Talk:Code Geass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of staff listing in the summary...

I'd like to go through the history and put this information back somewhere; soliciting suggestions as to where to put it. (under a "Staff" section?)

I have a particular vested interest in ensuring that Eiji Nakada's name is tied to the project in the article, as I find mechanical designers are regrettably overlooked by US anime enthusiasts. (Then again, this is coming from the guy who's been singlehandedly overhauling Kunio Okawara's article; guess I'm a little bit biased). --E. Megas 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ashford Academy

What academic calender does the school follow? The traditional British system or the Japanese system? -Atashi 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that depends. Does the British school system start at grade one when a student first hits high school? If they don't then I would say it follows the Japanese sysem because all of the students have school grades such as 1 or 2 indicating a Japanese system or at least not an American one. Lordfani 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say its the Japanese system due to British system is about how old you are and most characters are too old for the last year of Secondary School (same as high school, year 11 is the last year of school and the students are about 16 years old) most the characters would be first year of college if they started right after school.

Jim-San 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference British school tends to go like this, starting from an age roughly appropriate to the characters in Code Geass:

Compulsory: Secondary School: Split into Years 7 (students aged 11) through to Year 11 (students aged at most 16). The whole spectrum of subjects.
Option: 6th form/College: Aged 16-19, though older students are usually accepted for whatever reason. Generally pick 3 subject. This is soon to change.
Option: University: Aged 18+. I don't think I need to explain this. :)

That said, if it is meant to be British school (that is, based on real British school) then Lelouch and co. would have to be 16 or less - while they are in fact 17. That's because colleges and above don't have a dress-code, though I suppose the team could use the excuse that it's an "upper class school". It's all very tenuous anyway; while they would be either doing A Levels (college) if they were in a present day British school, since it's set in 10 years time things may well have changed by then. As I said, the A Levels are already on their way out now, so... 82.36.209.171 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters section

The Code Geass series is still running and ongoing, so I personally think it is more suitable if a characters sub-article, if it was really necessary, be created only after the completion of the full series, so as to make the editing and improvement of the overall article easier and more organized, for the time being. When the series is completed, a characters sub-article should then be proposed for creation. Ganryuu (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe most pepole know of the old 32kb limit (if not, see Wikipedia:Article size). The current article is 40kb, which is mainly the characters section. In my opinion, it should be divided. So what if the series isn't finished yet? They already presented over 20 charcters. That surely demands it's own article! What shouldn't deserve it's own article yet is personal charcter article, but a list is fine. Again, IMO. Kurigiri 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I tried creating a list. If there won't be any objections (or any comments, like up till now), I'll make an article for it in 3 days. Kurigiri 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The series is still ongoing, therefore there is perhaps a lot of information yet to be revealed, not only characters but other factors of the series, such as terminology, the Knighmare Frames, the power of Geass, and other concepts. It is therefore much easier and more manageable for all concerned to edit and make improvements to one, organized main article, through its different sections. When the series is complete, I believe then should be the best time for other sub-articles, but not now, in my opinion. Ganryuu (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, what does it matter that the series is still ongoing? That does not change the fact that they have already revealed alot of information. Besides, the series is planned to have 25 episodes. To keep it another 4 months on one article? It's already seeping out of the old limitations.

The current list is without a doubt the main core of the article, but it shouldn't. While editing the chara section, the other sections (which aren't any less important) are neglected. By dividing the characters section into an article of it's own, it'll be far easier to reach all the sections. Also, I don't understand - by cramming all the information on one article it'll be easier for editors? how? Kurigiri 14:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As the series is an ongoing one, there is therefore indeed much left to be revealed, especially about the main characters, so I think it best a characters section be created when a complete amount of information is revealed, to provide ample space for expansion. In my humble opinion, I don't really think the other sections are being neglected, instead I actually believe they've been expanded quite well over the past few months, but I think it would be much easier to manage the overall article, for the time being, if the format is left within one article. Ganryuu (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But we may never know when will new inforamtion come out, even after the of the series. Because this is an ongoing article series, it may be easier to start it's related article now, since there are some things (such as minor characters who are nothing but a first name or a last name) which shouldn't be written on the main article. Mainly since the main article should consist of the main info, like.. basic information on the main charcters, and a link to the character list.

If by keeping it in one article, you intend to "save some space", then Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia should answear that.

After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style).. As far as I see it, we've come to a point where we can split the article into seperate articles. Besides, we can update a character list just as good as we update the main article, just one more article on the watchlist. It is still practicly the same thing we've been doing up till now, isn't it? Kurigiri 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Any comments, Ganryuu? I'd like to have your agreement before creating the list, which I can't get unless you answer me :P Kurigiri 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the article expanding rapidly and other reasons relating mostly to WP:FICTION, I decided to go ahead and split the characters section into an article of its own. Ganryuu (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New Section Proposal

I propose there should be a section about the Pizza Hut sightings, or at least a mention of it, in Code Geass, because the product placement of Pizza Hut in the anime seems to have taken a role as an in-fandom meme. It's made it's mark in the Geass fandom ranging from the fansubbers webpage including a sightings list, to the main Pizza Hut article even mentioning Code Geass, to the seemingly widespread inside one-liner, "PIZZA HUT SUPPORTS THE REBELLION". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fall Showers (talk • contribs) 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

I agree! I was going to add to C-2's character information that her favourite food is pizza hut.

But if we are going to add a new section, might be best to add it there. I mean what other anime series feature a current product placement?

I bet the animators are getting free pizza for a year or something :p While Pizza Hut isn't central to the story, it is feature almost regularly thoughout the episodes so far seen.

- Onizuka-gto 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While this might be rather hilarious, it is however not notable or significant enough to have it included within the article, I'm afraid. Actually, there are several notable anime series to have incorporated product placement, for example - adidas directly sponsored the 2001 series Captain Tsubasa Road to 2002 (with adidas' logo appearing on the stadium boards, even on one of the main characters, Genzo's cap, which he always wears, by the way). See adidas's official website about Captain Tsubasa. PUMA also directly sponsored Hungry Heart: Wild Striker. Ganryuu (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against this. While the Pizza Hut thing is amusing, the article is already big enough as it is. Please don't make it bloated with insignificant information. DarkWarrior 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It could probably fit in a trivia sectionThe one smiley to rule them all 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Pizza Hut a major sponsor of Code Geass? That should explain their placement and prominence in the series. - ULTRAZORD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.177.15 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 February 2007.

Offical Names

Please don't change the names unless you're sure you're right. The current names (as many as I could find) are from an article in animage; scans here and here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.52.223 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Simple magazine articles are not official confirmation of any kind and such scans anyway are not notable enough for inclusion into a correctly referenced article. Ganryuu (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if those are the official names, they're horrible romanizaion. For example, Nanari or Nanaly would make a lot more sense then Nunnaly. If they are not from Sunrise then I agree with not including it. 70.180.165.154 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guren vs Crismon

I think we should use Guren Mark 2 instead of Crismon Lotus, one of the reasons is just as GG Fansub sad“HEY, no one translated Akatsuki in Gundam SEED Destiny”. Also it is more logical to use Guren instead of Crismon because wikipedia is a encyclopedia. If GG-fansub doesn't translate it to Crismon then that piece of article wouldn't make much sense. So that's why I suggest that until other fansub groups decide what to use,whe should at least use Guren. Atilim,20 december 2006,7.45 Dutch time—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.147.106.216 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 20 December 2006.

I'd not rely on anything from fansubs, especially when only one English group is subbing Geass. If gg fansubs had another translator who preferred 'Crimson Lotus', then that would've been their release. Atashi 09:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evens so, I still think that Guren is better because like you sad you prefer non translation and Crismon is a translation, we should stik with this to the name and not the fan name.Atilim,20 december 2006,—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.147.106.216 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 December 2006.

Shinsen Subs is also subbing it now, and they use Guren instead of Crimson Lotus as well. 76.16.151.80 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth adding?

Should a reference to the Geas from Celtic mythology? Yes, Original Research and all that, but I find it's more than a coincidence. I've been thinking of writing a sentence about it, but can't think where. Also, I think there should be explanations as to where the names of the mech names come from (The city of Gloucester in England, Sutherland in Scotland, etc.) Bnynms 17:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire series has refernces to the UK like the chess, the Brtiannian naming, Lancelot. I think it has it's own part of the article, so yeah, feel free to add it. Kurigiri 18:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally support adding the geas/geass reference but according to a small minority of dedicated wiki'ers, large amounts of smoke billowing out of the woods does not constitute a forest fire. :p Maloncanth 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this section then? I was also going to add that Glasgow is a famous Scottish city and that Yggdrasil (as in the cores of some of the Knightmares) is the Tree of Life.82.36.209.171 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Allusion to the Holy Roman Empire?

As I am sure some of you are aware, the Holy Britannia Empire is pretty much anything but its namesake (as the name itself is obviously derived from Germany's Holy Roman Empire). While it may have a 'British' facade, it definitely has a German heart. Historically, the British Empire was a naval power, rather than a land-based one. That honor, of course, belonged to the Germans.

It is also quite interesting how the producers decided to coin this show's signature mechas as the Royal Panzer Infantry, as I'd imagine the word Panzer would have been an affront to British sensitivities. Perhaps it would be better to call them ReichsPanzerInfanterie. Not to mention the ideas of competition and eugenics were both very central to National Socialist ideology.

I suppose the producers did not wish to create an authoritarian regime with a German foundation, since it may be slightly offensive, not to mention they would have had excessive difficulties with German vocabulary.

Regardless, I believe an article regarding the connections of the Holy Britannia Empire to its historical counterpart, the Holy Roman Empire, may be appropriate. - Tak—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.42.49 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 December 2006.

Completly, but I mean COMPLETLY Original Research. Kurigiri 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lancelot's Slash Harken

If I'm not mistaken, there are at least two screenshots: here, here, and the cropped version of the last that show/imply that Lancelot doesn't have two, but four slash-harkens instead, two more located on its hips. Should I edit? Dr. Rondart 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Dr. RondartDr. Rondart 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wheres Pizza Hut??

Seeing Pizza Hut is thrown everywhere, why no mention of Pizza Hut's support of the rebellion?--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the significance of Pizza Hut to the overall plot? -Atashi 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Look up at the new section proposal in here - ULTRAZORD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.177.15 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 February 2007.

I think it should at least be in a trivia section, as it has an abnormal amount of exposure in the series. Although I don't think they "support the rebellion" by any intent, it does come up extremely often and is the subject of a lot of curiosity. -Biokinetica 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is either a sponsorship that manifests itself within the episodes via product placement rather than at the traditional point at the end of the opening credits, or merely just a little tribute to Pizza Hut by fans on the animation team? I know this is even worse than anecdotal evidence, but if I had creative control over a movie or TV series, I would add in lots of little touches with beer brands and snacks brands that my friends and I enjoy. Directors often put in songs that they like or posters of their favourite movies in the background. OT, but in the X-Files movie, Mulder urinates onto a poster of Independence Day. I think it's obvious that that's all this is. 82.36.209.171 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that it's so obvious. Either there's something more than "we like pizza hut" behind this, or these guys are just three-topping-circle fanatics that need to find some other foods they like and want to worship through their animation. No personal director's choice gets anywhere near this amount of exposure. -Biokinetica 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can there really be any question that this is sponsorship? Relatively tastefully done, and not too intrusive, I might add. --Darkbane 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not having seen this anime myself...do they use the actual Pizza Hut logo in it, rather than one of the slightly-altered-so-we-don't-get-sued logos that (ie KcDonald's, etc) that seem to be standard in anime? If the real Pizza Hut logo is used, that would be a pretty clear sign of approval on Pizza Hut's part, if not outright sponsorship. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes it is actual logo and name, not certain but i think that some eps included pizza hut in "this is sponsored by following companies" screen after intro. It is also in pizza hut article on wikipedia and Japanese wikipedia also mentions it. (on code geass article) Pahajoki 10:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OP2 "Indecipherable"

Apparently some fans have found it to be really "Indecipherable". That is to say, not even native speakers of Japanese can make out what the song is singing about, not without a lyric sheet or sth. Some people have made videos with "alternative" and rather funny lyrics. Maybe that's good for starting a trivia section? There used to be several related videos on Youtube, but they have been removed "due to use violation". The only one I can find now is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ndeQMVgJM Would anybody search for alternative sites plz... try keywords like 解読不能　空耳字幕, etc. Nautilusfossil 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page, as detailed in the talk header, is to be used for discussing improvements to the Code Geass article, and not for general discussion regarding the article's topic. Please also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where it is clearly detailed: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was suggesting "improving" the article by adding this (possibly interesting) piece of information regarding OP2. Those comments on the lyric are not my original thought. It will not promote anything (as in soapbox), nor will it be about FAQs, travel guides, memorials, manuals, internet guides, textbooks, plot summary or the actual lyric (as in indiscriminate collection of information). However, this piece of information may be lacking in term of the "notability" criteria, having only been circulated as music videos and on various anime-related blogs. I wouldn't put it in right now. Maybe after some published work (magazine article, etc) mentions the song, it would be worth mentioning here. -Nautilusfossil 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode 22: What does the Emperor have to do with the Geass

A person bearing a great resemblance to the Emperor of Britannia appears in the first episode, during the "Contract" scene, the 18th episode(saying something of a 'mental elevator') and in episode 22, laughing and saying that the/an idiot did 'it'. We should mention the possibility of this man being the Emperor (how many have their hair like THAT?) and of his apparent knowledge about the Geass. It might have something to do with the other name of the Geass, "the power of the king". I haven't seen all of the episodes, so if someone knows something that I don't about this issue, please contact me.- Preda 20:36 27 of March 2007

Completely off-the-wall explanations aside, he's the Emperor of Britannia for sure - the appearance is identical and there has been no reason presented to believe that it is a completely different character who is merely identical in appearance. Imban 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Season

Forgive me if the answer to this question is already listed somewhere... But when will the second season start? And what will it be called? Theres a link, but I cant speak japanese... 134.117.166.69 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Exact details as to what form the second season will take (tv series, ova, etc), what it will be called, and when it will be aired, are currently not known. That post is a bit dated now, but it only announces a second season, without giving any details, and there hasn't been any further official announcements, as far as I know.

There has been mention of "episode 26" in a staff interview, so it's safe to assume that the second season will be episodic. Due to that same announcement's contents, it's also relatively safe to assume that there won't be any large time gap between the seasons. I've also read somewhere that it will air in the fall (so October), but this is unconfirmed and highly speculative. --Darkbane 05:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The words "second season" are not actually used by the creators. Moreover, it's misleading since implies television when the creators emphasize in the March 9 blog[1] that even they don't know what form the continuation will take. The exact term they used is "続編," which simply means "continuation" or "follow-up"—nothing specific about "season." Egan Loo 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While the initial blog entry does indeed state continuation or sequel (which is more accurate, in my humble opinion, since this is a television series), further developments with the series' staff and cast and recent articles in other Japanese magazines have further confirmed upon the sequel being a television season, which is further helped by the fact that the series has been extremely popular in its television run. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please cite those newer sources that specifically say television or "second season," or all of those "second season" assertions should be removed from the article. Even the Japanese wikipedia entry on Code Geass doesn't assert what the English page asserts about "second season." In fact, it emphasizes, like the official blog, that the exact format of the continuation is unknown. Egan Loo 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent interviews with the series' cast and staff (for example, an interview with Jun Fukuyama), have further hinted and confirmed on the fact that there will be a second season, but either way, the term "sequel" is best suited for the entry, as this is a television series, not another form of media. In my opinion, it's far more important to further improve and expand the article to a better standard, rather than worry about such minor matters as wordings. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The creators emphasize that the sequel can take the form of another media. Accuracy is more important than smoothness. If there is a interview that confirms that the sequel is a "second season" or on television, then cite it. It's that simple. Egan Loo 05:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even after I agreed to change my wording from second season to sequel, to suit the current references, you have insisted on edit warring over this minor matter. Like I've said, the articles in Newtype, referenced in the article, talk about the sequel/continuation, so I've just said that; this is a referenced and published fact. We don't need a note which bulks the article unnecessary, especially when the published magazines have confirmed the fact it will be sequel; a published source like a magazine is more reliable than an outdated blog entry. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, citation please. If you have a source that says the series thus far is "first season," then please provide it. Otherwise, that should be removed to reduce uncited bulk. Egan Loo 06:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the following statement: "The blog cautions that the sequel's format, be it 'TV broadcast, OVA, or theatrical release,' is not confirmed." If the creators themselves see fit to write that in the beginning of the sequel announcement, then it is relevant and worthy. If the creators haven't said that the sequel is a "second season," they also haven't said that the series thus far is the "first season." Again, citation please. Egan Loo 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This note is unnecessary and outdated, as the wording of the term "sequel" is as clear as possible: it is a confirmed continuation, but the exact format is not elaborated, as far as I'm concerned, that's all we need now. Like I've said, recent interviews with the show's cast, including the recent interview with Jun Fukuyama, have hinted on the sequel being a second season, so actually, it's not as confusing as the above wording might imply. A published magazine is more reliable than an outdated blog entry; please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If another media is confirmed by MBS, we can add it to the article then, but as of now, we really don't need an ambiguous entry. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there is a newer source, cite it. Just cite that interview. That's what we need to do. Accuracy and citations are more essential than adding uncited material. Egan Loo 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just added two references to the article, further verifying the fact that the first season/series will end with episodes 24 and 25 and the confirmed second series, respectively. It is more important to improve the article and expand upon it, rather than be involved in unnecessary disagreements. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that Anime News Network article doesn't say that the episode 24 and 25 ends the "first season" and doesn't confirm a "second season"—I wrote the article. :) I had to point those points out to the confused readers in that article's forum thread. [2] Also, Moon Phase's maintainer emphasizes in writing that he includes unannounced information, rumors, and predictions with official information. Moon Phase is not more reliable than the official Code Geass blog from the creators. That's why the Japanese Wikipedia article on Code Geass does not say "first season" or "second season," and says instead that the format is "unspecified." Egan Loo 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have the April issue whose citation was added to the article, and Taniguchi does not say "first season." Egan Loo 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Series" and "season" do not mean the same thing. The whole issue with using the word "season" is that implies television, whereas the creators have been careful to emphasize that the format of the sequel is unspecified. Wikipedia can't used that specific term until the creators used that specific term. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Egan Loo 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact information specified in Moonphase, which is used as a reference by numerous sources around the internet (thus being a source that can most certainly be used in the article), directly refers to the "second series", with the first 25 episodes being part of the first series or season. Either way, if we're talking about episodes 24 and 25 being part of the first season, I think it's been safely deduced that it has indeed been referred as such by numerous sources, several articles relating to Code Geass which have been published in recent months by several magazines, and of course, Moonphase; the fact is, published material have referenced this as ending the first season. You wanted a reference, and it's been given; this particular fact, I think, is pretty obvious and so a disagreement over it is unnecessary, in my humble opinion. After all, other parts of the article, such as the characters and story setting, etc. need much more improvement, and I think it's better if we spend our time improve the in-universe sections of the article. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is used "around the Internet" is not necessarily good enough for Wikipedia. That is why the ja:コードギアスJapanese Wikipedia on Code Geass]] doesn't say "second season." Also, as before, the published material cited does not say "first season," so it does not say what the article says. Egan Loo

If it is a verified and notable reference, such as Moonphase, which has been referenced by numerous notable sources, then yes, it can most certainly be used in the article. I would kindly refer you to see Wikipedia's policies on attribution and verifiability. Either way, if we are disagreeing about a minor matter like wordings, such as the difference between "series" and "season", then it's obvious that this does not concern improving the article anymore; therefore, I personally don't care whether or not we use the term "series" or "season", so I've changed each instances of the word "season" to "series" wherever applicable. I'm far more interested in improving other sections of the article, after expanding the non-universe and development related sections the other day, so I'd appreciate if this minor matter is over. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 07:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article's wording on the sequel is fine for me now. Moon Phase is a good place to find links to the original firsthand source, but the Moon Phase maintainer specifically writes that he includes "unannounced information, rumors, and predictions." That's why we have to be careful about using Moon Phase, and why the Japanese article doesn't use it for this issue. The reason this issue is not just minor wording is that almost every time the Anime News Network posts an article about episode 24 and 25, or about the sequel, readers post something like, "Don't we already know about the second season? Everyone on the internet has been saying that for months." Then we have to explain each time that the creators haven't said "second season" yet, and that the creators themselves emphasized that they didn't know the format yet. Egan Loo 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

To be honest, I agree with Frenchman113 that this article could use some cleanup. The question is, what are we gonna do about it? I'm going to rearrange some stuff into subsections, but some other things need to be addressed publicly before we go about major edits:

• Broadcast stations - this section is pretty much obsolete, might as well ditch it. It never added substantially to the article, in my humble opinion.

• Lelouch's ability - we could go with a much more concise description here. The extensive list of restrictions on usage should be axed.

• Staff - I propose removing this section. It does not add significantly to the article, and this information is present in the ANN anyway. Many good anime articles on en:wiki do not have such a section.

• Drama CD - this section needs cleanup, but I'm not sure about how to approach it.

--Darkbane 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The details on Lelouch's ability are important to the series's overview and should not be removed; essential details on the series's plot such as this should remain. There is no need to excessively divide sections, for example, this series is an original anime series, as stated in the intro, so dividing those related to the anime into a subsection would not be useful, as almost all of the information (including story, characters, terminology, etc.) pertain to the anime. Also, whether or not an external link contains any information and whether or not other articles contain something is not relevant to this article whatsoever. It should be noted that this expansive staff list, containing essential information pertaining to the series's production, was present and translated from the excellent article at the Japanese wiki long before ANN expanded upon their list. Non-universe material related to the series's production has to be included, as it relates to how the series was produced and planned. I'll work on cleaning up the drama CD section soon, as it's only recently been added. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The only essential details are that it's a power that given eye contact will, once per person, command that person to absolute obedience. Everything else is really debatable, imho. I would argue that it's fancruft, except that Death Note contains similar information.

Moving the anime production stuff into the medial section may or may not be relevant, but I argue that the setting material still deserves it's own section for better overview. "Everything pertains to the anime" is not a good excuse imho, as it would be better to group the in-universe stuff together since there is so much of it.

When ANN expanded upon their list, or where this staff list originated, is not relevant. I'm still looking over articles containing Staff lists and over Wikipedia policiy, which, being a new editor, I'm not 100% familiar with, but I'd like more opinions on whether it deserves to be included or not.

You haven't said anything about the broadcast information - do you mind if I delete it?

--Darkbane 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Staff lists are highly essential details often added to articles upon translation projects from the Japanese wiki. They are highly important and relate to the series's production and are therefore of essential value to the article. See such excellent articles like High School! Kimengumi, and several other superb articles. Similarly, the list of broadcast stations was added to the article as a result of the translation, and notably relates to how the series was planned and aired, and is also therefore essential to the article. Also, material such as Knightmare Frames and Geass is not related to the series' setting, and therefore must stay in their own sections. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm bewildered by the notion that the staff list is "highly important" and "highly essential", as opposed to just being "important" or "essential" for instance :) Your overuse of the word "essential", in this reply and in others, makes me wonder if you are maybe overly biased towards content that you've added ^_^;; (I'm assuming you are responsible for the translation - please correct me if I'm wrong). I'll agree that the staff list may have "some" relevance to the article, so let's keep it. However, if it's a translation, I think it should at least cite the Japanese wiki entry.

Broadcast lists do not relate to the production but rather to the distribution of the anime. It's also not relevant information for anyone, especially not that the series has finished airing for the most part and the last two episodes are going to be schedules separately. In fact, the list is counterproductive as the way it's written implies that the series is still airing every week right now, which is not true. It also lacks citations. Unless we plan on adding a section listing every Japanese store distributing the DVD's, this section needs to go. --Darkbane 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Knightmare Frames and Geass sections are most definitely related to "setting" as they describe the Code Geass universe. --Darkbane 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast information is definitely notable and meets each of the notability criteria as it relates to how the series was aired across its respective television networks. One's personal opinion regarding such broadcast information is irrelevant, as TV broadcast info about a television series is most certainly relevant and notable to the article's subject. Please do not bring your personal opinion to Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a soapboax. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between common sense and personal opinion. I believe my statements are not propaganda, not self-promotion, and not advertising, hence I do not see why you are invoking the soapbox argument. I've asked for third party opinion for this section, because no new arguments are being invoked and I am still not at all convinced. --Darkbane 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a television series, so broadcast information relating to the series' airing and broadcast runs are definitely relevant to the article's subject - this is as obvious and clear as it goes. The notability and relevance of this section is clearly detailed in the various policy guidelines regarding notability and relevance, so I would direct you to kindly read these. It would be much better to seek to add new sections to the article and improve it in that regard instead of wasting time over such a clear matter as this. If you wish to speak about "common sense", broadcast information relating to a television series is most certainly relevant. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 04:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's honestly the first reasonable argument I've heard from you on this page. You should have started with this. But rest assured that I am not wasting time as this topic needs some attention and only requires a very minuscule fraction of my time. "Cleary detailed" is not the case, since those guidelines do not contain any information about "broadcast information". --Darkbane 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to forget about this issue for now. At the end of the day, it really is as you say: it's not that important. --Darkbane 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Having now placed dozens of CSD A7 speedy tags, I've come to appreciate that any neutral content that provides out-of-universe insight into an anime project is potentially important, and hence I've drastically revised my understanding about the importance of broadcast information and cast and staff listings. Those sections need to stay. ^_^ --Darkbane 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Video Games?

Erm, a question. There's a new section stating that Code Geass video games are coming to the DS and Wii. Is there a source for this? This is almost an "oh boy oh boy" thing for me than anything else, but without any cited sources I remain skeptical.76.106.44.17 07:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Code Geass will be adapted into a series of video games to be published on the Nintendo DS, PSP and Wii. This has been reported by several well-known Japanese news sources, such as Nintendo iNSIDE and numerous others, which have now been added to the article. This is also stated on the Japanese wiki article for Code Geass, from which this section was translated. It should also be noted that several popular anime series are often adapted into video games in Japan, especially Sunrise's series. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 11:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New albums article

I've created a List of Code Geass albums article, listing and detailing each of the albums released for Code Geass, including the original soundtracks and drama CDs. I'll try to expand upon the series and its related media, concepts and other material further as well. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode 24 & 25's Airing Times

It's been announced at the anime's main page the airing times of the 24th and 25th episodes. However, I can't read Japanese well enough to understand more than the gist of what the page is saying. The part keeping me from adding the times to the page is the fact that three dates and times are listed. Could someone verify which should be listed on the article and make the appropriate change? ~~ Ryalla 08:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, besides saying it will air in summer of this year, it does not mention the exact dates. I think those dates you see are the section about BIGLOBE accepting applications for something. DarkAngel007 22:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are the dates for the special screenings they're doing. Invite-only. Moogy ^(talk) 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

24+25 Theme song

The new Geass theme song for episodes 24+25 was announced in its official site: OP ED section. So, if someone wants to add that somewhere on the article.... It's called "Hitomi no Tsubasa", by access. DarkAngel007 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF, it still reads like a list and it still looks like crap

The article completely lacks any organization at all, the list of staff takes up half the page, and there's tons of 1-sentence subsections. Please rewrite the article so it reads like a sane human being wrote it.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographic and Genres

Many times there has been some addings to the first infobox on the Code Geass page where someone usually adds a genre or a demographic. Should there be anymore genres added as it seems there is more genres than just Fantasy, Mecha, and Science Fiction and some websites listing Code Geass information show the demographic listed as Shonen or Seinen. Should there be a demographic and more genres added to the infobox? 24.82.132.101 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A demographic, yes. I'm thinking Seinen since it's a pretty gruesome show, noting the first use of Lelouch's Geass and such. That and the DVD extras. As for more genres, I think that's enough. There's not enough romance to stick that genre in... TinFoil 16:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blood is still shounen. The mere appearance of blood doesn't make something instantly 'gore' in Japan. --AnY FOUR! (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree, this series is not for the light of heart, there is some problems with serialization that ma throw it off balance, since the manga was serialized by Asuka, which is a shoujo magazine. However, Asuka also serialized Cowboy Bebop, which is obviously Seinen aswell, but because of this odd serialization, will it really work to add the Seinen demographic here, instead of just leaving it blank? Just my thoughts. TofuMaster00 4:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The series is an original anime series, so it cannot be classified per a common demographic based on the serialization of its manga adaptation, therefore it has to be kept blank. Simply judging its demographic via its content would be original research; the only viable method for a show is classifying it by the magazine in which it was serialized. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 08:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Major expansion and cleanup

I've just performed a major overhaul and expansion of the article, adding production, development and release sections detailing the development, planning, broadcast and release of Code Geass, and also cleaned up and completely re-wrote several other parts of the article. The article, in my opinion, looks far better now, encyclopedic and up to an excellent standard. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, Ganryuu! I see you've adopted my staff table from Madlax article... ^^; Anyway, I think, subsections "Knightmare Frames", "Geass", "World", and "Terminology" should be moved to a separate article (Fictional setting of Code Geass, perhaps?): they are lists right now, plus they are describing what's IN the series, rather than the series itself. As long as the new article keeps well out-of-universe and referenced, it should be no problem. Also, IMO the whole "Distribution" section deserves an article of its own (List of Code Geass media). It's possible to merge it with the episode list and the "Other media" section, too. Of course, these are just my personal recommendations. ^^ Other than that, the article is fantastic, especially the "Production" section. --Koveras ^☭ 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed your staff table in Madlax and thought it was excellent, but had to wait for a suitably-expanded and referenced production section to add it to the article (^_^). I completely agree that the in-universe material would need a lot of cleanup and should be moved to a new article; "Settings and themes of Code Geass" sounds like a nice title, I think, and so I've just started the article accordingly. The merge of the episodes, other media and distribution sections into a media section also seems like a pretty good idea. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 Knightmare Frames section, I suggest having one is enough. Monstez 17:31,13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so, too... Since we already have an article that deals exclusively with Knightmares, it's OK to just add a brief description of them to the plot introduction. And I'd add a sentence there about what "Geass" actually is. I also think that the plot summary should be expanded into a real summary (albeit as short as possible), rather than just introduction but since the story is not over yet, it can wait. The main concern within the in-universe part right now should be the characters section: except the link to the list, it should probably contain a paragraph for each of the major groups in the series (Black Knights, Britannia, Ashford Academy) and mention smaller ones (Kyoto, JLF). --Koveras ^☭ 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but shouldn't there be an explanation as to why the final two episodes were delayed? It's an important point, and would benefit the article. 82.6.174.6 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Design

Ok I've been working in my sandbox trying to create a more efficient setup for the article. And I'd love some feedback on it before I go and make any changes to the article itself. I would also love some help adding content to the Related works section in the infobox.--88wolfmaster 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was kinda wondering, why production first and not at the bottom like the staff, and why not the Plot summary first? Maybe you can explain your design, that would be easier for us? Thank you. --Monstez 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstez (talk • contribs)

I agree; any good article about a work of fiction should explain first what it is about, not who produced it. This is a problem I see often in Wikipedia Anime articles. I suggest moving the whole Storyline section to before the Production one. -Wilfredo Martinez 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

fixed, how is it now? Anything else? I based my design around reorganizing the sections (because some where not in the most relevant sections) so as to streamline the article.--88wolfmaster 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the previous production section, several good-class media-related and featured-class anime articles on the project, such as Madlax and Prison Break follow the exact same format; this is the reason why I chose it, as related sub-sections such as production, staff and broadcast must be included in the same section as they are certainly related and must be linked. I've therefore changed the non-universe sections back into their original sub-sections, per the featured format used in the featured-class article Madlax. Please see WP:FICTION for more information. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, reception, broadcast and media details must proceed the production and development sections, as the development of the series was the first non-universe portion of the series to be completed, whereas the other non-universe phases happened as a result of the development. I've therefore utilized the excellent featured format used in the featured-class article Madlax and per WP:FICTION. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know were the design for an Alternete History idea came from? SG2090 (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan userbox

Hi all, I thought it might be fun to have a fan userbox template for Geass, too, so I went ahead an created one. Feel free to add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Geass}} to your user and/or userbox pages. ^^ About the layout: I decided that plain black and white design would be the best to underline the diversity of the show and I'm also well aware of the strong association with Pizza Hut of the current catchphrase, but I think it sounds cool nonetheless. :P --Koveras ^☭ 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodie, thanks!--Monstez 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstez (talk • contribs)

Albums page

In order to avoid clutter on the main page, I think instead of a specific "List of Code Geass albums" page, we should have a "List of Code Geass media" page. That DVD table is a huge eyesore in the article... >_>

As a side note, are TV broadcasting times in Japan really significant here? Just wondering what everyone thinks. Darkslime (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An overall media page could be a good idea, however the albums article can stay as well, a link from the media article should suffice. TV broadcast schedules and timings are indeed very relative and significant to the article since the subject is a Japanese television series and as such a record of its timeslots, as well as its upcoming timing changes in the second season, would be an interesting way to chart its development (see the Japanese wiki article for a similar list). The Japanese TV ratings and DVD sales would also be an excellent and notable addition to the article and I will be looking to add these in the future. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the broadcast schedules. In any case, the List of Code Geass media page has been created, and I moved all non-major media-related info there. If someone would mind taking it from here, this is a bit new to me. It was mainly just a c+p. >_> Darkslime (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese time system

I've changed the the dates without time references as they're wrong no matter what system we're using. The dates with times are technically correct in JST but shouldn't we list times/dates as they're standardly shown in English-speaking countries?Frozen North. (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your date and time are wrong. You ended up moving the dates one day up. Japan is basically "ahead" of most countries in terms of time. [Example: USA (EST) - 10:49pm Jan 06 / JST - 12:49pm Jan 07] And in terms of dates, I assume we stick to when it aired in Japan, and not to when it aired in Japan relative to someone in the US. The premise for this is correct context because the information is to provide the reader with when the broadcast aired in Japan and not elsewhere.Fox816 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I moved the dates without times up one because the episodes aired past 24:00 on date 'X' which means they technically aired in the early morning of date 'X+1'. Truncating "25:25 October 5" to "October 5" is simply incorrect. My concern is that while leaving the dates with times in 24:00+ is not necessarily wrong, it could be confusing since dates may appear to contradict each other. Therefore, I was suggesting that the air times be changed to a 00:00-24:00 format (ex. 25:25 October 5 becomes 01:25 October 6, matching the correct original air date of October 6). Frozen North. (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. That's peculiar but rather useful in a way. The 24:00+ format eliminates the mental uneasiness regarding late night/early morning times. There were some minor disagreements regarding anime time placement on Adult Swim where series were promoted as part of their Saturday block and considered just that, though technically the shows aired on a Sunday- rather the same basis for the stations using the 24:00+ format. Ramblings aside, I don't see much problem with using both dates. Where no time is specified then use the "correct" date. Then again it wouldn't be a problem to just switch all formats to the standard 24hr time and move the days up. However, the original 24:00+ format with date is more widely known and that the station promoted the series as part of their Thursday late night lineup. Though correct to say it aired on Friday it would certainly cause confusion with those familiar to the regular broadcast formatting. Quite a predicament. Fox816 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not modify the article's current date format. This is the exact format used by official sources and notable publications including Anime News Network, Newtype and several others. In the future, please do not revert or make such wholesale changes without a prior discussion. Thank you. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another notable source, AniDB, has guidelines specifically addressing the 24+ hour time system and discusses how even official sites use the "wrong" date [3]. Internet sites aside, a show airing at 01:25 on the 6th, while having an air-time listing of 25:25 on the 5th so that viewers have an easier time figuring out when to tune in, technically aired on the 6th. Unless the 24+ hour time is explicitly associated with the date, I'm all but certain it's incorrect no matter which time system we use. Frozen North. (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

manga

code geass is ALSO a manga, so shouldnt u add how many volumes or chapters r in there? I would frankly like 2 know how many volumes there are, and i bet other people would, 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.132.12 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not really sure, but wasn't the manga a spinnoff from the series? Like in Pokemon, where they made the anime, which originated a manga series. Still, if you or someone else finds info about this, please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.188.37 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Geass"

What's the etymology of "Geass"? Might it be it the Irish gaes? -- AvatarMN (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A large number of fans believe so but it has never been officially confirmed, ergo it's original research. %) --Koveras ^☭ 09:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Imperial family; Geass vs. geass

I have a couple of questions:

1) Concerning the imperial family, how should their "middle names" (is that the right term in this case? You know, the "vi"s and "el"s and whatnot) be capitalized? I recently moved "The Emperor of Britannia" to Charles di Britannia, but I then noticed that the rest of the characters have their middle names capitalized (e.g. Lelouch Vi Britannia). Yet the Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't have them capitalized. And hey, it's Leonardo da Vinci, not Leonardo Da Vinci.

2) Do we capitalize the word "geass" or not? Some articles have the word capitalized, some don't. Hell, some have it both ways!

Chibi Gohan (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we possibly consider making an article on the "Geass"? (I believe it should be capitalized because it is a name rather than just a word.) 71.177.91.89 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening / Ending for R:2

I was trying to find the names of the two new songs, and I'll I've seen is that the new opening is done by Orange Range; I don't have the tools to write the title, nor the knowledge to decipher Japanese. Anyone who has the knowledge, I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me and the music section of this article.Shint (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The new theme songs for the R2 series is in the Code Geass R2 article. They're "02" and "Shiawase Neiro". DarkAngel ^{█▀▀007▄▄█} 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, my apologies. ThanksShint (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated info on United States airing

The first episode of the English dub of Code Geass aired this morning (or night?) at 1:30 AM on Adult Swim. However there are no reliable sources that I can find that confirms this, and the official Adult Swim website seems to have not be updated to include the new show yet, except for a rotating banner ad stating "NEW ANIME SHOW. CODE GEASS. WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE IT EITHER." - ThreeDee912 (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some basic information about the airings in the United States into the Broadcast section. Feel free to revise/update it if it's not good enough. ThreeDee912 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2

I'm not sure why someone made a second page for the second season, but I've merged most of the content back into this article. -- Ned Scott 09:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chess

The heck with rules? The heck with in-comments? Is it chinese chess or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.227.79 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And this is in reference to? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New World Order

I'm surpized nobody has said how this directly relates to the NWO. Britannia (uhhh dead give away) the creation of a super power dictatorship between the USA, Great Britain, etc in the near future. This show is based off of the largest conspiracy theory in the world. I really think this should be noted in the main page. Saferv (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Saferv

Unless you can present a reliable source for this claim, it's nothing but original research and thus has no place on Wikipedia. —Dinoguy1000 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Britannia is supposidly the name that the NWO is associated with in the past and present. also the whole idea of the major "white" nations forming into a superpower dictatorship are related to the theory. it's just like gundam seed destiny's logos organization. there's a bunch of books that support it and sites that state it, i'm too lazy but it's really evident that the show uses some of those ideas as do other animes of the conspiracy theory.Saferv (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's immaterial that "there's a bunch of books that support it and sites that state it" if you're too lazy to provide proof of any of them. And no, telling us to "do a Google search" won't help your case. No one else here is going to go out of their way to establish a connection between Code Geass and any conspiracy theories, unless said connections end up in the news (which I seriously doubt will ever happen). Provide a few sources, and the information might be added. Otherwise, you may as well forget it. —Dinoguy1000 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the show is based on what would've happened if The British Royal Family had fled from Napoleon and settled in their North American colonies. The USA never actually existed. This is more of a tale of the Revolutionary War if anything...NinjaRooster (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an alternate history story telling where there was no Magna Carta, the American Revolution failed, Napoleon successfully conquered the British Isles, and the "Britanians" fully embraise the idea of Social Darwinism. --Farix (Talk) 13:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence, it's not a "New World Order conspiracy" type thing, since it alters history as far back as 1215. —Dinoguy1000 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the alternate history goes further back, as far as the Roman invasion of the British Isles. --Farix (Talk) 04:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for LOTR, SOTC and NON mangas

Should we add them as they're part of CG, though spin-offs in their own way? Ominae (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be cluttered. Use an other media box. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, but what about another media box? 70.68.147.16 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like at the end of Naruto's infobox. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about using this component of the infobox. —Dinoguy1000 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre

While I don't think that Code Geass is a phychological thriller, I don't think it's entirely described with just "fantasy, mecha, science fiction." Shows from those three genres are a dime a dozen and I don't think I've ever seen one that has... would you say, mind games? To such an extent. Many people say, "If you like Death Note and mecha, Code Geass is exactly what you're looking for."

What genres would better describe Code Geass, I wonder? Mystery, maybe? It's not a triller, but it's not just a plain old action show. There's a lot of clever planning and strategy. There's the mystery of C.C. and V.V. and the power of Geass. There's mental showdowns with Mao. There's the intrigue of Lelouch's past and his struggle to keep his real identities - both of them - secret. Anyone have any ideas? 206.248.181.52 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with Mind Games, since those are pretty one-sided, but I think this anime should belong to the Drama genre. Although I am not familiar with the criterion of that genre, Code Geass is obviously quite dramatic. And hey, Gundam can do it! --85.250.130.23 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you like Death Note and mecha, Code Geass is exactly what you're looking for." - Yes, but that in itself is a mistake. Death Note is mainly phsicological, a "brain showdown" between Kira and L. The reason both series are associated is not the genre in itself, but the similarities between the two main characters, Lelouch and Yagami Light, where, feeling that the world is rotten, they have the desire to change it, using whatever means are possible, after they are given power (Death Note and Geass) to do so. Other similarities are the unusually high level of intelligence, and being able to conceal their true intentions even to their closest friends/family.

Although Lelouch does show some high-level thinking and plotting, it is not shown as well as in Death Note, see the first episode (or was it the second?) in which he commands the rebels as chess pieces. He says go to R3, block S1, etc. But it isn't shown WHY he gives such commands, it only shows he's very smart. Besides, I can describe FMA (Fullmetal Alchemist) as an Action/Magic/Drama series, of which there are thousands, but that wouldn't be fitting, would it? The point is, genre are used to roughly describe what it's all about, it doesn't go into details, heck, it doesn't tell you ANYTHING at all about given series, except that it has some robots/mechas or some dramatic events. You shouldn't be so worried about that anyways, if it's a good series, whatever genre it is, it will be seen nonetheless. 85.242.188.37 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with that, if the series is good we (the fans)shouldn't care about the right genre to put it in. However, we not the only ones looking at these articles. You have countless amounts of people viewing these articles and I think for the sake of these viewers a consideration of the proper genre for Code Geass should be put to debate. But if it seems too time consuming, we should just stay with the general "Mecha, Science fantasy, Drama" listing. Also this is just me but, doesn't anyone think that there should be a separate article for Code Geass R2( mostly its episode list)? It seems that the rhythm of season two has taken on such a dominant role over season one that it think it should stand alone as its own article. Almost like the 24 (TV series), Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG articles. --AKIRA70 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

With your question about a separate article, there once was - I think there should be a separate article as well, since there is so much difference between the two, and not just in the story. However it was merged with this page (to my knowledge, there wasn't a consensus, but I may be wrong and a discussion might have taken place elsewhere) a while back, and has stayed like this ever since. If you wanted examples of split articles for different seasons, Full Metal Panic!, Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu! and Full Metal Panic! TSR are prime examples of ones that REALLY don't need separate articles. As for the episode list, a single list is suffice, since its simply a summary and is not a long list. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether we should care about the right genre to put it in, YES WE DO, since this is wikipedia after all. I agree with a debate, and well, that's what this discussion section is for. Personally, I would agree with the general three mentioned by AKIRA70. I don't believe "Mind Games" or "Psychological" really fits in, since it's not about two groups trying to outwit each other like in Death Note. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

If you don't understand a tag, ask, rather than just removing. The tags are all valid and removing like that is bad faith. Expert and clean up go together as the article does not follow the WP:MOS-AM guidelines at all, and there is no valid reason not to. The hideous table in the distribution section doesn't belong at all and is just plain wrong. A project expert needs to fix this article per the MoS to fix the article organization and remove such inappropriate things. The lead needs rewriting because it doesn't meet the MoS requirements, nor does it comply with WP:LEAD. I've also added self-published and refimprove, for what I hope are obvious reasons (blogs as sources??) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's polite to give the reasons when adding the tags, instead of doing a drive-by and wondering why you get reverted. I've removed two because they're redundant. Edit summary explains. I'm tempted to remove the expert, too, since it's really not what the tag is intended for, but as good faith I'll leave it. Expert is for when things are so confusing you can't make heads or tails, not misarranged sections. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be "polite" by some standards, but it is NOT required. The two tags are not redundant. Clean up calls attention to one of the issues the article has. The expert tag notes that the issues the article is tagged for, and others, may best be addressed by someone from the project. Expert is being used correctly as per the Anime and manga project. Tags needing expert attention due to MoS issues, bad content, etc or where a project person is felt to be better able to handle the articles issues are tagged as needing expert. The same thing is done with the Television project articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to compromise here, as I feel it is quite unnecessary to have five tags where you only need three. I still don't think your expert reasoning works, as I can't find a guideline saying "apply tags like so for anime", but I'm willing to let it go. It's redundant to use two different tags for the same thing. If it needs the attention of an expert, it needs cleanup. General cleanup is different, and this article doesn't need it. Using both in this situation is paramount to saying "Stop, quit moving." You only need to say one. Aside from the table, the article is arranged how the anime MoS says it should be. Short plot summary, production, reception, spinoff stuff. Self-published covers the same area as refimprove, because nothing in this article is unsourced, just sourced with things it shouldn't use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is not arranged per the MoS at all, and it needs reorganizing and fixing up. I'm sorry but "nothing in this article is unsourced." Are we looking at the same article? There are unsourced statements in Production. Nearly half of "Broadcast" is unsourced, ditto "Music." "Other media" is completely unsourced (not to mention having an inappropriate split out that also needs fixing). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

Split out is an entirely different issue, and exactly how should it be arranged? The MoS says it should have sections exactly as this does. You'll have to be more specific. As for what we're looking at, I suspect we are seeing two different things. In the main production, I see two statements that don't have a source following them, and I would think that the first, in the first paragraph, would logically result from the ref preceding it. Haven't seen the thing so I wouldn't know, but it's hardly bad in either case. Broadcast has that internet leak as the portion that would require sourcing. I figure just blanking it would be fine. Leaks aren't all that important. Distribution is unsourced, but dates and times, especially past ones, rarely need sourcing, and even so it's a simple matter to link a Japanese guide. Music is obvious in most cases. Episode credits detail it. Not a matter of sourcing unless its future. Other media is a spin-out, so different issue, and reception is sourced to ANN. I see no reason for the refimprove tags or the cleanup tags, but I don't want to get in a drawn-out edit war if I can avoid it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C)

Not quite. Things are off. Plot and Characters should separate main sections, not a combined section. The media section is missing (though partially there as "other media"), with part of the content that it should have shoved under Production as "broadcast" which doesn't belong there. Music has unnecessary details, with op/end themes belonging in the episode list unless they are actually being discussed in detailed with analysis and the like, while soundtrack releases belong under the missing media section. Everything under distribution belongs under a section in media, and the broadcast table removed. And yes, that stuff does have to be sourced. "Obvious" doesn't cut it in better articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I'll leave the tags. Now, for the moment, could you slow down with the all-over actions? It's hell trying to keep up. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for now. Characters and the like can wait. That takes cares of the main stuff that needs to either be deleted or merged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge the media page

Obligatory discussion spinout. I'm neutral on this. Probably could be broken out into various pages. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be broken into one list, much less various pages. Everything in the media page belongs here, with clean up and much needed references, in that media section noted above. Nothing in that media page needs separate articles, its all relatively minor stuff that deserves mention, but not undue weight. Per the MoS and overwhelming project consensus, a split like this is not appropriate. We've been undoing them all over the place, including at Bleach, Naruto, One Piece, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by that was that the content could be moved into various pages where appropriate: DVD into episodes, etc. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

DVD stuff would go to episodes, but the rest would belong in the main. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done most of the merging. I've left the picture dramas because, it has absolutely no context at all and no sourcing, so not sure what to merge. The table, though, doesn't seem to be needed. I've also left the soundtracks/CDs until they can be redone in prose. A lot of what has been merged is totally lacking in sources, so I've added the refimprove tag to the article. The light novel info seems to be in need of verification as its saying the first volume was published the same month it started serialization. Also, an infobox for the novels is needed. Some of the prose needs clean up as well. I've done a first pass, but should be double checked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I redid the songs in prose, but I'd ask you to take a look at that. I don't know the first thing about music. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I did a little tweaking and have merged it in.  :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Post Settings and Themes merger

You know after we merged the two articles, don't we lose a lot of the stuff from the Settings and Themes articles? Is it possible to include them in any way? - plau (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Not sure what exactly, but there's probably something. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the Neo-Wales stuff is gone. - plau (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That didn't strike me as terribly important. It's just where Marrianne got killed and the royalty live. Easy to explain. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A mirror of the original settings page is still available here. I don't care particularly to add the more critical information back, because it seems as if doing so will only result in this page being run over by people like Collectonian, who believe that "improvement" of Wikipedia means that no page can have "excessive information" as supposedly per WP:PLOT, where "excessive" is subjectively determined by the AfD launcher and there isn't an official guideline for what is "plot" and what isn't.

All of the sources I cited are now missing entirely from the current main article. I note also that the vagueness or absence of information regarding settings has led to people arbitrarily add stuff like the edit about Pendragon, which was inaccurate as per canon. Something might be done about that.

Whether you want to call it a deletion or a merge, we've lost a large amount of sourced information which simply no longer exists. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover. I'm not saying that all the info on the settings page was critical, but a lot of it was in fact useful to readers. It's wonderful that our efforts have resulted in the removal of a valuable resource.

-- Fallacies (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity, because I found that stuff very interesting. Oh well... - plau (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

C.C. or C.C?

Her character article uses "C.C" a couple of times, but all mentions of her name in this article use a trailing period. This question (naturally) also extends to V.V. Which form is correct? —Dinoguy1000 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The proper form is "C.C." So the trailing period should be added to any that do not already have it.---Mangler13- (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... Just out of curiosity, is her name seen written at some point in the anime? —Dinoguy1000 16:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the official character profile.

-- Fallacies (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that definitely answers my question. BTW, is it just me, or did her hair turn blonde-ish for the English dub (I haven't paid attention, so I really don't know)? —Dinoguy1000 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Penglai" Island

The island name is incorrect. It's "Horai Island". It even says "Horai Island" on-screen in roman letters and the characters pronounce it as "Horai", but I can't edit the article myself. "Penglai" is, I assume, the Chinese reading? However, whenever a Chinese reading has been used (IE: Tianzi, Li Xingke), there has been accompanying Katakana somewhere that gives the Chinese pronounciation. - Miasmacloud (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the Setting & Theme article come back?

We all know that the 'Setting & Theme' article is not there, but I actually want it to come back. Because it tells you alot about the Code Geass universe & other things. So should the Setting & Theme article come back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentmanX (talk • contribs) 09:30, July 16, 2008

As much as I would love the article to come back, it'd probably just get deleted again. - plau (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Refer to this.

I would note that Collectonian did not as of the deletion proposal have enough understanding of the series to judge what was or wasn't "original research." Despite her having assumed bad faith of me during the AfD and directed at me a number of offhand comments that may perhaps be described as undermining my competency, this is in no way an unfounded slight against her person -- I can quote her saying, "Corporate Sponsorship - entire section is OR based on interpretation that the inclusion of logos is a sign of sponsorship" despite the fact that anyone with a passing understanding of the series would know that Pizza Hut is in fact a sponsor of the show. This calls into question whether or not the criticisms she launched against the article were made in sufficient comprehension of the subject matter; or were in fact just arbitrary detractions that, without further research, looked like they might stand as valid. Certainly, I cannot claim to know if she did or did not have said knowledge, but I will suggest that anyone who happens not to care about an article's content can quite easily claim, "this is excessive and should be removed," and then refuse to negotiate at all about what might be done to improve it.

The AfD has taught me that on Wikipedia such a claim doesn't need to be backed up at all, because excessiveness is in the eye of the beholder a blatant truth that may not be argued against. And amazingly, the claim that the article is "all unsourced original research" can be said, I quote, to stand even after numerous sources have been provided. And because the article is all "plot," it may be said that nothing within is salvageable, despite the fact that the oft-quoted WP:PLOT used as the basis of this argument never explicitly states anything besides pure "plot summary" to classify as inappropriate. Further, violations of out-of-universe style apparently do not refer to "talking about things as if the fictitious world was real" -- it's now a reference to any circumstance where too much text is spent describing a fictitious world. And of course, all of this isn't at all in the least bit unreasonable.

Ergo, I feel that many of the statements Collectonian made to justify the deletion were simply asserted in an interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines that benefitted her particular agenda. I note that her primary criticisms of the article were "excessiveness" (subjectively defined by herself) and "this is all plot" (where the definition of "plot" is not functionally given in any guidelines that advise removal based on its presence).

For clarification, I give an unfortunately length quote from my final post in the AfD for justification on how such an article may qualify for inclusion. If you don't care for the wall of text, skip to what I say after:

The fact is, the specific subject matter at hand -- terminology in an anime series (or for that matter, a piece of fiction) -- is not something you will find discussed in any 3rd party resources that we can objectively recognize as reliable. The terminology and settings of a fictitious work can only be documented "reliably" by the original creators, and is not in general a subject matter that is likely to be discussed or reviewed by a 3rd party in a manner we can consider "valid." In the few instances that a party normally unaffiliated with an anime creator actually produces a "reliable" text documenting terminology, it is typically with explicit license of intellectual materials from the creator, as in the Evangelion Concordance. Only in this sort of case can we presume that the resource is indeed "reliable." That's why I said "reliable 3rd party resources on fictitious terminology do not exist." The vast majority of "reliable materials on terminology in fiction" used in WP are not 3rd party, with the possible exception of stuff like the HPL.

To begin with, thus, asserting that a true 3rd party resource as the only thing that may legitimately establish notability for an article on terminology and settings within a fictitious canon is unreasonable; and a lot of terminology articles (like this one) in well-established WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars consequently never cite any 3rd party sources at all. This isn't a matter of simply one or two other cases where no 3rd party resources are cited. By your standards, this is an entire category of articles that qualify for immediate AfD. Are we to delete them all and render Wikipedia useless to interested readers? Your argument resembles WP:CRUFTCRUFT.

Taking a closer look at the policies, the current article content satisfies the text of WP:N's "Presumed notability," "Significant coverage," "Reliable resources," technically "Secondary sources" guidelines (being that manga, novels, the official website, etc. are in fact "one step removed" from the anime). "Independent sources" is the only explicit violation, and as per the circumstances above, these aren't likely to exist. You have said that "I know it's unnotable," but in fact, I don't. I feel that being a useful resource for people that want to understand Code Geass, it should be worthy of note -- however, the circumstance of the article being about "terminology and settings" makes it extremely difficult to satisfy the text of the "Independent" requirement. Further (to repeat yet again) the WP:SS advisory justifies the existence of such an article. WP:FICT says, "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." As per the satisfaction of "secondary" above, where is lack of notability?

A lot of these regulations you cite violations for are also interlinked with a supposed infringement of WP:PLOT. This guideline provides absolutely no objective means officially recognized by the majority of the community to determine what does or doesn't qualify as a indiscriminant plot dump. On what basis do you determine that this is "all plot," and why does it matter?

In regard to your assertion that this article "would add nothing to the series in terms of encyclopedic content,", please refer to this.

Please note that no comment was offerred by Collectonian on the post above, because she had resigned from responding to me earlier on account of my posts being, supposedly, simply restatements of, "I know it isn't notable and I don't care."

To summarize the above, then, fictional subjects with significant coverage (more than a few sources) in secondary sources that are "one step removed" (in a seperate article or format of presentation) from the subject (the anime) may be presumed to have real-world notability. WP:SS is a guideline that allows for the creation of spinouts, which are topic-specific articles that offer in-depth coverage of a single aspect of the original article. I note also that as of the so-called "merge," there were 48 sources cited on the page.

The information originally on settings has presently been interwikied on a rather badly maintained wikia that was linked at the bottom of the main Geass article several times by anons bearing no relation to myself. It has been repeatedly removed by Collectonian on citation of Rule #12 at WP:ELNO. One wonders at what point perservation of information might figure into our collective agenda.

Note that I am not saying that the article in its original form was 100% acceptable -- I give that as an independent article, it lacked "provable" notability despite having notability in the real world. However, I will also note that the vast majority articles on Wikipedia describing in depth elements of a single fictitious work do not have "provable" notability independent of the source fiction.

To address lack of notability, I would suggest that if somebody has the energy to bring back more of the content in moderation, it might appear as subsections of this page -- a section on "Terminology" would be excellent, for example. "Technology" or "Locations" too. Creating a new article should be held off until it becomes apparent that this page is too long. Preservation of the original sourcing should be attempted where possible.

On account of what might be called "a lack of community," I am no longer actively contributing to Code Geass articles; I will still take note of vandalism and minor mistakes, but will no longer add any significant content. I hope that in my absence, these articles will eventually be useful to somebody. However, I feel it's fair to claim that the settings article was prior to deletion the single largest collection of English Geass background information on the net, of use to those who wanted to know about the series. The merge did not preserve enough information, and much of the sourced content did not survive.

-- Fallacies (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I too regret the deletion of the article; cleanup would probably have suited the article more, however it would have been somewhat major in order for a concensus for keeping the article to be achieved. I had expected more of the article to be retained, but was somewhat disappointed in the amount removed, especially the terminology section. Shakugan no Shana has a terminology section, and it looks fine. However, a decision is a decision, and the article was merged - no point trying to reverse the decision, coz it most likely wouldn't happen. I agree with Fallacies that we should add some of the terminology and such sections back in, but in moderation. Maybe eventually a page with a similar level of information would be created, without people trying to tear it apart. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fallacies, I can't see why you're complaining about information being lost. The article was merged as opposed to deleted, which means all the information is still preserved in its history. And you being mad at Collectonian makes little sense as The Rogue Penguin is the one who actually performed the merge. —Dinoguy1000 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Rogue Penguin was the one who performed the merge. My contention is with the dismissive and questionably civil manner of the AfD's proposal ("none of it can be salvaged because it's all plot") and the minimalization of the information that was actually ported from the original page following the closing. If information doesn't and can't appear in anything besides history, then it might as well be lost; whether we can retrieve it or not has no bearing on whether it actually appears in the current article. -- Fallacies (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, wouldn't a history of the world be notably enough to be added in the settings section? it does, provide useful background information. - plau (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It can be summarized in the Britannia section. The point by point is a bit much, but there's still useful information in that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize this isn't the place for this sort of discussion, but: The epoch date for the ATB dating system of Code Geass is 55 BC. This means that the failed American Revolution should have begun in 1831 ATB. Washington would have been far too young to have been considered able to lead a revolution in 1776 ATB. Secondly, as Code Geass occurs in 2017-18 ATB, this translates to 1962-63 AD. This would make the Emperor of Britannia JFK. 75.70.143.81 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was long. I'll say that I agree that the page should be restored. I had planned to do it myself (if I can figure out how to). Perhaps we should postpone it until after the second season ends, though, so we can focus on solidifying it's place as an article, rather than new minutia. We also need to have a Japanese speaking editor on board, so that we can get the references that were perhaps the single most legitimate reason for it's deletion. I do wish that Rogue Penguin had left it though, instead of deleting of it in anticipation of it being deleted, which was rather self defeating. So, to restate- bring back the Settings and Themes page. Westrim (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As of the article's deletion, a large percentage of the information was in fact sourced. Refer to the mirror.

-- Fallacies (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I merged it because that's what the AfD decided. Unless there's some major change, it wouldn't be proper to restore it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the Afd is something I can live with, even if I dislike the way it was carried out and disagree with virtually all of the justifications. My problem is with the wording of the proposal, which was invalid or unfounded in a number of ways. Further, the participants of the discussion seemed to largely ignore the fact that a vast number of other pages of the exact same sort have existed on Wikipedia and stood as notable for a very long time. It's not a matter of merely WP:OSE -- if you run an Afd solely on the basis of unprovable notability on account of an absence of purely 3rd party sources, then the majority of the Star Wars or Discworld pages must be deleted as well. Virtually all articles on fictitious background settings do not provide citations of this type. What are we to do? Delete them all?

-- Fallacies (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the mirror, Fallacies, and as for the sourcing comment, I just took that reason from the result post at the top of the AFD and my memories of the discussion.

Now, as for Rogue Penguin, I have to take a different tone altogether. I never really saw the result of the discussion as being to merge. That's what SoV(the editor) decided the AFD had decided, not necessarily what it had decided, especially with most of the merges being delete or merges. And as SoV said, the only clear consensus was that "the article shouldn't survive in its present form." SoV then decided that that equaled merging, which is silly. It need to be improved, not scattered and half deleted, which is basically what you did. As an example, if someone had only seen the last (R2 episode 15) episode and wondered what In Vogue was, they would be hard pressed to find that info, unless they figured out that they needed to look at Nina's character listing. Or if they wanted to know more about the Black Knights submarine, the Ikaruga, they would be completely lost, as even I could find no mention of it anywhere despite it being central to several events in the story. This article is needed. That it needed major change I don't think anyone could dispute, but we can't change what isn't there. The Knightmare Frame has seen great improvement, which was only possible because it was there. As stated I won't bring it back until the season finishes, but when it does, if no one has brought it back yet, you can bet that I will. If someone does bring it back before then, I will do all in my power to make sure it stays.

To the above entry by Fallacies; of course I can survive the loss of the article, but I don't want to survive- I want to LIVE! (compliments of Wall-E).Westrim (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can always merge more in. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fallacies, that is a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If there are other such articles on Wikipedia that are not properly sourced (and I'm definitely not saying there aren't), they, too, should be either cleaned up and properly sourced or, failing that, merged/AfDed. The Code Geass Settings AfD was about only that article; if you've got complaints about other articles, they need to be addressed seperately (for example, I recently prodded about eight or nine voice actor lists... seperately). —Dinoguy1000 16:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, dinoguy. Other stuff exists is for someone finding one or several similar articles to back their claim. It's not just one or several, it's virtually any fictional story group that encompasses more than one medium or has an extensive universe- just like this article. Most of them are fairly well established, too, not just aggregates of info. And if you look at the mirror, there were plenty of sources, most of which were lost when the article was merged. This article was unfortunately not given a chance to be cleaned up, and we should bring it back so we can do so. And to RoguePenguin; merge it where? The Ikaruga and In Vogue aren't knightmares or characters, and aren't appropriate for the main article- it's exactly the kind of info that settings pages are made for.Westrim (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of parts to my position, and I'm not going to bother repeating everything in detail. The gist of it is:

a) As of two days after the AfD proposal, the only substantial and valid deletion justification in the AfD premise was a lack of provable notability as per 3rd party source. The article did as of this point satisfy all aspects of WP:GNG except for independence of sources; explicitly, independent items of information were cited from a list of roughly 50 distinct, independently veriable sources. This makes it volumetrically better-sourced than a lot of articles that are "provably notable."

b) A number of the alleged guideline violations listed in the AfD may be boiled down simply to a clear absence of 3rd party citations. As guidelines are contextually linked, the violation of this single rule results in an issue with the article that seems to be far bigger than it actually is. This is an overrepresentation. In other instances -- particularly with regard to Collectonian's repeated invocation of WP:PLOT -- the claim of violation was valid only subjectively; what Collectonian felt to be trivial and unencyclopedic, for example, I regard as informative to somebody wanting to comprehend the series. I would further mention the WP:PLOT is as a guideline disputed.

c) WP:NOTE gives that, For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. In this case, it was the very first thing done -- the article didn't even have a notability tag added to it prior to the launch of the AfD. Certainly, Collectonian didn't put up the article for speedy deletion, but there was a complete nonattempt here at following through with due process or letting editors have enough time to improve the article. I requested Collectonian to retract the AfD so that due process could exist, but it was her opinion that because the article was so clearly a "plot-dump," no amount of improvement could make it better. This is where subjectivity gets us, obviously.

d) Wikipedia is not a Plot Summary, incidentally, is sectioned under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information, and states that plot summaries are alright if they aren't the only thing on the page. It doesn't mention anything about deletion justified by excessive plot. The closest rule that says something like that appears on notability guidelines for elements of fiction: in describing appropriateness of creating spin-out articles, it states, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself if the resulting article would have, by necessity, excessive plot detail and in-universe information, where in-universe is defined as a mode of presentation whereby the fictitious world is presented as reality. Note that "excessive" is not objectively defined with clear indicators, and that the Settings article as of AfD didn't really have this issue. Ergo, I can't find one actual guideline that clearly advises removal of information based on presence of "too much plot."

d) The subject of the article is the canon elements of a fictitious universe. Generally, the only sources that may be cited as "reliable" for this sort of subject are produced by the original authors of the work of fiction in question. Whatever the relevant guidelines say about ideal establishment of notability, in practice, a vast number of currently extant Wikipedia articles of similar subject cite solely publications produced by affiliates of the original authors. If anyone wants me to back up this claim, I can sit around tomorrow and paste more than 25 article links. It's not one or two other instances of "other stuff exists"; any number of articles like this one currently populate Wikipedia.

e) In the particular circumstance of Code Geass, magazines that provide coverage of the series are affiliates of the content publishers -- Kadokawa, the owner of Newtype magazine, publishes all Geass-related text and comic materials in a direct partnership with Bandai-Namco, which owns Sunrise, the studio that produces the Geass anime. Ergo, none of the numerous materials produced by Kadokawa can be regarded truly as 3rd party, despite extensive significant coverage. Also as per copyright regulation, other Japanese magazines by different publishers have contracts with Sunrise allowing representation of their intellectual property in a manner that invalidates them as truly 3rd party sources. Look a bit further and we find that no real discussion of specific fictitious elements exist in a reputable resources anywhere else, and most coverage is minimal.

f) In the absence of a guideline that clearly advises the removal of information on any of the subjective basis provided by Collectonian (including use of the descriptor "excessive"), all of the text in Settings would be correctly merged to the main Geass article. However, following through with this would result in an immensely lengthy article that WP:SS would advise regeneration of a Settings spin-out from.

g) Per bullet e), I pose that when a large conglomerate produces in association with a number of other companies a television animation with high viewership and/or DVD sales and a huge fan response, realworld notability for its fictitious elements can be presumed to exist. Further, from the sheer size of the staff across companies involved, we can presume that any non-3rd-party materials released in a format besides the series primary mode of presentation are in fact 3rd party.

h) Explicitly, bullet d) above implies that sections so far minimally ported by Penguin's merge are not rendered to their present form on the basis of any objective criteria listed as a WP guideline; we have allowed Collectonian's definition of excessiveness become the general rule in the Geass articles without discussion. Steps should be taken to determine what exactly counts as "excessive," and then what doesn't. My suggestion is that usefulness to the reader is the highest priority.

-- Fallacies (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, even I, after reading all of points a, b, d, and e (that wasn't detail?), basically thought it boiled down to "Blah, blah, blah, there aren't any real third party sources due to the vagaries of Japanese exclusivity agreements and ownership of magazines, that's why there aren't any listed." Even I don't buy that, why would someone who already opposes this? And that you let your defense of the article be boiled down to that since you were unable to summarize your thoughts yourself is why the article was deleted. I understand that you're trying to expound on your point, but it just looks like fluff, and when people see fluff they assume it's there to protect something- in this case, a weak argument. Try this; that there is a lack of third-party references IN NO WAY justifies the wholesale removal of an article, especially with so many first party references and a clear abundance of references that cannot be used (blogs, message boards), and especially with so little time given to improve the article (notices that content must be improved were issued at roughly the same time as the AFD). See, that's much more concise and strong. The more you write, the more holes there are; if only Congress understood that. If I left out some of your better points, (and I know I did, looking back, but if that was my first impression, I can see why it was Collectonians) I'm sorry, especially since I most likely agree with them. Westrim (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's not blahblahblah or fluff. What's above is a "summarization" of all relevant points from all of my previous posting in sufficient detail to explain myself -- if it weren't summarized, it could be half as long as this entire discussion page. The points can be boiled down further in plainer language like so:

a) The AfD proposal contained only 1 valid point, which was lack of 3rd party. Despite this, the article was better sourced than a lot of other things. b) Many of the supposed violations boil down to this 1 point. c) Other violations are only violations from Collectonian's personal point of view. d) When somebody besides an original author talks about elements in in a work of fiction, we can't really assume what they're saying is reliable. In actual practice, we can find scores and scores of articles like this one that don't list any 3rd party sources at all.

e) You'll notice that in many anime articles, Newtype mag is listed as a "valid 3rd party source." In Geass' particular situation, though, the magazine is published by a company directly affiliated with Geass' production -- Kadokawa, the owner of Newtype, also publishes the Geass novels and manga. According to the strictest interpretation of WP sourcing guidelines, then, nothing by Kadokawa can be regarded as 3rd party. Also by this strict interpretation, most sources that would normally be regarded as 3rd party ultimately aren't.

f) There are no guidelines at all that advise removal of information, excessive or not. Everything that's gone could be ported back to the Geass main without violating anything besides article length guidelines. g) We can't reasonably say that no realworld notability exists for what was on the Settings page. If we aren't going to be as strict as I've been, Kadokawa stuff and other magazine articles could actually be thought of as 3rd party, since they already are everywhere else. h) Because nobody's bothered to do so, how about we define excessiveness locally on Geass articles?

-- Fallacies (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not fluff or blah, and that all of it is relevant, but do you really expect someone already disinclined to agree with you- or even on your side- to carefully read all of it and get your point? No, they're just going to scan it, pick out whatever catches their eye, and focus on that, just like Collectonian probably did. I also doubt that almost anyone who weighed in against the article even read part of what you wrote, which makes the time you spent on it meaningless (it being moved off the page didn't help, but it most certainly didn't help that your comments to Collectonian were at least three times as long as hers to you, or that the back and forth would have taken up seven-eighths of the page if left in). These are talk boards, not essay boards- pretty much anything beyond a couple of paragraphs just isn't going to be read, at least not to the point of understanding. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. What you just wrote was better, but could still probably be cut in half.

But this is straying from the point. You, I, Plau, and Highwind seem to agree that it should be brought back, while Dinoguy is opposed. I don't know where the Penguin sits- it seems that he would like the article too, but is miffed that no one likes his merger job. Can anyone else weigh in? I think we should post links to this discussion or some type of voting page on the other geass boards and the anime project page to ask others to weigh in this- is that a good idea?Westrim (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You could always try. I don't mind the article coming back, but I can tell you it'll be an uphill battle if someone opposes you, because there's an AfD backing that side. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting people to weigh in isn't necessary. You can start now and encounter absolutely no objectively justifiable opposition per Wikipedia guidelines -- all you have to do is add everything back into the Geass main article and clean it up.

-- Fallacies (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I actually don't care if the article comes back or not. My previous comments have been replies to your own (after skimming them; I don't like reading through eight-paragraph-long messages), not commentary on my opinion concerning the AfD or whether the article should exist. Furthermore, I'd be very careful about just adding content (back) into the main article and cleaning it up with the intent of showing that the Settings article, or some variant of it, is both necessary and acceptable, as it could be interpreted as editing to prove/make a point (an assessment that, frankly, I would agree with). —Dinoguy1000 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but excessive skimming and ignoration of the context of a statement in discussion results in failure to properly interpret things -- it's not really constructive, and makes it look as if you're sniping at random. That's not what you intend, I hope?

This is the actual closing consensus of the AfD:

The result was split and merge. There isn't a clear consensus to delete, but there's a very clear one that the article shouldn't survive in its present form. If there's sufficient sourcing for a section, either break it out separately or merge it back into the parent, please.

Most of the content of the page was not unsourced as of the merge, and the closing statement explicitly permits creating a spinout. I would ask that you please explain why it is WP:POINT to add information back into the main article.

For your benefit, I shall again restate the gist of my argument above:

My point was against Collectonian's outright refusal to frame her problem with the article as a notability/sourcing issue, or allowing editors time for improvement. She didn't think it necessary, as on account of her personal disinterest and unfamiliarity with the article subject, the content seemed all to be worthless and excessive information. Disregarding realworld notability or informativeness of the content to an interested readership entirely, she decided that the only kind of notability that permitted the existence of the article was 3rd party sourcing.

-- Fallacies (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not what I intend, but I'm not going to claim that I haven't been "sniping at random" (and I notice that you seem to be going to great lengths to assume good faith with me, thanks for your effort towards that end, and allow me to apologise for it, as I'm probably not making it very easy... ;P ). As for time for improvement, you had the whole time the AfD was being actively discussed (which, granted, isn't necessarily a very large amount of time). And as far as a lack of third party sourcing is concerned, while it may not be as important in spinout articles, such sources definitely do nothing but help a settings and themes article - the fact that there are so many such articles on Wikipedia without said sources is immaterial, and when you continue to point out this fact, it starts to look like you're trying to justify not going out and looking for such sources yourself to improve the article in question (and just to clarify, I'm definitely not trying to say this is what you were doing). —Dinoguy1000 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I added over thirty-five 1st and 2nd party sources to the article in the duration of the AfD, but in the face of Collectonian's WP:CRUFTCRUFT better sourcing than most current anime articles apparently doesn't qualify as basis for assuming "provable notability." I raise the issue about fictional settings and terminology spinouts on Wikipedia being in practice categorically uncited to 3rd party because not only can nobody beside original authors can generally provide reliable information on a canon, "being uncited to 3rd party" has never been explicitly a demonstration of "possessing no realworld notability or informational worth to users of Wikipedia."

There exist thousands upon thousands of 3rd party texts online that discuss concepts and terminology from Code Geass, but because these are by Wikipedia guidelines neither "reputable" or "reliable" -- these pages cannot qualify as "valid" evidence of notability, despite clearly indicating existence of realworld notability and popular interest in the subject. Does a "reputable authority" on anime in fact exist? And do they discuss settings and terminology in a way that's more authoritative than the original authors?

In short, the nomination was motivated by "I really couldn't give damn about this article subject" and then justified on something that should have warranted only a tag. The 3rd party issue has no bearing on what I am presently suggesting -- it is only relevant as a criticism of the AfD rationale.

-- Fallacies (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I leave for a few weeks and this pops up. Well, concerning the AfD, it probably didn't help that I had a weak merge in my argument, but quite frankly the article did need a huge overhaul. It had gone far beyond "settings" and lacked any "themes" entirely. That said, there were a lot of things that were wrong with Collectionian's AfD request. For a "veteran" editor, she should have known better than to let subjective judgements of notability decide her stance on the issue. For the future though, a bit of advice when debating an AfD is not to start wikilawyering; if too many essays appear on either side, just whip out WP:BASH and WP:NOTPOLICY and use your own logic. "Other stuff exists" is a valid argument if said "other stuff" exists in a majority or at least a large number of other articles, particularly where examples can be shown of articles done correctly. "Other stuff existing" indicates a consensus among the collective community that such articles should exist, and thus can be used as an example to show that community consensus is in favor of keeping such an article. That is how the Knightmare Frame article was saved from deletion; most other major series have an article detailing the mecha of their series.

Regarding the article itself, it might not have been beyond salvation but it definately needed a LOT of work. It had become a dump of any and all Code Geass information; seriously, why was the Pizza Hut sponsorship listed there? And what was a vehicle list doing there? As useful as they were, they probably should have been elsewhere. I agree that the merge should have kept more information, but that would have created a spinoff that would have been rapidly deleted for the same reason the original article was. I believe we should wait until the second season is over, because then we would have an impetus and of course a slew of new sources to create the article again from a more complete perspective. I'm an inclusionist, but I support articles done correctly, and that article needed a lot of sorting and cleaning to be brought up to par. the_one092001 (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Romance and action

Pretty much everything that happens with Lelouch and Shirley, or Ougi and Villetta(darn cartoon network censors!), would fall under the purview of romance. As for action, I don't see what opposition there is to that tag.Westrim (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is romance does not mean it is a genre. That's like saying Starship Troopers is romance because there's a subplot about Rico's relationships. The focus is on mecha combat and understanding, not romance. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My friends who are girls disagree with you, and they probably know romance better than either of us, but I can concede that point if you leave alone the action tag. Sorry, mecha is a subset of action, not the other way around. It may go with the territory, but we don't leave drama off of law and order just because it takes place in a courtroom.Westrim (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Trust not the Penguin on this one. The story doesn't revolve around romance and it is quite subtle. And you're friends being girls doesn't necessarily mean that they "know" romance. I think we can keep action though. ~ Hyakurei (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if they do know romance, they obviously don't know the point of genre. The main genre is mecha and drama. The romance is a barely visible subplot which has been killed off, twice no less. Mecha implies action, and hence it is redundant to say action. Unless you can point me to a show where mecha plant flowers and sing songs, that one episode of Megas XLR aside, that fact won't change. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You really should read all of what I write. Pay attention, I conceded the romance point. I don't know enough about it to defend it, and though my friends are rather shoujo-happy, I never said their opinion was authoritative. Action, however, I do know, and as you noted mecha is nearly always an action genre. However, that doesn't equal redundancy. Remember we're making an encyclopedic entry here, not just for anime fans but for everyone- do you expect anything more than some people to recognize that a mech anime is by default an action anime? There's a reason every type of strategy game genre includes stategy in its wording- I don't know of any turn based shooters- and perhaps we should do the same here. Instead of Mecha and Action, what do you think of Mecha-Action?Westrim (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and near as I can tell Ougi and Villetta are still alive and still love each other, and considering the importance of Shirley to Lelouch's actions, it was hardly barely visible.Westrim (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant Shirley and Euphy, for whatever little that was developed. The action genre is redundant, and there is no such thing as mecha-action. You click mecha, you get the idea. Farix has been doing this for much longer than either of us, so if he says it's redundant too, you can believe it is. Besides, generalizing is bad. We have science fantasy listed. Would you argue we should also add science fiction and fantasy simply because they are elements present in the combined term? Of course not, that would be silly. Mecha are made for action. It is redundant to try to remind people of this. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in here. First of all, the WP:MOS-AM instructs us to pick the three most accurate genres, and avoid redundancy. Since this is already labeled a Mecha, then related genres, such as science fiction, and action/adventure, would be redundant. Drama is somewhat redundant, but we normally keep it to differentiate between comedy driven mecha shows. As for romance, just because there are romantic elements doesn't mean it a romance series.

Now for which three genres to list. I honestly don't think we need three. Two will be plenty. And those are Mecha, alternate history. --Farix (Talk) 12:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I've read that MoS, but I guess I missed that part (#4 of Content for those looking for it). Apparently Rogue Penguin did too, because its a much stronger argument than redundancy. While I'm on him, I resent his insinuating that I would split science fantasy into two terms when they are quite well represented by that combo. As he said that's silly; they're both there, why would I split them? A more accurate assessment is that his position is "we already have sci-fi there, why include fantasy as well?" Mecha, however, reflects nowhere in that name that its action oriented, thus my thought that we should include action to clarify that for people who don't know that NOT to remind people who already did.

However, both of our positions have been nullified by Farix, so its moot. Its interesting to note that the guidelines actually say that drama should be replaced by action in cases like these. However, with the breadth that the anime covers, it definitely can't be summarized with just 2 genres, but for the sake of consensus I'll keep my position to three. I propose action, mecha, and alternate history; action is more specific than drama, mecha is obvious, and alternate history is always at least fantasy if not science fantasy. Farix, something besides mecha has to be here because most of the drama/action takes place outside of them. It's not gundam where virtually all the action revolves around their use; much of it is psychological drama like death note, as well as other assorted types.Westrim (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Action is still redundant with mecha. Mecha always features action, regardless if comedy is also a focus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there needs to be something for the 80% or so that isn't mecha combat, or discussions/strategizing thereof. Phychological thriller is too specific, and action is too broad, but I prefer action over nothing at all to address the character interaction. And before you say it, yes there's alternate history- but that would neatly cover mecha as well. Can I just go ahead and replace drama with action, as the MoS calls for?Westrim (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Action would be redundant, and it does not cover what you describe. Action is action. It's crap blowing up and mecha tearing each other apart. It isn't conversation. And there's very little non-mecha combat. Drama is more appropriate. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All the action in Code Geass is Mecha-related, so adding an additional "action" genre is a bit redundant. Definite no for romance genre. I've watched enough romantic comedies to know. There needs to be something to reflect the fact that this isn't like a main-stream mecha, since the mecha aren't the main focus. I reckon Drama would fit pretty well - it encompasses quite a bit, like the minor Romance parts and the different relationships of the characters. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to choke down some humble pie and summarize this for the record at the same time. Adding the genre tags Romance and Action was proposed by a user named Minamechan (whose user name is now redfonted, so dunno what happened to them). I supported that and defended them in this discussion, though I dropped the Romance possibility quickly after it was noted that it was only one of many sub genres for the series and not a show definer (not that its dropping from contention was noticed much). I did, however, support the Action tag, perhaps (definitely?) long after it was shown to be erroneous and redundant. We did at least produce one good outcome, which was the change of science fantasy into alternate history. I still think that something needs to replace drama, as that seems too general, but in my humility I'll let that slide. Thanks all for straightening this out. Westrim (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is that thing on youtube??

Anyone ever seen a youtube video of a Visual Novel Code Geass??

It's a video demo of a VN Code Geass game, the video include the opening animation, It uses a song titled "Kiss my Lips" as the opening theme, the title screen / main menu of the game, and the gameplay as well, the girl for the gameplay example is Karen, using the kissing scene from the anime 1st season when Lelouch prevent Karen from seeing C.C.

The video demo was so real, including animated opening, game logo, loading screen, etc. And it convinced me for a while that it was a real thing... And i believed a lot of Code Geass fans out there trapped by the video too... And it was definitely popular among Code Geass's fans...

My question is, what is that video? Is that really a prank by a fans? Because it was so well made... Does anyone know who made it, or any info regarding that vid?? Or is that really taken from a real game?! (yeah, right?)

Does it has any chance to be included in the article?? I noticed that some youtube's popular video that related to an anime mentioned in the anime's article, like Popotan's Caramelldansen and Suzumiya Haruhi's Hare-Hare-Yukai (and a lot of other videos), while I'm aware that this one is not in the same scale those two, do you guys think this one worth mentioning?? Since it got quite a lot of hits, plenty of people tricked by it, and the video itself is convincing and made in high quality in regard to make it as real as possible...

If yes, where should it be put?

PS: If this is actually from a real game, then the whole thing i wrote would be pointless, and I'd better start looking for my dropped face.. lol. Lolipedofin (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurry up and find your face. The game is right there at the bottom of the code geass infobox.Westrim (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, ouch, but from what i read in the info about Code Geass: Lost Colors, it is a visual novel, but there's a new protagonist for the game, "Rai"... while in the video i mentioned, The protagonist is Lelouch... and i have seen Lost Colors opening, It is completely different to this one... You know what? Here's the youtube link... See it for yourself. Lolipedofin (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. No, it looks like a real game to me- I'd dig around for more info, but my Japanese vocab. pretty much consists of "baka!" Sorry for being snippy. Maybe ask one of the Japanese-speaking editors on their talk page.Westrim (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a fan video, the opening was made up just like an AMV. Bits from both the anime and I think maybe lost colors were used to create the video so it may look like a new game. rpman24 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.214.230 (talk)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "offsite-cd" :
  • {{ja icon}} {{citeweb|url=http://www.geass.jp/cd.html|title=コードギアス　反逆のルルーシュ　公式サイト|accessdate=2007-03-10}}
  • {{citeweb|url=http://www.geass.jp/cd.html|title=コードギアス　反逆のルルーシュ　公式サイト|language=Japanese|accessdate=2007-03-10}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Dinoguy1000 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Karen's name

I've noticed a change in the article that lists Karen as Karen Kouzuki. In the latest episode it does state that she chooses the Kouzuki name, but is she still known as Karen Stadtfeld or it's okay for the change? See the article to see what I mean. ~ Hyakurei (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's tough. In the latest episode she rather explicitly chooses the Kouzuki name, so perhaps it should be changed, Anyone else?Westrim (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know she's always called herself Kallen Kozuki. She only uses the Stadtfeld name in school, and she isn't even bothering to go to school anymore. But I would go with whatever the official website says, if we can't come to a conclusion. the_one092001 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems pretty official that she now calls herself Kallen Kouzuki, so are we changing that or what? ~ Hyakurei (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Kouzuki" if you're speaking of episode 18, and I've though for a while now that it should be reworked to emphasize her Japanese side, which is the real her, over the Britannian front. However, there's pagemoves and history merges I'm reluctant on going through to get that done. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kouzuki is definitely what she and nearly everyone else calls her. I'm think it should be changed that way in her article. 76.201.56.110 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, I meant Kouzuki. Hyakurei (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Knightmare frame "Sortie"

I have always been slightly confused as to the omission of any sort of reference to a Knightmare frames' sortie (their activation). It seems every advanced Knightmare frame requires the activation process, and I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable on the subject could add this information about the "sortie" somewhere in the Knightmare section? I only became aware of how common the activation process was when the Guren Seiten was activated by Sayoko. She sounded out what words would be required for some task, I assume relating to the activation of the Guren. This was in episode 18. Kesa 'Borosee (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on what a sortie is. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kesa's getting the term confused, but I know what they mean. Kesa, just think of it as turning on a car with a couple more steps for security purposes, mixed with a preflight checklist. Every knightmare frame does it, it just happened to be explicitly portrayed that one episode. It's not really that notable. Westrim (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. When you put it that way, I guess I can agree that it is not worthy of adding onto the Knightmare section. Thanks for listening to my suggestion in the first place though! Kesa 'Borosee (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Li Xingke - a main character?

Based on recent episodes I think Li Xingke should be considered a main character and kept on this article. He is the Commander-in-Chief under the UFN. Thoughts? ~ Hyakurei (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He still hasn't done very much. Tohdoh has been there since the first season and isn't a main character. Dietrich as well. Just be happy he has an article for now. Westrim (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but then again he is important enough to have his own article. :D But my question is if we should keep him on the main article under the section of main characters. ~ Hyakurei (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sshhh. My point was that more characters should have articles, even if they aren't necessarily main characters. I'm just laying low on that point until the second season ends. But yeah, I'll remove him from the main article.Westrim (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't get the "sshhh" part, but i agree with you on more characters having the their own page. The emperor doesn't even have his own page and he's like the main antagonist right now... ~ Hyakurei (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Xingke should be there because he is an important character to the series, and because of the events he took part in recently in the series I would consider him a main character. And why shouldn't he be on the main characters list, you guy put Kallen on the main characters list and nobody gives a damn about it, so come now he should be there, he deserves it. SilentmanX (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He's no more a main character than Todoh so far. A couple of episodes focused on him, and several more where he shows up for a couple minutes do not a main character make. By contrast, Kallen has been integral to nearly every plot change in the series, aside from the last seven episodes. And they're fiction- they deserve nothing. Oh, and to Hyakurei; I should have expanded to "shh, keep it down so that the mergists don't notice." Westrim (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, he's a much more focused on character than Tohdoh. Importance to the series is different from in-universe importance. We judge characters based on their importance to the plot, and Xingke is far more important than Tohdoh is. Tohdoh hasn't really done that much onscreen since he was rescued from the Britannians, he's always off somewhere leading an army. Xingke is more important and gets far more screen time due to his connection to the Tianzi and of course new importance within the Black Knights. Xingke has been connected with all of the Black Knights' movements in the second season, including their embassy stay, their arrival on Penglai island, the coup and kidnapping, and of course the formation of the UFN. Tohdoh only appears momentarily here and there to do battle occasionally against Suzaku but is usually off somewhere else. the_one092001 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is "Importance to the series is different from in-universe importance." supposed to mean? I'm ONLY talking about plot importance, and compared to the other main characters, he's not even close. Tohdoh was just a relative example, both being military and all; try to focus on the point of the analogy rather than the analogy itself. If you can come up with an existing MAIN character that he's equal to or greater than in terms of plot importance, then include him. If you want a better comparison, he's Shirley- but without a skirt or importance to Lelouch, who after all is the main plot driver. Every other main character is important to him (the current unconcern for Kallen notwithstanding): can the same be said for Li?Westrim (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"He's Shirley- but without a skirt or importance to Lelouch..." haha, nicely put. I think we should leave out Li for now, but we might add him in later depending on his importance, and significance in upcoming episodes. He's almost there, but not quite. ~ Hyakurei (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In-universe importance means how important they are to Zero's plans and the Code Geass universe in general. In this regard, Tohdoh is quite important; he's obviously Zero's top general. But what he does is not on-screen, thus it has no real importance to the plot we can see. Shirley is another good example. She has no real importance in the Code Geass universe as a person; she's just another school girl. But because she gets so much screen time in the plots and actions we can see, she is a major character from our perspective. Xingke gets more screen time and is more important to the plots we can see than Tohdoh is, because Tohdoh's always off somewhere else fighting battles and we never see him unless he's giving a status report. Xingke is closer to home coordinating things and generally being more influential than Tohdoh on screen, especially during the Tianzi's kidnapping incident. the_one092001 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I know what in-universe importance means, I meant "how is this applicable to what I wrote?" That said, I can see how you thought I was confused, but I wasn't; I still think Todoh gets more important screen time, while Li's presence was mostly in the subplot they ran for 3 episodes. I think your view may be obscured a bit by time, while my first time seeing this show was three months ago; you seem to forget his importance and screen time in episodes 11 and 14. I disagree with your view of Shirley on account of her importance to Lelouch, who is the center of this universe. Milly fits that profile better. If Li leads the probable rebellion against Zero I'll reconsider, but until then, no. Also, remember to support his inclusion in the main character slot with comparisons TO main characters.Westrim (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "time" has to do with my view; Tohdoh just doesn't get much character development at all. He's always giving orders, and we know that he once taught Suzaku, but that aside, he's left mostly ignore to simply exist as "that genius general." Shirley isn't important within the Code Geass universe as a person, she is important only because of her connection to Lelouch, which is stronger than Tohdoh's despite his higher importance. The other major example is of course the Emperor. Is there anyone more important than the Emperor of the most powerful country on that Earth? Yet despite that, he's not really a main character because he doesn't get much screen time or background. He gets about as much screen time as Tohdoh does (doing the exact opposite, usually) and yet is nowhere near being a main character. Xingke, however, gets more time and more focus. Since his introduction he's been in pretty much every episode related to the Chinese Federation, which means almost from the beginning of the season. He was showing up at the embassy long before Tohdoh was rescued, and played a more plot-important role in the incident surrounding the Tianzi's kidnapping. All Tohdoh did then was sortie a few times, once against Suzaku but most of his actions were off-screen, whereas we got to see Xingke's fight and his eventual betrayal at the hands of the High Eunuchs, and his efforts to save the Tianzi. Since then he's become the "face" of the Chinese Federation, appearing as a negotiator with the Black Knights as well as fighting to put down civil unrest elsewhere like Tohdoh was doing. He also got more screentime in Episoe 17 than Tohdoh did in Episode 18, leading the assault on Kyushu and battling Bismarck Waldstein and the Knight of Ten.

