Talk:List of Code Geass characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dorothea and Monica's Knightmares

I've noticed that this page says that Dorothea Ernst and Monica Kruszewski were piloting Sutherlands during the fight. They weren't. Their knightmare frames weren't really shown, only inside the cockpits and after they blew up. Thus, we don't actually know what they were piloting and saying they were piloting Sutherlands is original research. Just thought I'd point this out, I've already edited it out. I felt I needed to mention this since my first edit was switched back to them operating Sutherlands. User:70.95.124.91 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It helps if you put your reason for the edit in the edit summary. As for what they fly, all the knightmares behind Bismarck are shown to be Sutherlands. There is no evidence that Dorothea and Monica's knightmares weren't among them. And please remember to sign your post.Westrim (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The units immediately flanking Bismarck are Sutherlands. Dorothea is flanking Bismarck. The units being destroyed by Suzaku's wing barrage are Sutherlands. Monica is among them. They both pilot Sutherlands. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying here is, their knightmares weren't actually shown. They may have shown Sutherlands (which there were many of), but we don't know 100% that they were piloting them, just because other Sutherlands were there and because Sutherlands were being destroyed by the wing barrage. That is also like saying that since there were four Knights of Rounds there, those three that were shown immediately behind the Galahad had to be Rounds members. That can't be true because Gino (who wasn't shown during that clip) was also there, and he was in the Tristan. The other Rounds members could easily have been somewhere else, even if they were flanking him.70.95.124.91 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He was flying in back, thus the Harkens from nowhere that Suzaku crushed after destroying the Sutherlands. Also, without any evidence that they weren't in the Sutherlands, it is appropriate to assume that they were as they are the only knightmares shown besides the Galahad. Also note that the explosions of both of their knightmares showed their position relative to the formation and/or Galahad. Westrim (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dorothea's knightmare was to the bottom left of Bismarck when she exploded, that postion wasn't shown when they were flying and there were 3 Sutherlands flanking Bismarck. Monica wasn't even shown exploding, and she wasn't hit by the wing barrage. Suzaku had shot her. Also, her postion relative to the Galahad isn't known, so we couldn't tell where she is. What I'm trying to say is that there is no proof that they are piloting Sutherlands and there is no proof they aren't. I'd prefer that there is mention that their knightmare frames are not known, since we have no hard evidence of what they pilot (other than one small scene where we are gauging what they pilot merely by thier relative postions to Bismarck, hardly enough to back it up). If we are going to say they pilot Sutherlands just because the rest of the common foot soldiers pilot Sutherlands, I'd prefer to drop this entire topic as that wouldn't be a produtive statement at all and would just lead us back to nowhere. 70.95.124.91 (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is relatively simple logic. They pilot Sutherlands because everyone around them pilots Sutherlands and we see nothing but Sutherlands aside from Bismarck. There are no unique mechs in that lineup aside from Gino, who is way behind the field. To claim they could have piloted anything else cannot be justified. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the warning system was able identify four members of the Knights of Rounds and their machines, which could imply that they were piloting their own custom units. Again, we don't ever clearly see the exterior of the Frames carrying Monica and Dorothea, but I think it is logical to assume that they would have taken their Knightmares with them on deployment and would have used them in any coup attempt. Again, both sides seem to have a bit of speculation to them, the only Knightmares we see explicitly are the supporting Sutherlands, the Galahad, and the Tristan. The statement that Dorothea and Monica could not be piloting anything but a Sutherland because only Sutherlands were seen is a logical fallacy; we did not see the entire lineup, hence we cannot definitively tell who was piloting what. Dorothea may have been piloting a Sutherland, while Monica had her own Frame, or vice versa. Both could have been piloting Sutherlands, or neither of them. Until we have conclusive proof (i.e. a screenshot that clearly shows Dorothea's Knightmare before the explosion or Monica's Frame at all) we cannot conclusively back EITHER point of view, so I recommend omitting the reference entirely for the moment. the_one092001 (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 70.95.124.91 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Schneizel el Britannia

Schneizel should have his own article. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.138.100 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Schneizel already has his own article. Dontyoudare (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Gottwald

If anybody wants the Jeremiah Gottwald article up, then here it is. SilentmanX (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think he's quite established enough notability to get his own article again. After his allegiance switch, all he's done is become Lelouch's attack dog, nothing particularly plot important. the_one092001 (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough to have included in the main characters list, especially with questionable inclusions like Li Xingke (How is he a Main Character anyway?), Jeremiah's got quite a large amount of history to write about, and dozens of episodes he's appeared in. He was one of the few people who knew the truth of the Zero Requiem, which is a little more than being "Lelouch's attack dog". 81.110.108.151 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree he should have his own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul1231 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I too agree: elements as his Geass Canceller ability and his role in the Zero Requiem make him a character important enough to get his own article. Inomuiro (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Xingke was rather crucial to the plot. As the leader of the revolutionary force in the former Chinese Federation and later the Commander-in-Chief of the Black Knights, he was one of the most powerful characters in the series. He also had quite a bit of screen time, particularly in earlier episodes although less in later episodes. He left a definite mark on the plot, while all things considered, Jeremiah didn't do that much. He reappeared mostly out of fan demand, and his Geass is used only three times, and two of those times result in unknown or rather trivial consequences (Anya's unknown memories are unlocked but never revealed, and Sayoko was injured but recovered). After the part where he joins the Black Knights, he fails to achieve anything really important; he duels Suzaku and Gino, and later Anya in his Sutherland Sieg, and aids in the assault of the Geass Directorate, before finally becoming Lelouch's attack dog to wipe out the rebelling nobility. All things considered, he didn't really do that much, he was just a sub-ace pilot that was used as a plot device to tie up other characters, while others like Xingke were top-class aces that clearly had a major effect on whatever battle they were fighting. the_one092001 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet Jeremiah has quite an important role in the R1's ending, also by separating Lelouch and C.C. (C.C.'s presence in the last confrontation between Suzaku and Lelouch could have made things go differently, or she could have been captured too. And his use of the Geass canceller in the R2 eventually brings to Shirley's death, which may be one out of three, but it's still a quite important plot turnpoint. Xingke is undoubtedly an important character, yet we don't even know his final fate for sure: we can only assume it. Inomuiro (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He really wasn't that important in the ending for R1. He just attacked the Gawain. Anyone could have really done that; there wasn't too much of a personal connection between them (at least from Lelouch's side). And he restored Shirley's memories, but that incident and her following death played at best a passing role in Lelouch's personal decisions; he was already determined to take out the Geass Directorate. Shirley's death was also only indirectly caused by Jeremiah, whereas others such as Rolo and Xingke played a much more direct role.the_one092001 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not really that important in the ending for R1"? He saved the Second Princess of Britannia on his own from being captured, while you may think "anyone could have really done that" nobody else did, he did it. And we're talking about the Gawain, the knightmare that singlehanded took out the entire airforce Area 11 could put up against the Black Rebellion, it isn't exactly a pushover. The only person apart from V.V. that can actually fly the Seigfried, the most powerful knightmare on the battlefield that day; nobody else could interface with it to make it do anything AKA nobody could have done what he did that day. And if he didn't step in when he did, the Black Rebellion probably would have succeeded, with her as hostage the army couldn't have made a move, just like Cornelia couldn't move against the JLF when they held Euphie. That's a pretty large mark on the plot. Xingke, the Chinese Tohdoh? Not even the original Tohdoh got a page, and at least there's a little bit more history and action on that crank. Xingke fought in one major battle while with the Black Knights, maybe two if you could count the coastal decoy, and one last one where he fought against the Black Knights to save the Empress, that's pretty much it, so much for a 'direct role'. I like Xingke, he's just less major than Orange-kun who has been in more than twice as many conflicts where he was a figure of importance. And titles don't really make for big or otherwise laudable characters, otherwise the High Eunichs would need a page as they outrank him or the Emperor Charles of Britannia himself who is arguably the main protagonist as well as the highest ranking in the series, so simple rank and supposed positions of power doesn't really mean much. "Failing to do anything of significance since joining the Black Knights" is ironically something that could just as much be applied to Xingke as Jeremiah. 81.110.108.151 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed! Inomuiro (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah is obsessed with Zero: that in my opinion qualifies as a quite strong personal connection. And I have to insist that his forcing C.C. and Lelouch apart at the very end has quite strong repercussions on the whole starting point of R2. Also, he saved Cornelia's life in ep. 14. Inomuiro (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Cornelia isn't a main character either. There is a major difference between "reoccuring" and "main" character. For all intents and purposes, the entire cast aside from the main characters could easily be swapped out for anyone else, but the story would remain the same. Lelouch and Suzaku cannot be replaced, as it is their wills and desires that drive the entire storyline while the rest of the cast, even the rest of the main cast, are pretty much just along for the ride. It doesn't matter how many amazing Knightmares he destroyed (he didn't, C.C. kamikazed him instead). Anyone who had been modified could have piloted Siegfried; there is no special trait that makes Jeremiah the only person who could, as evidenced by V.V.'s usage (and he doesn't have a page either). All of those "accomplishments" were mirrored by other characters who don't have their own pages; both Xingke and Tohdoh slaughtered whole armies but didn't do anything particularly plot-important there. Xingke becomes important because he is the man that brought the Chinese Federation to the table and is responsible for much of the plot in the early part of R2, during the Black Knights' stay at the Chinese Embassy as well as the coup d'etat, then he becomes instrumental to creating the UFN after negotiating the Chinese Federation's entry and becoming the CnC of the Black Knights. He established notability prior to his joining the Black Knights, whereas Jeremiah did not establish any useful notability before or after that, since all he really did was switch sides in his debut appearance and very indirectly kill Shirley. For Shirley's death, if you're going to blame Jeremiah, you might as well blame V.V., who sent him there in the first place, or General Bartley who gave him the Geass Canceler. He didn't save Cornelia either; Lelouch was just about to leave anyway at C.C.'s urging right before he showed up and attacked. He attacked and the net effect of his actions was to get C.C. out of the way temporarily, a result that could easily be achieved through other means (even just getting Suzaku to attack and disable the Gawain). "Obsession" is not a reason to create a new article either since Nina was also obsessed with killing Zero/Lelouch just as much as Jeremiah was, and could be seen to have an even more important impact on the plot since she developed FLEIJA. But she's just not a major character, along with Lloyd, Cecile, Rakshata and everyone else who made important but indirect contributions to the plot. the_one092001 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Note that Cornelia isn't a main character either" I didn't say she was "It doesn't matter how many amazing Knightmares he destroyed" I, not suprisingly, didn't give that as a good reason for inclusion either "is responsible for much of the plot in the early part of R2" Same could be said for Cornelia during most of R1. Under your own stated policy of unique wills and desires, just as someone else could have been cybernetically upgraded (Although there weren't) to fly the Seigfried and save the Second Princess, there could have easily been another dispossed army officer who started a rebellion, there were two sub-characters assisting Xing-ke anyhow already in the existing plot, his will was hardly unique, decisive, or even largely acknowledged, he was dominated by Lelouch, and turned into his pawn, he heartfelt declarations regarding never becoming his subordinate was for nought, as much a figurehead as the Empress, his own directions were non-existent other than obidience. We saw a grand total of one ambition in him, and that was to save his Empress; everything else just happened around him and he consented to it. "He didn't save Cornelia either; Lelouch was just about to leave anyway at C.C.'s urging right before he showed up and attacked" That is inconsistant with what is shown in the episode; even when he knew about his sister and Jermiah had burst in, he was still trying to grab Cornelia even then and had to be actually blocked to be stopped, he was going to take her and then go after his sister; I know you want to make him look minor but at least stick within what the episode actually showed us was happening. Isolated components such as guilt, obssessions, ambitions, desires, they don't act as good reasons on their own, they are just further wealth to expand upon in a proper article, and Jeremiah has all four (very roughly: Guilt over the Empress's death, Obssession with revenge on Zero, ambition to clear his name and advance up in society, and desire to become a Knight of Rounds). Working out who Zero probably was by R1 Ep 10 was pretty significant, as well as the Geass Canceller; once again on their own they are weak, but compounding all of these things onto one character makes for something quite hefty and substantial. 81.110.108.151 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be added because he is noticable character and we all like the guy. Give Orange some love here. (SilentmanX (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).

I've put his page up now using SilentmanX's template with a few changes for spelling mistakes and such, seeing as we had only one objection. Check it out now; and make it count :) Hopefully we'll earn enough to keep it. I've also added it to the nav box. Make adjustments as necessary. 81.110.108.151 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nunnally succeeding Lelouch

I don't remember it being mentioned during the last episode that Nunnally succeeded Lelouch as the Empress. I'm not sure, because I wasn't watching too carefully, so I'm reluctant to remove this. Can someone confirm for me that this was in fact mentioned? Or was it merely inferred that this was so from the scene with Ohgi shaking hands with her? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And is Ohgi the prime minister of the United State of Japan? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both are inferred. But both seem very likely. We should note on the article that both are inferred. - plau (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless it can be confirmed, I think it should just be deleted. We know she becomes an important figure, but we cannot tell exactly what either of their positions are. And how do we know that Ohgi is the PM of Japan, and not part of the Black Knights or UFN instead? It is likely that Nunnally is the Empress of Britannia, since she's the only loyal surviving member of the former Royal Family after Lelouch died, Schneizel got Geassed, and Cornelia took off with Guilford. But still, without direct confirmation, we cannot be certain. the_one092001 (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Ohgi became the Prime Minister of Japan, in the bit where we see this pictures on the wall in Tamaki's store, the one with words congratulating Tamaki says "日本国首相 扇要", which means "Prime Minister of Japan - Ohgi Kaname". So I'm sure he became PM. - plau (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine; I can't read Japanese so I couldn't tell what was being said since the subs don't cover everything. the_one092001 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That appears to explain Ohgi as the Prime Minister of Japan for certain, but how are we inferring that Nunnally is the Empress? For all we know, the rank was abolished outright following Lelouch's reign of terror demonstrating how abusive the position could be. We should get a solid lead on it, and certainly not assume that she is the Empress, or that the role is even still there without that sourcing. It should be either cited or deleted that she was the 100th Empress of Britannia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.108.151 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is weird, but I don't know if this should counts as a cited source, but this website claims she does, but it's just a list: http://codegeass.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Family I'll find out more about this.--Miss Lindsie (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Trimming - Specifically removal character

Recently, TTN made some trimming of the article and certain characters have been removed. I don't think those characters are unnecessary and I'm adding them back. Discuss here before removing them. But I do feel we need to split in article into some form - plau (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters that have no actual importance within the series do not belong in this list. This will definitely never need to be split. After trimming this and getting the main characters merged into it, it should end up at around 70kb. TTN (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know where the 70kb figure comes from. These lists should be as long as they need to be to accurately portray the characters, and the addition of more characters should not force the entries to get smaller. I admit some of these characters are iffy, but I must agree with Westrim: at least leave a discussion page entry about what you're doing, otherwise editors will assume you are just crusading to cut the article without even informing those that worked to create it. You tell the creator of an article when you nominate it for AfD, so why aren't you telling the people who created and worked hard on the article that you plan to make drastic cuts? It's impolite to do so. the_one092001 (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

semiprotect?

Looking at the history of this article, a large portion of the past edits are from unregistered IPs, and have all been reverted. I was thinking maybe get this page semi-protected for a while? Prior to these edits, it seems there's a lot of edits and reverts going on as well... -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ToC 3-level limit?

Why do we have a three level limit for the Table of Contents on this page? I am going to change to a normal ToC just to see what it looks like. -PatPeter 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Family's Fate

Should we asume that Odysseus, Guinevere, and Carline of the royal family are deceased after Schneizel destroyed the capital with the F.L.E.I.J.A. bomb. I think we should at least say their fates are unknown or they were presumably killed in the explosion by the end of the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maine Coon Cat (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, according to the chart on the official site, they are still alive. Since Pendragon was destroyed before Diethard was killed and he is marked as dead.--Refuteku (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare of Nunnally

Will it be possible to add info of the characters from the manga to the articles. If anybody have read the Nightmare of Nunnally manga, then you all know about them but some didn't.

Recently I've added info on both Nunnally and Lelouch from the manga, because its a separate storyline from the anime. There is something interesting about the characters we've seen from the anime to this manga series, and I've enjoyed it and I know you guys do also. I add more info about these characters from the manga if anybody's interested, but this guy is editing them out!!! Its a separate storyline from the anime and the manga, so why does it have to be edited out!?

If you would like to see the info from the manga get added, have your say.--SilentmanX (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lelouch and Nunnally's surname

Doesn't anyone think that Lelouch and Nunnally's last name should be listed as vi Britannia rather than Lamperouge. Nunnally who has a bigger role in the second season is always referred as Nunnally vi Britannia. Also, by the end of the series Lelouch goes back to the name Lelouch vi Britannia. (Maine Coon Cat (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Members of the Royal Family

I'v read that their are more members of the imperial family for example Cassius le Britannia, Carline's brother; Arianna u Britannia, Odyssues mother; Edward zi Britannia and Charlottle zi Britannia, Charles's father Federick von Britannia and more. Why aren't they listed?

Where do these names come from? - plau (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if they are sourceable names, these characters do not play a part in the plot and shouldn't be listed. --Farix (Talk) 11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I know... and I think they're from fan fiction. I tried googling some of the names. - plau (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see Cassius le Britannia has been included now, is there a legitimate source for this character? --World of C (Talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

V.V.'s real name

V.V. is Charles di Britannia's brother meaning that V.V. must have a shot at taking the Britannian throne. Article's and biblo's reveal that V.V's real name is Vincent di Britannia.

And may I ask for a source. - plau (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There could be a slight problem with that. How could that be it? You know that his name is like C.C., a real mystery.--Miss Lindsie (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A missing character

I was looking on the Japan website of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 and I went to look for the character on the list of characters, he was not listed. Here is the link: http://www.geass.jp/world_03_ex.html?pid=chara_43.html Can you tell me who this person is and why is he not added on to the list?--Miss Lindsie (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember he is a refrain dealer who only appears in one episode. He's basically an insignificant character so there is no need to put him on the character list. (Maine Coon Cat (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

Charles zi/di Britannia

Since we clearly can't agree on which is correct, I've requested full protection on the page to end the edit war. Until one of us finds CONCLUSIVE evidence to the contrary, it should remain as is. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The episode is conclusive. He says zi, quite clearly. It's not an effect of the s at the end of his name. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It apparently is zi, according to the official website: [1]. I stand corrected. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? Because in the CODE GEASS - 22.25 - Picture Drama 08 shows a plate of Marianne with Charles's full name. His full name on the plate is Charles di Britannia. I think the guys who dub the series made a mistake on the name. Here is the image of the plate.

SilentmanX (discuss me) 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That plate in the picture drama also says he is the 88th emperor when it is clear that he is the 98th emperor so it possible that the plate is wrong about the di part. (Maine Coon Cat (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)).

I'm pretty sure there's also no such thing as the "Holly" Empire of Britannia. ;) 71.123.61.240 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I wouldn't so easily rule out the plate. With the 88th Emperor part, the plate text is not very clear (not from the image anyway), and I could easily make out either 88 or 98 on the plate. "Holly" is basically Japanese to English spelling, whereas the name itself is whatever the writers want it to be, so in my opinion, the plate is sufficient evidence for Charles di Britannia. If it's dubbed / subbed as zi, then since we're the english wiki, we should keep it as zi. That's what I think. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Main character pages: Apparently in risk of deletion

We need to make a commitment to get some sources and referencing on these pages, else we risk these pages being lost as someone's tagged a whole load of them for lacking notability. We know these things are valuable and good content, so lets try to demonstrate it to whoever is trying to get them erased. 81.110.108.151 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From Kallen Kōzuki to Kallen Stadtfeld

I've just realize something, can't we change the name of the article from Kallen Kōzuki to Kallen Stadtfeld? because she did started the name as Kallen Stadtfeld & we didn't know of her birth name since episode 19 of season one. Also they have been a couple of images that refer to her as Kallen Stadtfeld since she did started with that name. What do you think? because I think the name should be changed back with that.

This is one example:http://www.shareapic.net/content.php?id=12621234

SilentmanX (talk) 00:31, 01 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe?

She did start the series as Kallen Stadtfeld, so yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.237 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have watched the entire series again and in the first season she was called Kallen Stadfeld, and I have seen picks with Stadtfeld instaed od Kozuki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.201 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But she chose to stick with Kozuki (mother's maiden name i believe) and she told Sukaku that Stadtfeld isn't her real name, its Kozuki. Anyways just because someone called this person this name doesn't mean its his or her last name. She used Stadtfeld as an alias to get into School, not because its not her name. If you want to leave it to stadtfeld, you should at least say she prefers to be named "Kozuki."Haseo445 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Black Knights > Black Knights

This has been in my mind for a while & here it is...can't it be the 'Black Knight' instead of the 'Order of the Black Knights'?

You may or may not notice, but the jap series refer to them as the Black Knights, but we translate them as the Order of the Black Knights. Why can it be translated to that instead? jap series refer to them as the Black Knight, & so s the dub series.

Can it be replaced?

SilentmanX (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough to have it switched. There isn't really much use of the "Order of the..." extension anyhow. 86.154.202.21 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cornelia li Britannia

If you guys want this article up, then add more info on it. I did parts of it, but not enough since I have not much info on it.

Once its good enough, then it will be up

SilentmanX (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

While I would like to see Cornelia back, as she is the main protaganist of the original season, some wiki'ers will deny her notability, primarily as she was a barely mentionable secondary character in the second season. Personally speaking, to be straight and clear, I'd like her back, but we need a discussion for her. So guys, can we build up a good case of notability to defend her page if need be? And do the rest of you think she should have an individual character page? 86.154.202.21 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

She's not much of a main protagonist, but just a character with a role to play in it. If you want the article to come up then it must be improved with more info. SilentmanX (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck's description

Contrary to someone's misguided opinion, Bismarck does in fact have two eyes, both of which are fully functional. Simply keeping one of them covered does not qualify him as only having one. His entry needs to be changed to reflect this, either by removing that part of his description or by making a note of it somewhere in the entry. It really doesn't matter to me which change is implemented but his entry is inaccurate as it stands.--199.79.10.117 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Fenette

Should I or should I not bring back the Shirley Fenette article? look at the article and decide. (SilentmanX (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).

I think if you are going to bring back her article you should also bring back Jeremiah Gottwald's article as well because he is just as important of a character as she is. (70.140.38.244 (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)).

Would they allow me too? You know they guy who removed the other articles before? (SilentmanX (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)).

I think she should have her own page because if Li Xingke has his own page a more important character like Shirley should have her own page.(70.140.38.244 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)).

