and I would even be in agreement with moving coverage of non-canon depictions to the gallery in a general sense. But it is still completely valid commentary to note that the depiction is nonstandard, and in fact our own caption policy behooves us to give more prose justification to the image's existence on our servers beyond "this exists". Gallery pages should not be treated simply as image folders, they should still contain commentary.)
 * "the process of discussing them on the article's talk page and reaching a consensus as a community has been carried out. " -- no. It hasn't. They were performed (by performing a revert war), and then discussed ("However, when it is apparent that an edit war may take place, immediately suggest the use of the article's talk page, and avoid editing the article itself."). And it was performed between four editors and an anon, over the course of two days, without dealing with the points raised in the previous discussion on the matter, or seeking comment from the editors involved in the previous discussion, or even the other party in the dispute.
 * "being hypocritical in your arguments whenever something doesn't go your way" -- I'm going to ask you to either provide evidence or retract that, because I have personally requested to be banned from the wiki or had my staff powers revoked when I saw that the wiki policies disagreed with my actions. I have had people literally follow me around the web harassing me or speaking ill of me because I stood up for you personally, NinjaSheik, even when I disagreed with what you were saying.
 * "the majority of users here" -- ...the four editors and anon over a weekend, in this specific conversation thread alone (not including the viewpoints expressed by other editors higher up in the page) agreed. And did so without seeking a response from the other party in the dispute.
 * I want to make sure I fully understand what you are saying: are you saying that we can disregard or throw out previous decisions and policies based on a discussion between four editors over a weekend in which the other party in the dispute isn't even asked for a response? Is this correct? 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Guys! Pause. What the actual hell? If I get a warning/banned/whatever for this, so be it. Seriously though. What the actual hell? This supposed-to-be discussion has turned into such a cesspool and mess that the original issue is lost. Before I get to that, and I'm so inactive what I think/say/do/did probably doesn't mean a damn (which is fine, because I AM inactive/old/outdated/"you-kids-get-off-my-lawn"), but I'm really disappointed. ...And I'll just sum it up with that. But, seriously. I don't know whether to be disappointed or ticked off with you guys. And THAT hurts and sucks. Ridiculous.

Regarding trivia: We spent a long time getting rid of trivia sections and incorporating them into the article a long time ago, mainly because we deemed it better to have in the appropriate main sections instead of tacked onto the end. In truth, the literal definition of trivia is common sense enough to merit what should be in that section...except this now creates a problem- which lead to the mess we're in now. It talks about appearance (which means it goes in the appearance section), but it's also an irrelevant/"cool" tid-bit (which means it goes in trivia)? What TSH has proposed is a fine compromise. The image deserves to exist on the article somewhere/in some namespace because it is a published piece on something related to Kingdom Hearts. In my opinion, it belongs either in a gallery (to compromise) or be incorporated into the appearance section (if we agree that published/confirmed artwork counts in this realm), but definitely not trivia because it can be added somewhere else that makes more sense- it has more value. THIS is what we should be discussing.

My biggest issue is how this wasn't discussed or handled properly. No one created a forum post. No one started tagging on user talk pages. No one started tagging on Discord until it became the ridiculous mess it is now. If you tag people and they don't respond in the agreed upon or mentioned/respectable amount of time, then fine. Because then you can say "I tried, they didn't respond." We do all of this for two main reasons: 1) So we give people [the community] time to think and then respond, and 2) Cover our asses. However, when you fail to do this, this does not mean this is the set-in-stone, confirmed, we're doing it. You need more people for that. If they don't respond, then that's a different story. La-ti-da to them. Even when more people tag in on this, it doesn't make it set-in-stone, permanent for all time either...because we're a Wiki and people and times change! Which is fine!

However, going about it how this issue was handled was unprofessional and immature on everyone- and, as a staff member, I'm more embarrassed not because we're trying to figure this out, but how people went about voicing their opposition/thoughts. Especially other staff members.

Regarding policies of all kinds (behavior, edit warring, editing, etc.): Most of those are unwritten things assumed to be known by most people. I got in trouble with this a lot when I was first starting- didn't have a clue until I asked older staff members/users and they redirected me to Wikipedia policies, old discussions, etc. I am in complete agreement of formally writing up a central page linking Wiki-behavior. The MoS is for articles, do those revisions/discussions on there/on the forums. Hell, BebopKate is the one who pushed writing out what/who administrators and staff members are because we were having so many problems with non-staff vs staff arguments/who qualifies as staff/what does staff have the power to do and not to do/etc. So...Let's do it! Someone start drafting, post it on a forum, recruit other people to help, keep drafting, spam people that forum for improvements/discussion, let's revise, let's confirm, let's publish it- let's do it!

These passionate arguments about feelings and personal attacks on people are over. Not because we're not the Jerry Springer show, but that they're counterproductive to everyone and a waste of time. In truth, we should copy this discussion onto a forum and continue it there. Not because Xion4ever says so, because she is both literally and figuratively a Nobody, but that this is becoming more wordy and sidetracked than we want on this talk page. If/when that happens, someone needs to post the link to said forum here so future people know where to go/what happened. The part on what warrants the trivia section needs discussed on the MoS talkpage that Kryten opened. 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for chastising me, Xion, and I second your suggestion to move the policy discussion to forums for wider community discussion. 20:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion continues on this forum for certain behavioral discussions and here for policy clarification and improvement. This section should only be added to as it relates to the merits of adding or moving the artwork in question. 23:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC) (EDIT: 05:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC))