FANDOM


Protagonist (Persona 5) Edit

What is his hair color is it black other people said it's brown. It seems the hair color is black for Protagonist (Persona 5) similar to Vincent Brooks --Cococrash11 (talk) 20:38, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Voice ActorEdit

Considering it was Jun Fukuyama who showed up and acted as the phantom during Night of the Phantom, would it be safe to add him as the protagonist Japanese voice actor?--JupiterKnight (talk) 03:00, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

No, let's not assume anything. There's no harm in waiting until more information is available. Alex IDV (talk) 05:57, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
Wait, where was it confirmed that's who voiced him during NotP? I've been seening this get thrown around a lot, and I'm just really curious. 65.51.214.148 06:44, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
Not literally, actually. However, his voice in the event is extremely similar to Lelouch Lamperouge in Code Geass who is voiced by Jun Fukuyama. Even so, it is not confirmed that he will be the Japanese voice actor for the protagonist.
Mr. Empty (talk) 07:57, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

Height Edit

His wiki page states he's 5'9". Are there any sources on that? i haven't seen anything? while there's room for artistic liscence, the poster showing his Persona implies that he's 5'5" if you follow the height lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.5.1 (talkcontribs) on . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Then you may want to check your measurements. There's been one image referenced on here with the height chart extended. I've measured using a compass and pixel-by-pixel according to that chart in the original image and the top of his hair is barely breaking the 5'9" mark. Great Mara (talk) 15:20, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

I see that the wiki lists him as representing the Fool arcana. I'm just wondering: is there a source confirming this? If not then should it be removed until there is confirmation? Simply as a means to avoid potentially false information. 99.138.149.253 19:41, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, his Arcana is confirmed. At the part of the trailer where the characters visit the armor shop, the status screen says: "Protagonist - The Fool". G.A.S.A (talk) 19:49, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
Dam'n... I was hoping they'd change things up and make him the Devil Arcana... Considering Arsene is a thief, it'd make sense to me.Smashman0 (talk) 19:44, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
I too dislike the fact that this MC (is he going to get a canon name or not?) and want a protagonist that is not a Fool, because Fool means "absence of personality" It's something I should say in a forum, I know, but I agree with Smashman0 on the fact that the P6 MC shouldn't be another Fool. Tokoyami no Nietzsche (talk) 14:41, November 20, 2017 (UTC)
Considering Hashino won't work on future titles for Persona it could be possible for the next protagonist to not be a Fool like the protagonists from P1 and P2 (Emperor, Sun and Moon). Crok425 (talk) 17:26, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Joker (Persona 5) Edit

Is there any relevant trivia information about Joker (Persona 5) for Protagonist (Persona 5). Since there were 2 person who use the name Joker for bad while he's the first person that use the name Joker for good. --Cococrash11 (talk) 06:09, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

Atlus JP seems to advocate that the Heist is there to "punish the evildoing adults" which to me sounds intentionally barefaced/shameless. I feel that their cause may turn out horribly wrong (possible plot twist) as hinted in the 4th trailer which is similar to the Joker in Innocent Sin, so it's best for us to avoid defining the morality/ethics of their actions. -- Inpursuit (talk) 06:18, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

The Phantom Edit

It seems the Japanese Persona 5 Website at May 5, 2016 The Phantom refers to Protagonist (Persona 5) while The Phantoms refer to the Phantom Thieves of Hearts in Persona 5. --Cococrash11 (talk) 22:30, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Akira Kurusu's LinesEdit

Why did you put quotes from Lavenza instead of actual lines spoken by Akira? Since Akira speaks lines, it would have been good to post actual lines spoken by him on the Wiki page instead of relying on references by other characters.

37.119.189.100 18:51, June 10, 2017 (UTC)Vittorio Pugliese

I agree. We should have the quotes from the actual protagonists, not other characters about the protagonist's situation, as their opening quote. People are used to the opening quote being spoken by the actual character. Same goes for P3 protagonist. —AlexShepherd 19:40, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree at all Protagonist (Persona 3) and Protagonist (Persona 5) had an actual line in the personality sections it's more than acceptable. They are Silent Protagonist the whole point of other characters quoting it is precisely because they are Silent. Doing that in the Opening defeats the whole purpose. We know they talk in the personality sections and Protagonist (Persona 5) even talks with Arsene in the Persona 5 The Animation The Day Breakers sections. --Cococrash11 (talk) 05:27, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Just because they don't have a lot of vocal lines, it means we must choose a quote from another one about them? That's flimsy logic. And they still have lines in text and dialog options, say things in battle, and P5 protagonist speaks in cutscenes. And they both speak a lot in the manga/anime/movie/spin-offs. Also, I still think it's confusing to have a quote from another character in the opening section, since many will read their opening quote as the protagonist, only to realize it's from Lavenza. Also, just because a quote by someone else is chosen, it does not communicate that they are silent protagonists. —AlexShepherd 14:10, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

If it's with talking characters that doesn't make sense. But with Silent Protagonist it's fine it's not just Protagonist (Persona 3) and Protagonist (Persona 5) other Silent Protagonists are like that. --Cococrash11 (talk) 19:00, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is poor. The protagonists of P3 and P5 do talk sometimes, and "silent protagonist" is a bit subjective. It still doesn't mean their opening quote needs to be from someone else entirely (since it makes it more confusing), and having their opening quote from another does not necessarily convey the idea that they are silent protagonists. —AlexShepherd 19:20, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
The Boy with Earring, Minato Arisato and Yu Narukami never spoke in their main games, but Akira Kurusu does, so I think we should post his actual lines instead of references from Lavenza. I agree with AlexShepard.
Also TVTropes doesn't count Akira Kurusu, Sorey from Tales of Zestiria (but Ludger counts), Snake from MGSV and Maximillian from Dark Cloud 2 (But Toan counts) as Heroic Mimes (If you look on the Persona 5 page on TVTropes you won't find "Heroic Mime", while you will find that trope in P4 and P3)
37.119.189.100 11:56, June 12, 2017 (UTC)Vittorio Pugliese

Yosuke, Naoto, Makoto, and other characters act as the Protagonists mouth so they move the plot forward it's like that. Besides the Opening quotes fit them more perfectly then any quotes spoken by them vocally. Their vocal quotes are limited compared to other talking characters and numerous good choices. Flynn's Opening Quote is similar even though he doesn't talk in the Main game but in the sequel he does there's no need to keep making Protagonist (Persona 5)'s Opening Quote vocal. You do know he doesn't have many vocal quotes that's because he's a Silent Protagonist. We know he talks in Persona 5 that's why it's mention in the personality sections. His vocal quotes fits at the personality section not at the opening.

Soery, and Maximilian isn't a Silent Protagonist while Ludger and Toan are. Solid Snake used to be a Silent Protagonist while Punished "Venom" Snake is just The Quiet One. Also Protagonist (Persona 5) is a Heroic Mime in TVTropes I check it everyday. It's because of people like you that people almost assumed he isn't a Silent Protagonist and that's why it's necessary for people to be reminded that Protagonist (Persona 5) is one. --Cococrash11 (talk) 17:49, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

So? You still haven't answered my points: "It still doesn't mean their opening quote needs to be from someone else entirely (since it makes it more confusing), and having their opening quote from another does not necessarily convey the idea that they are silent protagonists." We should move the Lavenza quote to the opening of P5 since it's more relevant there. Right now there's 3 in support of having the opening quote be from the actual protagonist, and 1 against. The Lavenza quote is also waaay too lengthy. —AlexShepherd 17:57, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

What 3 it's only you 2 get your facts right. Flynn, Nanashi (Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse), Protagonist (Persona 3) and other Silent Protagonists' Opening quotes have someone's else quotes and it's not confusing you're the only one who find it confusing you shouldn't assume other people will find it confusing. The quotes that you are suggesting is too short and you of all people want short information aren't you they guy who wrote lengthy information but with quotes it's different. --Cococrash11 (talk) 18:19, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

I meant 3 people in support of my stance (me and two IP editors), not 3 characters. If there's other characters with opening quotes from another, I don't care since I'm only into Persona. And the majority of people are going to read that quote and think it's the protagonist saying it at first, which is why it's confusing and we don't want that. I also work with a case-by-case basis and have different standards for opening quotes. —AlexShepherd 22:13, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

I only see 2 you and the guy who first wrote Akira Kurusu's Lines. No they won't, they will understand with other Silent Protagonists the basis and standards that work well with other series then your basis and standards there's is no need to make the Persona (Series) the only one different. --Cococrash11 (talk) 22:20, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

"We will take this country!" isn't much of a quote nor does it have any grand significance either in contrast to what Lavenza says. However... I do agree with Alex in that if the protagonist does say something that should be the quote... but only if it has a good amount of words and actually has some weight in it. The same way that P3MC's quote shouldn't just be "That's how people are." since it doesn't have a lot of context into it to outright none. Which is why Yu does have a quote because he had a lengthy sentence (but it shouldn't be from the anime, imo).
"If there's other characters with opening quotes from another, I don't care since I'm only into Persona."
I see... and besides, people won't be confused because at the base of the quote it says who said the quote. Crok425 (talk) 23:04, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

It's not a big deal if only the Persona protagonists have a quote by them. Also, Akira's "We will take this country!" quote is epic as hell (imo) and it shows his determination and strong-will. Still, we have 4 people agreeing that the quote should be from the protagonist. Again, we can move the Lavenza quote down to the P5 section. It's a win-win. —AlexShepherd 23:08, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Right now you're the one who isn't answering my question who is the 2nd person ip. Besides "Yes. Before that happens, we will take this country!" fits his personality perfectly that's enough to show that his personality is "epic" not as a opening. You don't care since you're only into Persona that sounds very biased. --Cococrash11 (talk) 01:23, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

The reason Protagonist (Persona 4) doesn't have a vocal quote in Persona 4 is precisely because he is a Silent Protagonist. The only quote there is from an anime. The only epic vocal quotes from Protagonist (Persona 5) is "Yes. Before that happens, we will take this country!" and "See ya!" and the others are only game play. Those words don't need to be in the Opening. Instead of changing the opening how about writing a new quotes under the Heists sections there are lots of them. --Cococrash11 (talk) 01:44, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Epic as hell isn't an arguement. As I said I don't think that one should be the quote on his page because it's short and without context to really back it up. Yes I agreed that the quote should be from the protagonist but only if it's a long sentence and actually has some words instead of a few that don't mean much without context, so no in this case that quote shouldn't be used. However, a quote should be about how the protagonist is in general instead of just "strong-willed" since "strong-willed" is depicted in all of the protagonists. Crok425 (talk) 05:57, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

The quote that is long and with context from Protagonist (Persona 5) isn't possible because he's a Silent Protagonist and that method can only applied to talking characters. Lavenza's quote is about Protagonist (Persona 5) stating he is a Slave of Fate, basically implied that he is fated to save the world, described the importance of memories of his bond which is very important and relevant to the Persona (Series) that's why it described who he is perfectly. --Cococrash11 (talk) 06:08, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't notice those were the same IP. Anyway, I disagree with Crok's belief that a quote being epic isn't a valid point or argument, I think it's a totally valid point which Crok so easily dismisses. And I think the protagonist being strong-willed and rebellious is a far more defining aspect than the rest (P3/P4 protagonist aren't that strong-willed and are victims of unfortunate circumstances). And I don't see an issue with an opening quote being short and succinct. I wouldn't know what other quotes to chose for other non-Persona protags since I'm unfamiliar with them, so of course I'm biased (I'm not going to waste my time with unfamiliar material). Again, there's no good point why the Lavenza quote can't just be moved to the P5 section. Having a lengthy quote from another character at the top is a bad idea since people are going to initially read the line as the protagonist's voice. —AlexShepherd 07:03, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Crok425 it makes sense than your biased reasoning. I already explain the reason and you seem to keep ignoring it. You keep insisting that people will be confused and thought it's Protagonist (Persona 5)'s voice. Sounds to me you don't read carefully and don't think things through kind of like with Persona 5 Ages. I on the other actually read what's going on and I might not always show it but I always think carefully about what I do. --Cococrash11 (talk) 07:24, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

WTF is your counter-point? That people will eventually see the "Lavenza" at the bottom, and it's all okay? That's still a bad counter-point since people reading the article for the first time will still read the first parts in the protagonist's voice. And what do you mean I didn't "think things through" with the Persona 5 ages? You seemed to be the one having a severe brainfart when I explained my reasoning why I think 16-17 is fine for the Protagonist/Ann/Ryuji, and not for certain other characters like Akechi, Makoto and Haru where it's more ambiguous. —AlexShepherd 07:35, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

You're being rude to both me and the readers you don't think they will read the context and make an educated guess. You're the one with the so called "severe brainfart" when you wrote possibly 15, 16, 17, and 18 when "they" even stated that's not how we do things and even I understand that before and after you implemented it. I proposed to do it 16-17 like with Persona 3 and Persona 4 but you wouldn't go for and stating it's all speculative so "they" suggest to do it just 16 and went back to the original arrangement. I was able to write dozen of Persona 5 characters quote when you're fixated on just Protagonist (Persona 5)'s Quotes. You keep thinking there are 2 ips then eventually you finally noticed it's actually just 1 ip this show you didn't actually read things carefully. --Cococrash11 (talk) 07:59, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to be considerate. Not everyone picks up on context. So what if I listed uncertain age ranges? I listed them because many characters age and I feel it's good to mention that possibility while keeping the certainties and uncertainties specified. Once "they" said not to do it like that on the wiki, I stopped, so I didn't have a "brainfart" or anything. If I somehow kept editing a little, then I simply didn't see "their" message that fast. I'm fixated on the P3/P5's opening quotes because I don't like the idea of their opening quote being from someone else. So what? And it's not like I remember the numbers of IPs, so whatever. God forbid I make an honest mistake from time to time like a real human being, eh? If you're going to blast me for that, I could blast you for all the grammar and punctuation mistakes YOU make. —AlexShepherd 08:22, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

You're not being considerate now. It's not just with ages I noticed you argue a lot of it which get you in trouble 3 times 2 times from last summer and 1 from just last month. I remember it's something to do with Naoto being transgender, and Kanji being homosexual but the recent one I didn't look into it. Right now it feels like intimidating behavior. Yes I have problems with it that's why I stop doing it and instead do minor things, you add lots of information that makes sense and frankly to me the way you do things with quotes is how you view me with the things you mentioned. I have a dozens of counter points but honestly you don't think I have one I guess I'm not just good with explaining things. --Cococrash11 (talk) 08:49, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

So what am I supposed to do in order to be "considerate"? Simply shut up, walk out of this debate, and let you have your way? Should I let people have their way every once in a while, even if I disagree with them? Is that the only way I can be "considerate"? And why are you making this ad hominem now? Why can't you just focus on the actual debate? God forbid someone enters wiki debates a lot. You need good points, counter-points and an ability to properly convey yourself in a debate. You're not really doing well at that, as you admit. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —AlexShepherd 09:01, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
I've checked the TvTropes page of Persona 5 and Characters/Persona 5 and I haven't found the Heroic Mime trope (I found it in P3 and P4), while in the Heroic Mime page it's said specifically that it's downplayed even more in P5 as Akira has some lines, however he still doesn't voice his dialogue trees. In P6, however, I want to remove those (pointless) dialogue trees entirely (except during Social Links) and make a protagonist with a canon name, a fleshed-out personality and a backstory (all Persona protagonists are silent and have no personality, but I want P6 to break the tradition like they did with Aigis, however not just break the tradition for a special scenario, but for an entire game as a protagonist with personality can have an actual character arc like the rest of the cast and may improve the story by a lot). This coems from the man who wants Link to talk. Who agrees with me?
37.119.189.100 08:54, June 13, 2017 (UTC)Vittorio pugliese (The Man Who Wants Link and the P6 Protagonist To Talk) 10.53, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

That will never happen because Atlus is adamant with their silent protags tradition. Besides, your message is forum worthy, not here.

Anyway, putting aside your bickering and into the discussion at hand. Just as "epic as hell" isn't an arguement... your bias isn't an arguement either. The quote of "We'll take over this country." just shows his rebellious side which just scratches the surface of his character just like the P3 MC quote of "That's how people are." both are short, without context and doesn't say much or outright anything about them. Lavenza's quote fits the protagonist perfectly since it tells about what his journey will be like and what he needs to do to succeed just like the quote found in the P3 MC page, it says more about the story of the game and what the protagonist is than "Let's take this country."

As for debate... I know you said that polite accusations or insults are part of a debate which I disagree completely. "Brain fart" isn't polite at all, not even in a debate where no one tries to insult you. Just my two cents. Crok425 (talk) 17:49, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem you sure know a lot words. I'm not using what ever that is called (Already check the meaning). You're the one who used Ad Hominem I'm just saying it sounds to me to you don't read things carefully and didn't think things through and then get angrily defensive by saying that rude word. You do understand the word criticism right. I didn't intend it to sound that harsh but you're causing me a lot of stress and your rude word isn't helping with it. You criticize that I make mistakes but that sounds hypocritical and you seem to forget you make just as many mistake when you have the nerve to use that word. You should really be careful by reading things and thinking things carefully or else you'll get in trouble by arguing again and it's not without baseless reasoning it's from last year but also last month which is pretty recent, and right now.

The ip is either lying or they had no idea how to look for things. Again it's in Persona 5 Characters Founding Thieves under The Protagonist and around the letter H.

"Bias isn't an argument either" Well at that time that's how it feel, then it get complicated and I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore, and the conversation itself is very confusing. That's what I've been trying to say about Lavenza's quote but now you make it more sense. --Cococrash11 (talk) 18:24, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

To Crok:

  • Me thinking the "country" quote is "epic" is still an argument. Just because it's a subjective opinion/argument, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not an argument. The country quote is short, succinct, and entices the reader into wanting to learn more. The opening quote isn't supposed to be huge and lengthy and about his situation - that's what the Profile section is for, which the Lavenza quote can be moved to. I think both the "country" quote and "that's how people are" say a lot about their character while being succinct and enticing. Agree to disagree. And what do you even mean "my bias isn't an argument"? If you mean my opinion that the "country" quote is better, then your opinion that the Lavenza quote is better isn't an argument since it's also subjective. It goes both ways.
  • I said "Cococrash had brainfart" after they insinuated that I "don't read carefully and think through things and don't actually read what's going on". Call it counter-roasting - Cococrash was rude to me first. Besides, you're the one to talk - you called me a jackass before.

To Cococrash:

  • Yes, you used ad hominem when you decided to say I don't read/think through things carefully, so I used ad hominem back. You think you can just say things like that, and expect someone not to get offended and retort? Boohoo, so I said you had a brainfart before. You can mask what you said as "criticism", but that's exactly my proof that you used ad hominem first, since you criticized my character first out of nowhere.

Anyway, if two people think the Lavenza quote is better, then I can't really do anything. I still think it's dumb to have the Lavenza quote as the opening quote. —AlexShepherd 19:27, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Me being rude. All I said is "It sounds to me like" it's just an observation and judging from Talk:Persona 5, etc your argument just keep escalating. Everyone had feelings, you feel my observation as rude, I feel that word is rude, and Crok425 feels pissed at that time in Talk:Persona 5. You do know there is such a thing called constructive criticism but apparently you don't take it that way. We both said some harsh things let's just move on from it alright. --Cococrash11 (talk) 19:51, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

If I said "It sounds to me like you're an obnoxious asshole", does it really make it better? It's like putting sprinkles on a turd. You can call it "constructive criticism" all you want, it's still ad hominem. Since it is futile dealing with you two and impossible to get my way, I might as well leave. All I did was want to support IP's feelings that the Lavenza quote is a bad choice. —AlexShepherd 19:57, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

The Fool Edit

But is he really the Fool?  Nowhere in the game does it state he is the fool arcana, just that he has the wild card ability.  Igor is the fool arcana in P5. 76.73.234.34 07:16, June 24, 2017 (UTC)

Having his initial Persona as the Fool already says he is of the Fool arcana. Igor is just a confidant. Yu was also never mentioned to be the Fool in the game IIRC. Crok425 (talk) 10:17, June 24, 2017 (UTC)

Exposing Shidou and other lines from AkiraEdit

When exposing Shidou, Akira seems to have said "Yes, before that happens, we will take this country!". Was it really him or just Futaba or Yusuke using a voice modifier? Also, if he really has lines, in which cutscenes can I find them?

Joker's Glasses Edit

So this has become a rather significant talking point, but it's a discussion that needs to happen. In short, I seem to have gotten into a disagreement regarding Joker's glasses. They're purely aesthetic and the game makes it abundantly clear that's the case. And yet his wiki pages writes it in a way that makes it seem ambiguous, which isn't the case, which is a blatant case of editorializing.

Here's every argument that makes it abundantly clear they're aesthetic.

1) They're an accessory for Joker. Emphasis on accessory. The game describes them as "Hip Glasses" and in the Japanese version, they're described as "Fashion Glasses."

2) Joker does not wear them in his flashback with Shido. It's impossible to assume his vision got worse over time because...

3) He does not wear them in the ending. In what is possibly one of the most subtle aspects of the narrative, Joker gets rid of his glasses because he does not need them anymore. He does not need to wear them and pretend to be a good student because his name is finally cleared. Insisting that there's a possibility he needs to wear them is blatantly, willfully ignoring the ending.

4) He doesn't wear them in the Metaverse. Obvious. His hand eye coordination is notably amazing as well.

5) When Joker tells his friends he doesn't have a Yukata for the upcoming festival, they suggest he do something special for the occasion. Ryuji suggests he take off his glasses, which isn't something a person would suggest to someone who actually needs them for vision.

6) The game at not point even remotely hints at vision problems for the protagonist.

We shouldn't editorialize important aspects of a character because frankly, it looks incredibly amateurish.

Ziodyne (talk) 20:06, August 9, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

I could say the opposite of you. Nowhere does the game claim it's purely aesthetic and have no vision correcting purposes, and you are borderline claiming your interpretation is fact, claiming it's "not up for debate" (which is an easy way to be pretentious and silence people).
1) Just because they're an accessory, it doesn't mean anything. Ryuji's accessory is suspenders. That's like trying to say his suspenders don't actually have any functional purpose either. Just because glasses are "hip" and "fashionable", it doesn't mean they're not for vision correction.
2) Sometimes, people like to take off their glasses, especially if they're going on a short walk or trip, like a short stroll around the city at night. There are people who can see decently without glasses, and the glasses only serve as a minor boost for them. I'm similar. The severity of vision blur is different for everyone. Your claim that "everyone who wears glasses for vision correction can't see properly without them" is wrong. I can see fine without mine, just not *perfectly* -- we aren't all like Velma from Scooby Doo who LITERALLY can't see anything.
3) See above. Also, it could be for symbolic purposes, in the same way Yu removes his glasses in the TV world at the end of P4. It doesn't mean they weren't a necessity during the course of P4, as they had fog-lifting abilities.
4) See point 2. Also, Joker doesn't get to decide his Metaverse outfit. In addition, wearing glasses in both daily life and in the Metaverse is idiotic, as it identifies him (it's why they use codenames). It's not possible to wear his mask and his glasses at the same time either.
5) See point 2.
6) And nowhere does it prove, without a doubt, for a fact, that they're purely aesthetic and have no vision-correcting purposes.

Stop assuming everyone with glasses are Velmas from Scooby Doo. We shouldn't post interpretation as fact, and ignore the other possibilities, because frankly, it looks incredibly amateurish. Of course, the possibility that they're purely aesthetic is possible, but without absolute definite proof, we can't have bias in the wiki. —AlexShepherd 04:12, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

1) No, the burden of proof is on you. The game does not claim it's purely aesthetic because it does not need to. It is conveyed, through theming and text that they are fake glasses, rather than explicitly stated. It's only up for debate if you willfully ignore that. His glasses are an accessory because they are disposal, much like every other accessory in the series (despite having functional use, like Futaba's headphones). An accessory by definition, is something that can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive. If Joker's glasses were prescription, he would not be able to remove them.


2) Sure, I'm the same way when it comes to my own glasses. And yet there's still a distinct way in how your bodies process vision when your glasses are off. This is a problem, because we see Joker operate without his glasses without ANY problems on multiple occasions. He does not wear them in the metaverse. Or at night during his incident with Shido, or on his way back home during the ending.
3) Of course it's for symbolic purposes, that's the entire point. Joker removes his glasses because he does not need to hide anymore... If he needed them for vision correction, if his glasses weren't just a means of hiding, he would not do that. Why is this so difficult to grasp.
4) Way to entirely miss my point. The fact that he doesn't wear glasses in the metaverse, and yet can see and aim without issue should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he does not need them to see. It doesn't matter if he gets to decide his metaverse outfit, his vision literally does not change. Unless you'd be willing to argue that his vision somehow gets better in the metaverse, but that is untenable. It's speculation to the ridiculous degree.
5) See point 2.
6) See point 1. The game doesn't need to prove this beyond a shadow of the doubt. You need to prove that there was intent to portray him as someone who needs glasses.
Seriously, don't you have a shred of pride as an editor? You're being extremely transparent right now, willfully ignoring blatant theming in order to characterize Joker as someone who may need glasses for likely selfish reasons. It's borderline juvenile, especially since the Japanese wiki does not do this. We have a duty to convey the most accurate information, so it reflects poorly on us when you blatantly editorialize like that. You're claiming you're editing without bias, but using a dishonest argument in order to justify.
Regardless, what's currently written is blatantly worse than before. Way to take personality away from the description.

Ziodyne (talk) 13:09, August 10, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

1) No, you *think* it's conveyed as fact, when it isn't one yet. Just because it's categorized as accessory, it doesn't mean it's inherently useless and that it's entirely aesthetic. For example, sunglasses can be categorized as an accessory, but they serve a function. Just because something isn't a necessity, it doesn't mean it's useless. It's not enough proof. And your claim that "If Joker's glasses were prescription, he would not be able to remove them" is pure wrong. People who wear glasses can remove them anytime they want -- it may impair their vision a tiny bit, or to a large extent (depending on severity), but it's still their right and their ability to with free will.

2) Again, *severity* differs for everyone. He doesn't need to experience actual difficulty in those cutscenes or in the Metaverse to prove his glasses boost his vision, especially if it's a minor boost. Plus, how do you know his Metaverse mask doesn't have transparent lens to help him see? It's a possibility.

3) He still wears them in the scenes nearing the ending, despite that he is already out of probation at that point. He may have simply removed them in the final cutscene because he felt he was in the mood.

4) See point 2. He doesn't need to be a freaking Velma in order to prove your point, especially if his glasses serve as a minor boost. For example, I can aim a gun and see very well without my glasses.

5) In order to claim something to be factual which you interpret as a fact, yes, we DO need proof beyond a shadow of the doubt. This is how wikis work. Quit acting like you know all about how wikis work and function, when you barely edit Wikia at all.

Until then, we will always list it as a possibility since all you have is *evidence*, not undeniable proof. Right now, you're being quite rude, saying I have "no pride as an editor", saying what I'm doing is almost "juvenile", and saying I'm using "dishonest" arguments. You're right about one thing: this wiki is supposed to convey accurate information. There is no absolute undeniable proof that they are purely for aesthetic, which is why we will not claim it as such. And tone down your attitude, please. You're almost acting as if I somehow don't care about Joker's article, when I have over 200 edits on it, when you have 8. You're being quite condescending. —AlexShepherd 15:33, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

1) So your counter to my reasoned argument is "it isn't one?" That's ridiculous, and I would appreciate it if you didn't cherrypick my points. The accessory comment was a small point in a long list of evidence that proves that Joker's glasses are fake. To discount everything else because of that point alone is ridiculous. He still doesn't wear them during his flashback, which is a clear sign he adopted them when moving to Tokyo on his probation. He takes them off during the fireworks festival and shows no sign of vision issues (and not a single character notes this) making it exceedingly clear that they know he doesn't require corrective vision, and he gets rid of his glasses altogether by the end of the game. There's overwhelming evidence that proves he doesn't require glasses, and yet the wiki is written in a way that it's possible that he might not need them. It's ridiculous.
2) You don't need to lecture me on vision impairment, I know. Everyone experiences various levels of it, but it's called vision impairment for a reason. He would not be able to accurately aim a gun or perform precision strikes with his knife if he had vision impairment.

"Plus, how do you know his Metaverse mask doesn't have transparent lens to help him see? It's a possibility."

No. No. No. No. This is a very blatant logical fallacy. You are literally relying on ridiculous speculation to argue your points. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is. The sheer fact that you even have the gall to bring this up in a wiki discussion should make aware of your own hubris. You would never get away with adding such a speculative point in the actual wiki, so why bring it up? It hurts your argument even more.

3) The impact of him finally taking his glasses off in the anime cutscene would not be as significant if he took them off prior. There.
4) First, stop bringing up Velma. Second, I can't believe you missed the blatant hypocrisy in this post. The fact that you can aim a gun without your glasses is irrelevant, because you don't speak for everyone. Do you realize now what lengths you're going to justify your ridiculous assertions?
5) Except I'm not trying to make the wiki say "Joker wears fake glasses" but rather "it's likely he wears fake glasses" which isn't at all an unreasonable thing to write. It's certainly more accurate than dismissing the idea entirely, and *removing* the point about him adopting as part of his "meek" public persona to make himself seem more unassuming during his probation (Why do you even remove this? You took out the personality of the entry).

I called you out because you do use intellectually dishonest arguments. You literally tried to argue that Joker's metaverse mask might have lens (which it doesn't btw. The artbook and figma show no signs of there being a lens, so you made it up in order to be "right") in order to add doubt. You then tried to justify your points by using yourself and dismissing most of my points altogether. You even called me out on the number of edit's I made when it should be irrelevant to this discussion. I know you care about the wiki, but it's clear you're forcing your values onto the wiki instead of relying on objective information. I've noticed you done this a lot with other people as well, so this isn't even an isolated situation.

Ziodyne (talk) 16:36, August 10, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

1) I'm not trying to "cherry pick". If I feel like a point's not worth addressing, then I don't. I'm sick of long debates where we scrutinize every little detail. I'm just saying, all you have is evidence, not solid undeniable proof. Maybe he didn't feel like wearing his glasses that night as he was going on a short night walk. Maybe he recently obtained his glasses before moving as part of his prescription. Maybe he removes them in the fireworks scene to be "fashionable" and because Ryuji suggested it as he doesn't have special outfits, and maybe his vision issues are very minor. And what do you mean he "gets rid of them entirely in the ending"? How do you know they aren't in his pocket? You're making a lot of assumptions and ignoring all the other possibilities, saying that your interpretation just HAS to be fact, and yet you accuse me of cherry picking.
2) I disagree. Just because someone is a little vision impaired, it doesn't mean they can't aim their weapons. I hate having to repeat this over and over, but not all people who wear glasses are Velmas. I don't see him making any "precise" gunshots or attacks, he literally just attacks an enemy. The fact that he is able to miss at all while shooting a gun at a close distance supports my theory. How is my point about the mask possibly having lenses be a "fallacy"? It's not a fallacy, just a theory. If it's a fallacy, then name the specific fallacy (e.g. strawman, appeal to nature, ad hominem, etc). I'm not "relying" on "ridiculous speculation", I'm just saying, it's a possibility and you must accept that it's a possibility. I'm bringing it up because I'm allowed to, and you can't dismiss it entirely just because you don't like it.
3) I never dismissed your point about the glasses being part of a meek persona, that was Great Mara. I don't even have an issue with saying "likely" either, although I would prefer "possible" just to sound more unbiased, and think "highly likely" is redundant. Great Mara simply does not like speculation of any sort. Discuss that with him, not me.
And again, his Metaverse having lens is just a theory, don't get so riled up over it. Just because the artbook doesn't mention lens, doesn't mean it's not there. In addition, action figures often make sacrifices for it to be in figure form, as potential lens are extremely subtle to the point that it doesn't matter. I simply mentioned our edit counts to show you that I care about his article, after YOU made "irrelevant claims" attacking my character, like you just did in your last post, and like you are doing now, when ad hominem should be irrelevant in a proper debate. You sound awfully hypocritical. —AlexShepherd 17:06, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