Bring the Shirley article back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.205 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time we had the Jeremiah Gottwald we had a grand total of one objection, albeit a very vocal one. I say go for it. Bring back Shirley, Jermiah, and Cornelia, they're all more important than Xingke. 81.110.108.151 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah is a popular guy so I'll agree there's probably sources to be found for him. Shirley and Cornelia aren't nearly as popular, and there's no way to justify an article for them. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see that article comeback because she deserves one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.214 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see her article back also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.200 (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah me too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.195.206 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

same here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.103.90 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do. It's not fair that Rolo has his own article while Shirley doesn't.130.206.138.233 (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is enough out of world sources to make a Shirley page justifiable. I mean with people like Jeremiah, the character was going to be killed off but because of overwhelming response to his character by fans, they chose to rewrite him back into it. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Merging

With respect to the following articles,

• Lelouch Lamperouge
• Suzaku Kururugi
• C.C.
• Kallen Stadtfeld
• Jeremiah Gottwald
• Nunnally Lamperouge
• Rolo Lamperouge
• Schneizel el Britannia
• Li Xingke

I noticed that most of the information within them comes directly from the anime. Personally, I'd like to see this pages stay, however, I have this feeling that at some point in the future it may be suggested that they be merged because they may not fulfill notability guidelines due the the lack of secondary sources and indeed some of these articles already have tags on them indicating issues with notability and additionally, they may not survive a delete proposal. I will admit however, that the series recently ended and it takes time for secondary sources to appear so it may be premature to discuss this, but I feel compel to bring it up the notion of a controlled merge before someone attempts a delete proposal. Does anyone think that a merge of these articles into the List of Code Geass characters should be done? If so, I'll post the merger tags and formally propose a merger once I get a sense of peoples opinions on this. YanA (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Never gonna happened. SilentmanX (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of the characters that have been given individual pages have a great deal of secondary appearence, don't know how many hundreds of C.C. Cosplayers there are but Google speaks bounds about how much coverage there is for most of these people in terms of magazines, photos of costumes ect. Maybe, maybe some of them need to go, but most need to stay. These are the core people of the entire show after all, it is common in many different shows for those identified as main characters to have thier own wiki page, I see no reason why Code Geass should be picked upon in particular. There should be no way that C.C., Lelouch, or Suzaku are going anywhere. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much all of them already have been tagged at one time or another. Some, like Li Xingke and Jeremiah Gottwald, can go, but the rest have enough information to stay. The issue with fiction is that because the writer and the series are often the only ones that can reliably speak for the series, they are the only ones that generally get cited. the_one092001 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. With all due to respect to 81.111.115.63, although there are indeed many main characters from anime and manga who have have there own articles which don't. You may for instance look at Ouran High School Host Club where main characters had there own individual articles but those have since been deleted in favor of having a character list. Another instance is what happened to many of Fruits Basket character articles (with the exception of four) were merged into List of Fruits Basket characters for not having sufficent reliable sources present. Admittedly, many of those were in worse shape than the articles cited above. Well, in short my point is that Code Geass is not being singled out in particular and other anime related topics have been put on the chopping block before. However, it seems as though the lack of reliable secondary sources prevents the articles from easily being written in a real world perspective per WP:WAF. Anyway, since the general feeling is that the articles should remain unmerged, I will not pursue this further and hope that at some point in the future more secondary sources will be available, so they can be further improved.--YanA (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we used to have many, many more character pages, and there was even attempts to get the Knightmare's page completely deleted, but the current situation is very much a comprimise between the two positions, with some people wanting to fold what remains into this central page, and others wanting more individual character pages. My personal view is that if the Star Trek guys can talk their way into justifying an individual article on Pon farr, a fictional affliction of a fictional race (which has its own individual page also, mind you, rather than as a portion of a combined "Races of Star Trek universe" page) within a fictional universe, we're not quite overextending ourselves to that degree with having some articles around the main and popular characters. Thank you for allowing them to continue as they are. Though, I am a little annoyed at what happened to Ouran High School Host Club now you've pointed it out to me, surely their perceivable main character Haruhi Fujioka should have got an individual page, but alas the gross level of difference and imbalance. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen non-Star Trek-related Pon farr jokes and references though. Star Trek's taken off to the point where its main starships easily have their own articles, as do all of its main cast. It kind of gets that way when you've been running since the 1960's. It's hard to find a person who hasn't at least heard of the series or of the Enterprise. "Trekkie" is a registered word in the OED as well. Both Code Geass and Ouran High School Host Club have a long way to go before getting anywhere near that prominence. the_one092001 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor error

It's lsited that Gino is seen posing with Tianzi at the final photo. seen here: http://kurogane.animeblogger.net/2008/09/28/lelouch-a-yes-this-is-a-spoiler/ Gino's nowhere near Tianzi, he's over with Kallen and Anya to the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.69.132 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sayoko

As I watch the series and think about the character of Sayoko, I can't help but think of kunoichi. Though she's never referred to as such, I think she bears a lot of the hallmarks. Of course, she's a trained martial artist (and I note her preference for kunai and smoke bombs), but she's also a master of disguise. Anyone else have the same thought? I'm almost tempted to mention this in the article (and perhaps even in the kunoichi article), but all I have is speculation. My notes on her are unofficial at best.—WhosAsking (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck

"There is a continuity problem because Emperor Charles claims in Episode 2 of the second season that Suzaku is the only Knight of the Rounds to know about the existence of Geass. However, Bismarck had been a Knight long before this time and Charles should have known about him having Geass. Possible explanation are Bismarck kept his Geass hidden from the Emperor or the Emperor is lying to Suzaku. It is unknown who gave him his Geass."

If anyone listened to Emperor Charles carefully during that scene, Emperor Charles did not lie not did Bismarck keep his geass hidden from Charles. Charles states that Suzaku was the only Knight of the Round to know about geass AND about the Sword of Akasha. So it doesn't mean that the other Knights of the Round didn't know about geass or hid the truth from Charles, but instead means they may have know about the Sword of Akasha or geass. Just not both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.246.236 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Marianne vi Britannia

i always thought her name was "marion" not "Marianne". is there a link to her official name?QueenofHearts (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not her official page but it does confirm her name is Marianne on Jerimiah's page located here [[2]] DaisukeVulgar (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolo Lamperouge

His part is being repeatedly taken out of 'Others' and put into 'Main' by the same IP. Can someone stop this IP from editing this page? This really doesn't need to become a round of edit warring. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As somebody said, he gets the treatment of a main character. He's too close to the main character not to be. Even Lelouch's final memories mark Rolo's importance, when he makes a pause as he remembers a scene where they are together (which, by the way, is the ONLY new image among all that go through his head). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.206.138.233 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with 130.206.138.233 that he is a main character, but he's a bit like Xingke, so I'm not too sure. - plau (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the main characters list should only comprise of Lelouch, Suzaku, C.C. and Kallen as these four generally get the most screentime compared to the rest. But since Nunnally is up there with them, I see no reason why Rolo can't be put up there as well, other than the fact that he only appeared in season 2. Alternatively, I would suggest that he be placed under "Ashford Academy" since that is where he appears in most of the time. Another option is the Order of the Black Knights, of which he was also a member. Or, since he and V.V. play rather significant roles in Season 2, do you suppose we could create a section on the Geass Directorate/Geass Cult for them? It could go under the "Holy Empire of Britannia" section since it was supposed to be a Britannian research facility. Just suggesting that he and V.V. be given posts a little higher up since their roles ARE rather significant as compared to the rest under "Other Characters" Songofthehawk (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The part about Mariane being selfish and heartless isn't true. She's a good person wrongfully killed by the Empire and would do anything for Lelouch and Nanally. She didn't help Charles either, she either sacfriced her ties to the physical world, or her consciousness was being controlled by Charles. I don't know exacyly, but I know she's a good person and cares about Lelouch and Nanally. She wouldn't try to hurt Zero, because she would be able to sense that he's really her son under that helmet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanomaster (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No outside sources say this, you're basing her personality on your own opinion and that is WP:OR. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nunnally and Rolo

Why are Nunnally and Rolo not listed as main characters? Should they be list as main characters? Personally, I think they should. Both of these characters are quite developed and they also get the treatment of main characters. But I know some of you disagree and there has been a lot of moving around. So what are other opinions on this? - plau (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think they should be. Perhaps Euphy as well? 77.229.179.234 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Euphemia, while her death does have a huge impact on the plot of the story, she only appears as a supporting character in the first season, so she shouldn't be up with the main characters.(Maine Coon Cat (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)).

I agree, her role in mainly supporting. - plau (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To whoever is moving Rolo around: even the Japanese article has him among the mains, so just stop it already. Mayoiko (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah and the Lancelot

Is it worth mentioning anywhere on Jeremiah Gottwald's page that he was likely the intended pilot for the Lancelot, before Suzaku? In the first episode, he receives a message in his Knightmare during the Shinjuku massacre from General Bartley to assume new duties, which he cuts off and subsequently ignores stating he's having too much fun. In another scene shortly thereafter, Lloyd asks Cecile, "He's not here?" and Cecile replies, "It looks like he's gone out to the front lines.", leaving Lloyd to wonder who will now pilot the Lancelot. Given the nature and context of the scenes is it a stretch to assume they could be talking about anyone else except Jeremiah? --71.123.61.240 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's that important, and it's enough of a stretch that we can't say for sure. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting factor in the "Jeremiah was likely the intended pilot" discussion was that he was aware of the Lancelot, what is was and what its name was, even that Suzaku was the pilot, when he encountered it while the other Purebloods were trying to kill him; while the other Purebloods were clueless as to what the knightmare even was. Very few people knew the nature of the project, let alone that it existed, this was practically the second time it had ever been used. That he knew all about it, well that says something about either a direct connection with the project or some extremely high clearence.

It is speculation, and we cannot add it, but the suspitions are well founded. The only way we could find out would be to ask one of the writers, if somebody cares to do that we'l have our answer but for now, we'll have to leave it off. 86.133.231.52 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying the Purebloods were clueless. Kewell commented on the fact that "they completed the MVS system" when Lancelot drew its swords, so he had least had some cursory knowledge of it. That and you had to figure pretty much everyone in the military knew about the Lancelot after the whole of the Shinjuku incident (you don't deploy something without telling the soldiers on the front lines not to shoot it, after all), and let's not forget that immediately prior to rescuing Jeremiah, Suzaku was interrogated by him and the rest of the military higher ups for suspicion of murder. ;)

But more to the point: despite the fact that Bartley was the one mentioned to Jeremiah, since Bartley was in command of the operation logic would dictate he would have to be the one to issue the order to recall Jeremiah, even if it was done at the insistence of Lloyd. That same scene Lloyd also mentioned to Cecile, "We steamrolled our way in here, but without a devicer...", which was probably referring to what occurred in the scene right as the military is moving in to Shinjuku where we see Lloyd pestering Bartley over being allowed to send the Lancelot in.

I would also submit that the point could speak to Jeremiah's abilities as a pilot even before his cybernetic upgrades. Since all of Lloyd's previous test pilots were unable to make the Lancelot move, the fact that he considered Jeremiah for a pilot must mean he was thought of as being particularly skilled.--71.123.61.240 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The fate of the royal family

When Lelouch used his Geass to force the rest of his family to accept him as emperor, we see the fate of Guinevere, Carline, and Odysseus, working as commoners.

Since Schzneizel obliterated the entire city of Pendragon, I'd say it is a fairly safe assumption they died along with it. Would it be an idea to mention this in their individual descriptions? or perhaps somewhere in Schneizel's page to speak to his ruthlessness?--71.123.61.240 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the official site they are not dead. I can't read Japanese but on the chronological chart, their pictures are not darkened. Remember this is Sunrise.... World of C(talk) 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cassius le Britannia

Never existed in the anime. I have found no evidence of him anywhere. He is a product of fanfiction. I deleted the information a while ago but the change was reverted. Please do not undo my edit. It misleads people. World of C(talk) 23:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Li Xingke

The current page for Li Xingke has not been able to establish enough notability that would allow an independent page for his character to remain. I would like to propose merging his page into List of Code Geass characters since characters of similar notability, like Gino Weinberg, Euphemia li Britannia, and Anya Alstreim have all been merged into this page already. Please discuss. EikaKou (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough; I've always seen him as the Chinese knock-off of Tohdou. He got the individual article during the hype upto R2, before he even appeared in the show. I do not think he has enough notability, at least not more than the characters that don't have an individual page anyhow. If the original Tohdou, that appeared in a heck of alot more battles, doesn't get his own page, doesn't exactly work in favour of Xingke either. Kyteto (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't any more discussion or opposition on the matter, I'd like to merge and redirect Li Xingke to List of Code Geass characters, then. EikaKou (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the page Li Xingke to List of Code Geass characters and removed his name from the template. Any further disputes can be directed here for discussion. EikaKou (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Fenette

I am sorry for my actions earlier, but claims that my update is vandalism is just as uncalled for as untrue. Furthermore i was not very familiar of the functions at my disposal, so excuse me for not clarifying better when I should have.  Now, to the issue. I would like to add an update to the summary plot of Shirley Fenette. She is an intricle part to the story plot. I feel it would be better to get into greater detail of her role. Though not getting into too much detail, my update provides essential information of how her actions impact the morals and/or motives of other characters to give greater understanding of occurances and actions made. I will only add more information, not delete all of past editors work. I believe this would be in the best interest of her summary and readers to provide this update. Please, discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali boi16 (talk • contribs) 14:40, September 24, 2009

Wikipedia is not an instant discussion forum, so noting that you hadn't received a response within less than 24 hours is not a valid reason to redo the edit. Thank you for undoing your redo and for seeming to recognize that yes, it is excessive and minor detail that does not belong here. Character lists are not supposed to contain excessive detail about the characters roles in the story, repeating the plot summary, nor for WP:OR trying to guess about the motivations or morals of any characters. At most, each character should have one paragraph of summary, except for the major characters which may need two, that give a brief summary of their part in the story. See List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters for ideal character sections (these are both featured list). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge all characters

DBZROCKS has suggested that all character articles be merged into this one, reasoning that "character does not have notabilty outside of his series. Article reads like a fansite." Although I agree that the articles are not perfect, and a lot of work still needs to be done about them. I am opposed to the merge as an attempt to solve the problem. The characters are not only notable within the series, For example, Lelouch's character was chosen the most popular male character of 2006, 2007, and 2008 at Animage magazine. Many of the other characters are similarly popular. Please discuss. - plau 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The weaknesses of the articles have been noted before, particularly in two threads in Talk Archive 2, namely, that the artcles were in risk of deletion and a previous merge proposal. At the time, the two threads received no or limited discussion before the issue was dropped. I maintain my opinion from the last merge proposal to retain the articles with continued attempts at further improvement. However, given the limited discussion last time I feel that we should have a more engaging discussion.--YanA (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the articles is that their subject manner isn't notable enough. Take the example of Lelouch winning the most popular male character 2006-2008. That just isn't grounds to have an article. There needs to be a prevalent presence in other media, or significant coverage in out of series books, magazines etc. Popularity isn't enough, which is why internet memes lack articles. The problem is beyond the problems with the structure. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite my preference for keeping the articles, I will readily admit that since the last merge proposal, to the best of my knowledge, no more secondary sources have come up. In addition to having a lack of secondary sources, the articles do not fulfill most of the general notability guidelines listed under WP:NOTE. As such, I think a merge would be in order considering the failure to the meet the afore mentioned guidelines. However, I do not feel that those articles should be outright blanked and redirected. I lean toward the option of a selective paste merger instead of just a text delete as was recently done. That way any useful information on the individual character pages can be transferred to this list, which I think would help to improve it. I'm going to post merge proposal tags on the articles.--YanA (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm against a selective paste merger. While I agree that some more information needs to be added to the sections, I also believe that what is contained in the articles goes too far in depth to be added to the section. The addition of a few details should suffice. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I apologize if I was unclear but very limited transfer of information from the individual articles was what I wanted to imply with the "any useful information" clause. A "selective paste merger" was the term that best characterized what I wanted to do. I do not envision the addition of anything more than a few sentences to each of the character sections in the character list. Regardless, I do not plan to take any action on this at least for another few days, so as to let others chime in. There remains time to hash out the details of the merge (assuming there consensus about it). --YanA (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I continue to oppose the merger, I do agree that the articles do need more secondary sources. If the merger does go through, Lelouch, Suzaku, C.C. and Kallen's articles should stay at the very least. They are the titular characters of the series after all. There are a lot shows (anime or not) where main characters have their own article (and I'm not even talking about well-established shows like Star Trek/Wars). I don't see why Code Geass should be picked upon just because it's from Japan where some of us have limited access/understanding of some of the secondary sources. - plau 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to recognize that just because secondary sources are present in one region of the world, that doesn't necessarily entail complete lack of notability. However, titular characters don't always have individual character articles, the Ouran High School Host Club is a case in point. But as you mentioned, there are precedents where the titular characters have ended up with there articles. I think some sort of merge is necessary, but I'd be open to retaining some while merging others. I quite flexible as to how to do the merge, but I'm firm in the belief that there should be one.--YanA (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that other shows have character articles that don't necessarily meet the requirements set by wikipedia. The Code geass character articles need to be merged because no third party sources proving notability can be estabilished. This isn't because of the language barrier, but because the characters themselves do not have notability outside of their own series or data concerning how they were recieved. I understand that Lelouch, Kallen, etc. are titular characters, but that doesn't mean anything if they aren't relevant outside of their series. Without this, there cannot be any articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, also opposed the merging of the main characters in Ouran, but since that was against general consensus, they were merged. Similarly, I am flexible about the merging of some articles, but there are a few that should absolutely stay. There is not meant to be a law saying that an article should exist because after it's past a certain threshold. I think general consensus is more important than any particular thing. After all, WP:NOTE is just a guideline and not a rule set in stone. I would so disagree that they don't appear outside of the series. There are still articles/illustrations published in anime magazines about them, although I don't remember which ones in particular. - Plau 01:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for notability means that there is sufficient material independent of the subject. For fiction that means that there has to be either references to it in other media, a large ammount of reception by independent media etc. Illustrations, especially official ones aren't sufficient. While nothing is set in stone in wikipedia, guidelines are at the very least meant to be followed unless following them violates common sense. This isn't one of those instances. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The are referenced in other media, just not English media. - Plau 05:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I formally vote Merge. I think a merge in which each of the character sections in the List of Code Geass characters will be supplemented by pertinent information from their corresponding individual character listings will be most appropriate. Let me know if anyone has any objections or suggestions.--YanA (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Although we really shouldn't be voting, I would "vote" for a merge of characters except Lelouch, Suzaku, C.C. and Kallen. I am still of the opinion that they are titular characters that do have recognition outside the series and should therefore be kept. I also think we should have more views from different users before proceeding. - Plau 05:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason not to vote. After all this is a proposal and should be voted upon; that is its purpose after all. I agree that it is important to have opinions from other editors, I also don't want to let this discussion go on indefinitely either. There has to be a resolution at some point. I figure that since the merge proposal tags have been on the articles for sometime now, it felt that it was time to commit to a decision.--YanA (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I share Plau's point of view. Although I do not come from a position where I have access to much in the way of different Japanese media that cross-references the characters in question, I recall instances of such. Coupling that with my concurrence that we let this fall to a consensus, and that the four aforementioned characters are important enough to warrant their articles, I would vote for Plau's proposal.--ZZanimar (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is important not to be ethnocentric in determining notability, in the sense that just because something appears in secondary sources but don't necessary appear in English speaking regions doesn't mean that they're not notable at all. I have no doubt in your assertions that these secondary sources do exist in Japanese media. However, the issue then becomes the fact that WP:NRVE and WP:V requires that we be able cite these secondary sources, but as mentioned, we in English speaking regions can't readily assess and therefore cite them. The case by strict interpretation of wikipedia policy is that we have failed to support notability and as such the existence of the independent character articles will be repeatedly called into question despite the fact that these sources exist. I feel that the most stable resolution to this issue would be to have a merger, despite the ethnocentricity issue. If sufficient sources were found and cited, then I would have no problem would keeping the articles per WP:VUE. We could just merge with the option of restoring them them if the sources were found.--YanA (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. I have no qualms against restoring the articles if notability is established. However for now, notability isn't there, and the articles can't exist without it. For now I suggest we merge all the characters, with the option of restoring them if notability is established. Anyone opposed to this? If so why? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument is a bit more subtle as notability exists (in the form of Japanese media) but cannot be verified (we can neither find nor access them in English speaking regions), not that notability does not exist at all, so I can see why a merge would be a touchy subject. Even so, if there are verification problems, a merge should still occur. If said problems are resolved, then sure, we could keep the articles; I don't really care what language the secondary sources are in, but rather that they can cited. As it stands, it's a hard sell to keep the articles as they are.--YanA (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The call for a merger seems somewhat excessively austere. It can not be argued that the articles as they currently stand lack sufficient secondary resources, I understand. However, I think it would be remiss to resolve this, even in the interim, by merging all remaining character articles. Although we ourselves may not be such people, it is well evident that there are more than a few in the community of not only this particular series, but Japanese media in general that are entrenched within the flow of information and resources concerning a series like this. We needn't look further than the archived discussion here to realize this, although I'm sure we are otherwise aware. I would think it'd be more appropriate to simply find someone capable of making the needed citations and having them inserted. I assume that such was the hope until this point, but a more proactive approach could solve that; if the sources become apparent within a reasonable amount of time, it feels drastic and disadvantageous to the reader to merge all the articles. I'll base this on the concern that the Animage contests should not just be dismissed, as they are a quantifier for the notability of the characters. As has been said, there may not be doubt that the secondary sources exist, but consider this proof that they do. Looking at it that way, I think it would be fine to leave the articles in the meantime, as they are a useful reference for any interested readers, the less involved and initiated of which may not be able to locate the archived article should we merge them all. All in all, I'd think it wouldn't be that hard to find someone who can make the necessary citations. Even if someone can't be found outside of Wikipedia, it should be possible for editors who have done such for other works to do the same for this franchise's characters.--ZZanimar (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, just the addition of second party japanese media isn't going to cut it. There needs to be a third party establishment of notability beyond the series. Furthermore, if there is someone who can find the necessary citations for notability outside the series, than the articles can be restored at that point. WP:USEFUL can't be a reason for keeping them. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DBZROCKS, can you clarify what you mean by "second party japanese media isn't going to cut it"? It seems as though you may be referring to tertiary sources, yet wikipedia generally relies upon secondary sources for determining notability. With respect to that, I would argue that any reliable source that provides a good discussion about series (other than the series itself, related manga, and etc.) would suffice to prove notability. It seems as though you are suggesting that in order for something to be notable, a source that summarizes those other sources must be available. And ZZanimar, yes, I am well aware of the content of the archived discussion as I was involved in it. However, nothing with respect to the lack of secondary source citation in the articles has changed. I don't believe a case can be made for keeping the articles unless there was a wikipedia editor who was at the ready to deal with situation. Moveover, popularity polls do show some degree of notability, however, I feel that the bar for notability is somewhat higher. Hypothetically, some student of Japanese culture could have written a lengthy exposition on each of the characters and how each was somehow culturally and socially pertinent or whatever, but until something like that is found and cited, the notability of the articles will be constantly in question.--YanA (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to prompt DBZROCKS for further clarification of the same point, so I thank you for that and await his response. Otherwise, I would maintain I did not use an erroneous context in defining the article as useful. I see it as useful enough to at least consider keeping it for a brief period if it can be corrected. For this particular situation, I think the call for merger is too rigid and uncompromising. Since we would be the ones enacting a change, it should fall on us to prove absolutely that it won't receive what is needed in the way of secondary sources, i.e. note that it is very unlikely anyone will rise to the occasion anytime soon. To that effect, I ask YanA if it's really so that an editor isn't more or less "at the ready"? I myself wouldn't know where to find this person on Wikipedia, but granted that he were found, whether or not he could provide sufficient secondary sources depends on our threshold for sufficiency. I think the appropriate person could acquire at least some amount of citations with relative ease. Also, my argument about the popularity poll wasn't made in defense of the poll's notability itself, but that its findings make it certain there is more in the way of secondary sources. The popularity of the character, as evidenced by the poll, must dictate there is establishment of it elsewhere.--ZZanimar (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... an interesting point indeed and I agree with your assessment that it is unlikely someone would rise to the occasion. "At the ready," refered to someone who was both able and willing to add the secondary sources. I will readily admit that I am not capable of doing it as I do not have an understanding of Japanese language to find them and that was the reason for why decided leave the articles alone last time. A volunteer could potentially be found by initiating a request on the request page at WP:ANIME/REQUEST, which may or may not be granted. My point is not that these sources do not exist, but WP:NAF suggests secondary sources have to be found and be cited. Most of the citations on the articles come from the anime itself rather than from a source not associated with the anime. So at present the case is stronger for a merge. But I'd be happy to discuss what the threshold of sufficiency for secondary sources should be. My sense of "sufficent secondary sources" would be a source, not associated with the anime itself, which did a discussion on the character which is basically more than just a plot summary. Perhaps a discussion pertaining to concept and creation of the characters, what have you. And indeed some of these articles do have references to such articles to varying degrees. I think two or three of these would be more than adequately demonstrate notability. As long as the source is not the anime itself or some forum for fans, then I would be very satisfied with it, i.e. it's okay with me if they come from interviews with the creators, voice actors, etc. I do feel that a merge would stifle anyone who was capable of finding and adding the sources. However, I also think that it would be inappropriate to base our decisions on what someone may do in the future, which is necessarily an unknown. It's okay to keep them for future improvement, but that raises the question as to how long that time period should be. Should that be a limited time frame or should it be indefinite...? I consented to leaving them alone initially, but I didn't feel that it should be an indefinite commitment. This is turning out to be quite the interesting discussion.--YanA (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There's still a bit unsaid about some of the more simple reasoning behind the conflict over the articles, however it may yet stay unsaid, as I might have found a resolution to the problem. Lest my suggestions are invalid, it seems perfectly reasonable to issue a request and see what it brings, if anything, within a period of time. Getting to the possible resolution though, since past discussion, I have entertained the thought that the manga adaptations of the anime could be viable secondary sources. It is different than validating notability by references within the anime; the manga are independent of the animated series and the originating studio. In fact, it would seem the manga serve the role of establishing notability for the anime itself. If I'm correct in my belief, the same should apply to the characters; being an independently produced and published work that explores the characters in question, it should be appropriate. My other realization came after you noted crew/cast interviews as sufficient citations. I am just about positive that the English language DVD releases for the series contain such interviews, so if nothing else, all we need to do is cite said interviews.--ZZanimar (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll come out and comment on the simplicity of the argument. Despite the relative youth of your account, you seem to have been observing wikipedia for quite sometime, and perhaps you've noticed that strict adherence to wikipedia guidelines is usually the norm on most, though not all, of such discussions. Despite the previous archived merge discussion, it was certain that someone would come along, start reciting guidelines and the merge probably would have gone through as the guidelines are viewed as sort of a rough doctrine that should have been followed and even if it didn't pass this time, the guidelines will continue to exist, at least for the foreseeable future, resulting in repeated merge proposals if the problem with secondary sources wasn't addressed. I felt a merge to to be the most conclusive way, for lack of a better them, deal with the situation. But getting to your suggestions, I don't feel as though the manga would qualify to support notability as it is still a work of fiction, albeit in a different "universe", and doesn't offer any real world perspective. For that reason, I view the manga adaptation as a distinct primary source. I am aware the interviews exist with the English-dub cast on the some of the DVDs that have been released, but I'm reluctant to invoke them as secondary sources as they seem really closely related to the series itself. They were included on the DVDs themselves, so that may be a potential sticking point. But I'm willing to go with it though with some reservations. It would be useful also to have use them as they would add to a non-fictional perspective which is very much desired for an article pertaining to fiction. --YanA (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The manga is not sufficent for the articles existance. There needs to be third party sources that talk about creation conception etc, and sourced appearances in media that is not related to the anime. Or this can be established via articles that discuss more than the plot of the anime. These need to be present to establish notability. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say myself, it's no small understatement to say my account is of "relative youth". I am mostly a stranger to the general goings-ons of article maintenance, and the various technicalities. I have indeed observed and utilized Wikipedia for quite some time now, and that being said, I don't come at this from the position of a painstakingly vigilant editor. That is perhaps due to my not fully understanding the implications of this conflict. I have certainly used Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with both entire articles and individual sections that go into far too much extraneous detail where it is not needed. However, I am not seeing a parallel here in which the articles have a detracting effect or do any harm at all. As I understand it, the motivation behind taking such actions is to provide a clean, easily navigated, sensibly arranged article, and where applicable, branch of articles. I see no navigation problems or messiness here, so it is a bit difficult to understand statements such as "the articles can not exist" when so few anime that have existing articles for certain characters, lack the same sources. If the articles went into such unnecessary detail, they would not read as they do now, standing fairly abridged as is. My point being, I don't believe the articles are really in offense of policies regarding irrelevant information. If you consider that, the merger seems to serve no purpose other than a crusade to slash information for no reason.

Now though, I'd like to get back to the matter of the secondary sources. I do believe the characters warrant themselves their articles due to existing notability. If you noticed Lelouch Lamperouge#Character planning history, the section exists solely for what has been previously discussed, and it would seem that if no one else, Lelouch's article would be exempt from the merger as it does have at least three secondary sources concerning character concept. I'd also like to inquire further as to why notability necessitates a third party analysis of concept? In terms of establishing importance outside of itself, the manga are works without the involvement of the original fiction's staff, works that would otherwise not exist. That is a marker of importance. In the case of the interviews, I don't see why they can't be used. The interviews on the English language releases are productions outside of any fictional format or even the originating studio, they are well enough removed from the anime I feel.--ZZanimar (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The requirement for third-party sources is necessary for notability because it shows that people other than those intimately involved with a series, topic, genre, etc., view the work as important. For instance, I could publish an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal about the synthesis and characterization of a new and novel metal complex. Even though it would be in a reliable source, i.e. a peer reviewed scientific journal, the metal complex itself does not have the notability to warrant it's own wikipedia article. However, if after sometime, if other researchers reference the paper and the metal complex for use in their own chemistry or if it appeared in a review of coordination chemistry, then that would convey notability to the work that I had done and at that point, it would warrant its own wikipedia article. If it wasn't referenced by others, sure one could conceivably write a wikipedia article about it and it won't do any harm, but if no one cares, there's no real point in having it. The question that has to be answered is: "Does a larger community other than just those involved in the work see it as significant?". Sorry for the science example, but that's the best I've got that seemed to get at the heart of the question.

The manga is also from the same author as the anime, though published and distributed through a different entity than the anime. I don't think it really counts as showing notability as it comes from the same creative source. I'm willing to compromise on your view on the interviews though as secondary sources, though from a psuedo-third party, as it was distributed with the work of fiction itself.--YanA (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What YanA said should be sufficient as to why the articles need third parties, I want to address your concern that other articles have these same problems. While I understand that, that doesn't mean that articles without notability should be kept just because other articles without notability are on wikipedia. I understand that you think this is just a crusade to get rid of information, but the fact remains that the articles lack notability. If the articles need to be merged, the information can just be transwikied to the code geass wiki. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the transwiki-ing to the Code Geass wiki is that the the CG wiki itself lacks any credibility and it's a complete mess. It lacks any reference system or any form of organization. - Plau (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I could strangle myself right now. Furious. As I was just finishing up a rather long, very thorough write-up, I managed to copy over the entire thing. How disheartening...I wrote it as such to be very comprehensive in addressing all issues and the rationale of the discussion, to do my best in not leaving room for misinterpretation where I could help it. The thought of replicating it makes my head spin, so I'll unfortunately make what is comparably, a very brief outline of my arguments. Bare with me if you find it a bit rough or rigid.

() YanA, your example raises an interesting dilemma. The notability of a scientific hypothesis inadvertantly always incorporates a factor of reliability, as its notability is established by others in the community seeing credence in the facts. This seems to be a different dynamic though, as a fictional work is only at the mercy of its author. It's not possible for a third party to legitimize story concept, as they have no say in it. This means the best notability can only come from something with a creative element, whether they be non-fiction interactions with creative staff (the interviews) or consequential, independent fictional works (the manga). Also, the answer to the question of whether others beyond the creators find it significant seems clear; obviously there are people who appreciate the series and have referred to the series' wikis. The context of significance is different from the one in your example

()() The manga are apparently all by different authors. The entry here for the one you'd figure most likely to share creators actually makes a point of noting it shares no staff with the anime.

()()() I think getting into the technicality of the distribution method for the interviews would be splitting hairs. What if the interviews had been brought over to the release after having originally appeared as a promotional item in a magazine? There's no discernable difference, so I don't think we need to worry about it.--ZZanimar (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I disgree that the example I provided had limited relevance to the discussion at hand. Yes, someone had to view the hypothesis as worthy of pursuit and someone, be it a government agency like NSF or an industrial organization had to decide it was worthy of funding. I agree that this does necessarily imply some degree of notability. Even so, there are many examples, where a results in science have been published (that has to have been funded by someone), but the wider community thinks is of not great significance. Similarly one could argue some network executive had to think that the anime was worthy of being placed on one air and that would show notability. However, this only applies to the fictional work itself and not necessarily the character articles, whose fate we are trying to determine. Additionally, it's not so much as a third party legitimizing the story concept, as I pointed out in a previous example that someone, not affiliated with the story at at all, could potentially write about some in depth analysis of the characters. In that sense, notability can come from a source other than the original creative source. So I feel that for notability to be firmly established (in the wikipedia sense) is to have a third-party (after initial idea conception and approval) discuss the topic regardless of the field.

Additionally, these have to be sources that we can cite. It is perfectly acceptable for the Code Geass wiki to have the character articles as Code Geass is it's primary focus. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and so, here we find ourselves discussing whether or not a general focus encyclopedia should include such information.

It seems that many of the manga have the same author as the anime... at least from looking at them on amazon.com. Even so, it's a bit too closely related for comfort. As far as I'm aware, the interviews were first released with the DVDs and no one would have them unless they had the DVDs as well. That suggests that no one would care unless they cared enough about the series to purchase the DVDs to begin with. Seen from that point of view, the notability that it confers is iffy.--YanA (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In hopes of clarifying, I offer what the articles need to establish notability:

• Appearances in third party sources, beyond in universe content. Secondary manga, which is still in universe does not support notability, regardless of the author.
• This can be established by way of reception data, or by articles written about the subject that are not from bandai itself.

If you believe that the Code Geass wiki needs fixing, then feel free to fix it, but the problems of the code geass wiki do not justify the inclusion of code geass character articles on wikipedia, especially when notablity has not been established. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The manga aren't that exactly in the same universe due to numerous differences in the world that the anime and manga occur in. Just pointing that out as this discussion has turned into a discussion where all logical and factual fallicies are open to question. So, just a heads-up; we're at the point where every line is being analyzed (nothing wrong with that, it's been a nice intellectual exercise). However, I concur that the manga does not constitute good support for notability. Additionally, I doubt that two bullet points is going to cover all the complexities that have been introduced throughout the course of this discussion. I don't know if you noticed this, there was also talk about how a third-party can confer notability to a topic (which I hopefully clarified with that long response I wrote). Additionally, there seems to be confusion as to the distinction between reliability and notability. This is increasing turning into an intractable quagmire.--YanA (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By "same universe" I meant that they are still a part of the series, and thus cannot provide notability, as something cannot give itself notability. While I understand that two bullet points isn't going to solve every problem and argument, I felt it was neccesary to bring the discussion back to square one, but with a few key issues solved already. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The manga are not in-universe though. The one similarity of the license should not constitute something as being in-universe. Vast differences in plot and setting would ultimately be irrelveant standalone, what matters is who originates the works. And none of them are people responsible for the anime(I'm assuming Amazon credits Goro Taniguchi or Ichiro Okouchi for the manga, this information however, is incorrect). These authors would not have written their respective manga serializations if the series had not been received to the effect that it was, and being that they are outside those originally involved, I would disagree that it is in-universe. In regards to the DVD interviews, they can be viewed by others using resources such as YouTube and probably numerous others if there is an uploader; that's just a matter of penetration though. I think in concept, you can still cite the interviews as they are on the DVD.

As for the matter of how exactly Code Geass is significant, the line that distinguishes the general series and the characters seems to be growing hazier in this discussion. Could I not argue that people seeing significance in the series is in some, or even most circumstances the same as considering the characters significant? If we were to have a recreational discussion about this series right now, it would be rather difficult to avoid talk of the characters, as would be the case with any fictional work. Really, nothing is more integral than they are, so I'm not sure we can set them aside from the anime itself. When it comes to third-party analysis, I'm still unsure of just how well it can imply notability in the same way as something non-fiction. Analysis for such things, whether wrong or right, is still a pursuit to determine an absolute fact. Third-party analysis has obviously occurred with many fictional works in history, however, it's something of an unavoidable technicality that it is of no real value.--ZZanimar (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw in an opinion since asked, I'll agree that some, not all could do with being merged. Jeremiah could certainly not be merged. Schneizel, too. Rolo and Nunnally, probably. The first four (Lelouch, Suzaku, Kallen, C.C.) I wouldn't agree to merging either. They're the four main characters. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just give it a chance, yo!

If this chat is dead I will remove the merge tags. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that considering the discussion lost steam over half a year ago with no clear consensus being reached. Fox816 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the Gino & Anya articles return?

Those two have an extended plotline and both are in a manga spin-off. Anya is in the "Nightmare of Nunnally" manga and Gino will appear in the "Jet-Black Renya" manga. What do you think?SilentmanX (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The question to be answered is, are they discussed nontrivially in multiple reliable third-party sources? If the answer is "no", then it doesn't matter what kind of plotline is behind them, or how many spinoffs they appear in. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jiang Lihua as the ??th Tianzi

Hi, I want to clarify something. Since Charles is the 98th, Lelouch 99th, & Nunnally as 100th Emperors of Britannia, what of the Tianzi?

I'm asuming she's the 89th Tianzi, since the entire scene of the High Eunuchs' lèse majesté at R2 occurred at the mountainous "Imperial Tomb of the 88 Tianzis" (at least, from what I can read from the kanji "帝陵八十八天子"; correct me if I may be wrong with it...)

To those who know, please reply to this post. Thanks... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I want sources, darn it!

All this talk about the imperial consorts, the characters mothers, backgrounds- where are people getting this? Cite it or don't write ie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.38.130 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Shikkoku No Renya" meaning

Ever since the title came out, it was translated as "Jet-Black Renya" & later "Renya of Darkness".

Does anybody knows the english translation of this title is? SilentmanX (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)