Ironically, that said, I'd wait until the next episode to fully say he should have a main character slot. Whatever he does then decides his importance to the plot for a while, whether it's backing Zero or rebelling against him. the_one092001 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not even in his relationship with Chiba? And look, Lelouch IS the universe- in terms of plot, what's important (and close) to him is important to us. And to repeat, a couple minutes a day for seven episode plus his very own minor plot arc for three do NOT make a main character. Speaking of that, you still can't find a main character to compare him to, because he's NOT on that level. You apparently prefer to keep dancing around Tohdoh and his importance, when he isn't even up for consideration. Neither Tohdoh NOR Li are main characters, regardless of who is more important. Finally, by focusing on time only in this season, you're just proving my point that you've lost perspective. I'm not going to engage in this any more until you can come up with a more compelling argument than "Tohdoh is less important than LI, therefore Li is a main character."Westrim (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So now we resort to belittling tactics? Whatever happened to AGF? I started watching this show only two weeks after you started watching it, and of course I saw Tohdoh's battle in Episode 11; he sortied a bit and that was all before the action cut to the Black Knights and Lelouch. His sortie in Episode 11 of R2 was eclipsed by the Lelouch-Xingke-Tianzi interaction going on as well. And I have no idea what you're talking about with Episode 14, he doesn't appear in that episode in either the first or second season. In the first season, that's after Narita yet before Lelouch recruits him, and in the second season that's Zero's assault on the Geass Directorate, which Tohdoh does not participate in.

If you want a comparison, just look at how much the plot has seriously involved Nunnally in the second season. Yes, she's the Governor and still Lelouch's sister, but she's always ushered away whenever anything important happens. All we see her do is confront Ms. Romeyer and proclaim the creation of the new SAZ of Japan. Yes, she's important because she's a (likely THE) motivator. But so is the Emperor, and he doesn't even have a page. We probably know as much about the Emperor now as we know about Nunnally, and Lelouch seems to hate Charles as much as he loves Nunnally. If importance to Lelouch is the main criteria by which we judge importance, Nunnally shouldn't be there without the Emperor, or Schneizel. Schneizel, as well, gets far more screen time now than Nunnally does since he's now the one in charge of Japan and Britannia's resistance.

Maybe a fairer comparison about relative importance is Kallen. She really isn't too important to Zero; at least not enough for it to be the sole reason she's listed here. When she was captured, aside from promising to rescue her, Lelouch didn't do anything special. That Sayoko found her was fortunate, but she's only Priority Item #3. She is important to him, to be sure, but no more so than Shirley was (and she doesn't have an entry here) and only really gets a single episode to elaborate on her past. She's important enough to be a main character because she has a lot of screen time, which are as much a function of her abilities as Lelouch's affections. At least half of her screen time is of her piloting, which has nothing to do with Lelouch's personal affections but more to do with her abilities, which is the same with Xingke. He may not be personally important to Lelouch, but his abilities and level of trust make him important enough to be focused on as a major character, while more two dimensional characters are left aside.

The main page does not list any second season characters at all, regardless of importance. I find that to be a major oversight, because the second season is just as important as the first, and just as long. Using the "Lelouch Test," Rolo comes out as quite an important character, since he's Lelouch's supposed brother, agent, and antagonist all in one. The only other new major recurring character I can think of would be Xingke. the_one092001 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No I'm just getting irritated. So you've only seen the series recently as well, but you still to give unequal weight to events of the second season (If you don't believe that, look at your paragraph on Nunnally, which ignores the events of the first season that strengthen her case). I meant ep. 17 (and both were from season 1), not sure why I wrote 14. I'm not going to discuss any more comparisons to Tohdoh- he was just an easy military example, and comparing him to Li was unbalanced, as I said in my very next post, but you continued to pursue it.

Nunnally gets main character status due to her plot centrality, plus her awkwardness in any other category- Imperial family would be closest, but still inaccurate. Schneizel (and the emperor as well) by contrast fits quite well in the Imperial family category- there would have to be a lot more revealed and focused on them to get main character status. The opponent/ villain in any story is nearly always a secondary character, regardless of how often or long they're seen- one of the few exceptions I can think of is Death note, with Light and L, but that relationship doesn't exist here.

On Kallen, why is it everywhere I go, people say she was item #3? She was #2- #3 was found in a hanger, which makes it the Guren. And she is very important to Lelouch- he bet his whole army at the time on an effort to recover her right after she was captured- the impression that he spent little effort on recovering her is distorted by later events, like Shirley's death. Its odd that you cite her importance as his ace as a detriment to her importance- Suzaku does that too. Does that make him any less important? That she flies doesn't make her comparable to Li.

It's also odd that you cite some sort of prejudice against second season characters- despite the season being barely two-thirds done and the carryover of the first season characters. Yes, Rolo should be up there- he already is on the character page, so go ahead and do it here as well. However, Li should not, and I'm not going to revisit this issue until the season is over and we have the full breadth of it to analyze. This thread is already rather long, so if you really want to pursue it further, I suggest you make a new thread and move it to the character page, which is more appropriate anyway.Westrim (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this...when the series end, we'll decide if Xingke goes to the main characters section or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.105.32 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a bit forum-ish, but

Shouldn't it be mentioned that in our timeline, the Celtic resistance did elect something equivalent to a "super-king", Vercingetorix? The reason the Celt's lost was not disunity, but that Vercingetorix was not ruthless enough, and allowed Avaricum to stand as a concession to his people.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a short blurb. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Freya v. Fleija

Obviously this is going to be a bone of contention, so I'll just go ahead and create a thread for discussion. I personally am withholding judgment until a Japanese speaker weighs in.Westrim (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the origin of the name is Japanese or not, but from the latest episode, a screen shot shows the name written as F.L.E.I.J.A. which stands for Field Limitary Effective Implosion Armament. ~ Hyakurei (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Freya (or Freyja) is the Norse goddess of love and a bunch of other stuff. Two other terms in that same screenshot are Fólkvangr, her home, and Sessrúmnir, a hall in her home where the half of slain vikings that didn't go to Valhalla went, so its rather obvious they were going for Freyja (I may not be good with languages, but I love mythology). Whether they took liberties or made a mistake, I don't know. It could just be the ol' R v. L issue we all know and love. Westrim (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what they may or may not have meant, the screenshot is law in this case. Fleija is how they spell it, so it's how we spell it. A note about the pronunciation can cover the obvious reference. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the confusion for those not versed in mythology stems from the scene in episode 14 (I think), as well as every time it was mentioned thereafter, where it was referred to in every sub I've seen as Freya, so the question is what those translators based that on. If we go with fleija, then I think every time the term is used it should be written as the acronym it is, not as the proper name you are currently changing it to.Westrim (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think all instances should be replaced with F.L.E.I.J.A., or at the very least FLEIJA. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On another note- and yes, I know the truth will be revealed in a couple weeks, but I'm still curious- should any notice be made of the unlikelihood that FREIJA was actually a bomb? This owing to rather elementary principles like "when a kilometer- wide chunk of matter is converted into energy, it would cause a hell of a lot more damage than was done here." I don't know if the FRIEJA-as-teleporter theory is true, but FRIEJA as bomb is definitely false, per Einstein (Albert not Nina). Westrim (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fiction, bombs can do crazy shit. Besides, we already mention that people "killed" by it aren't confirmed as dead. Any more would be OR. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is it F.R.E.I.A. or F.R.E.I.J.A.? Above, all instances have the J in it, but the J doesn't seem to stand for anything. There have been some changes to remove the J, so which is the correct one (i.e. shown in the anime)? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

J is fact. Anime spells it that way indisputably. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Can't figure out why the J is there, or what it stands for, but meh. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the J puts it closer to the origin name, as described in my second post. Can't figure out why they couldn't find an r word for the second letter (except possibly the aforementioned flied lice issue), especially since it's just Fun With Acronyms anyway. Westrim (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't freya and F.R.E.I.J.A pronounced the same way in Japanese? 76.201.56.110 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FREYA vs FREIJA: the J isn't silent in the Japanese language. (Though it is in Spanish.) Felinius (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

the way they pronounce it is "fleia" i think the J is a translation error. but will it matter when they finish the counter measures against it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbg1115 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Light Novels

I noticed that the infobox doesn't mention the light novel adaptations. Since there's quite a few volumes and is ongoing, shouldn't it be mentioned in the infobox? Although it will make the infobox rather long... -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea. I would add it, but I don't know much about the light novels. - plau (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I'm sure SOMEONE will have read them though! I'll try googling some info for it. Since its for the infobox, shouldn't need too much detail. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to expand the infobox to cut down on length and use some of the dead space created by the Content box? Westrim (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can use one of those hide/click to show things in the infobox to hide the details? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I've been editing for a few months, and am currently working on revamping the Rahxephon articles, but I can't even change the name of a heading in an infobox (from label to description) without it deformatting on me. It's like the template is set in stone and only certain areas can be modified. Westrim (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

special

a week ago, it said that a special episode with the 'final reflections' on code geass would air on 5 oct... is that true or where the hell did that info come from (its not there anymore now)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmantruck (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Anime Corporation Review

Since I constantly see it deleted and then restored, what is the notability for the Anime Corporation review? If it's just a website I fail to see why we should continue to fight so hard to keep it since it keeps getting deleted, and calling the reviewer "Josh" just makes the entire thing seem less credible; like some random internet guy wrote it. the_one092001 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't appear to be anything like a proper, notable review; just seems to be someone named 'josh' (who I have now checked to be an admin of the site) writing a review on some anime website. Having a brief look around the site, it is basically an anime news and forum site, with only a few anime reviews (which can be submitted by anyone), so nothing really notable for reviews in terms of the site. I removed a review a little while back as well, from minitokyo (a forum site), and I don't see this review being any different from that one, except this is from an admin of the site. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pendragon - Imperial city vs. Capital city - Location

Is the Pendragon an imperial city or the capital? The two terms have slightly different meanings. One can be an imperial city but not the capital. (e.g. Some would consider San Francisco an imperial city) - plau (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Or Britannia could have multiple capitals. While the seat of government is at the Pendragon, the actual capital of Britannia is located elsewhere (i.e. Neo-Wales). - plau (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to contradict your findings, Rogue Penguin, but Pendragon must be approximately 100km away from the Gulf of California, with the radius of the blast being 50km and the wide shots showing the crater to be at least 50 more kilometers from the sea. Also, the shot of the world's armies and their positions at approx 12:15 in episode 23 labels Pendragon as being above the Gulf of California. With this in mind, the nearest point of reference is Phoenix, Arizona. Westrim (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rouge Penguin? -PatPeter 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Info in Media-Anime section?

In the Anime Section of the Media Section of the article, it says that the last episode of Code Geass aired on Adult Swim at 5:00 PM. I know Adult Swim doesn't start till 10 or 11 pm depending on what day it is, so I know this is wrong, but I do not know the time. Is it 5:00 AM? I have seen the show at that time, so that may be the real time, but I do not know so I will not change the info.71.63.25.210 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has corrected this, thank you. -PatPeter 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Settings Problems

The edit made here applies to both these sections -PatPeter 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Euro Universe?

Where does this series refer to the E.U. as the Euro Universe? -PatPeter 21:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No where, where did you hear that? o.o --Refuteku (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

All over the article. -PatPeter 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in one of the magazines, I don't remember which one. - plau (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If we cannot cite that E.U. really stands for European Universe, we cannot revert someone's edit when they change it to "European Union", as we have no basis for our claim. -PatPeter 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The subs also refer to it as that, however. the_one092001 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the subs, they only say E.U. in the sub (link to YouTube or whatever). -PatPeter 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive problems with Holy Empire of Britannia

This section has massive problems in regards to the fact that none of this content (ignore the added content) comes up in the series. It needs a lot of citations for which I have begun added as I can. -PatPeter 11:32, October 28, 2008 (UTC-06:00)