The description of Hip Glasses is just "Black-framed glasses that makes one look smart." It didn't say anything about vision correctness. --Cococrash11 (talk) 22:46, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

1) When you rely on flimsy reasoning to justify your argument, i'm going to argue it. I'm not the one scrutinizing every little thing, because my evidence is broad and simple. You keep coming up with hypotheticals that aren't even hinted at, ignoring the context of the game itself. It's classic symbolism; young boy has his reputation ruined by corrupt politician. Young boy begins to wear glasses to appear meek and unassuming (which by the way, Hashino has explicitly described his initia appearance as being a ruse). Young boy doesn't need to wear said glasses to appear meek when his reputation is cleared. If they felt they needed to portray Joker as someone who wears glasses in his flashback, they would wear it. He would not "conspicuously" put them in his pocket while taking a stroll. This is why I'm so adamant about my position. Developer intent is important. Theming is important. And I have evidence to support my claims while all you have are hypotheticals. Furthermore, "his phantom mask might have a lens" is not an argument, it's fanfiction. And to even go as far as to deny the fact that they're not the figure (figma btw, not action figure) because of limitations is really low. These figures usually finely accurate, and if they were an intended aspect of the mask they would be there. But we're not. Stop looking for excuses.
2) You're either overly confidant or you have a profound misunderstanding of vision impairment. Ingame Joker attacks with accuracy comparable to his friends. Even if he could deftly attack enemies with his knife (which I doubt), his accuracy would objectively be worse than average. Or do you think people with vision impairment have dextirity comparable to people with normal vision? Also you're flat out wrong about the gun thing too. He makes a precise shot when performing a critical hit AND when doing a followup. Like you literally see him lining up his shot.
Your fallacy is the "conditional" fallacy. You're justifying your stance (Joker has vision impairment) with theories, that are irrelevant. I don't care if you think it's a possibility (it's not), we are having an argument with facts, not fiction. Try and suggest the idea that Joker's mask has a lens anywhere, and see what happens. Nobody would ever take such an irrelevant and forced conclusion seriously. You're allowed to bring these inane theories up (personally I think Ryuji knows kung fu. Evidence? Well, he might have learned it from watching TV or something, you can't exactly rule it out!), just don't expect me to take them seriously whatsoever. The conditional fallacy is harmful because it is not condusive to settling an argument. Hence the ongoing argument. 
3) Well the let's talk compromise, then. I'm fine with keeping it as "likely", and I agree that highly likely was unprofessional and somewhat egregrious editorializing. My apologies. I also apologize for the aggressiveness, but I will not apologize for getting angry over your theories. They're dangerous stretches in logic that can be used to justify anything. *Anything*. Do you realize how volatile this wiki would be if we allowed that sort of thing? You can bring it up just fine, but you can't actually use any of it in the wiki itself, so it's pointless to bring up.

Ziodyne (talk) 23:00, August 10, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

1) Hashino could've mentioned that in his "well-mannered behavior" appearance being the "ruse", not his glasses. Again, your evidence is still evidence, not proof. I feel my defenses, such as inaccurate figures and his mask potentially having vision lens (courtesy of Philemon or whoever gave the Thieves their outfits), is possible, although I feel that his vision impairment being so minor to the point that any performance issues from it is negligible is more likely.

2) He doesn't need to have worse damage or less accuracy to prove it. Similarly, Ryuji is supposed to have a gimped leg in the beginning of the game, yet never trips or shows it during gameplay (only in a cutscene). It's a video game. He runs up and attacks with a knife like everyone else, and yes, if the vision impairment is minor, then it makes little to no difference. Stop acting like people with a teeny bit of minor impairment suddenly don't know how to use a basic knife, or can't aim properly. You underestimate how capable visually impaired people can be. For example, just because someone can't see text clearly from a long distance, it means they can't use a knife on an enemy literally right in front of them, and they can't aim at an enemy a few meters away? Come on.

I would also argue that the mask having lens doesn't count as a conditional fallacy because I never used it to try to seriously prove Joker has vision impairment using it - all I suggested was that it's in the realm of possibilities. So congratulations, you just used a fallacy yourself: the strawman fallacy. And yes, it IS a possibility, just like how Ryuji possibly knowing kung fu is also a possibility (Makoto herself knows Aikido). The fact that you claim it's "impossible" for Joker's mask to have lenses shows how bigoted you are in accepting differing opinions. You may not need to take a possibility seriously, sure, but the fact that you deny it being possible paints you as a bigot who is hard to debate with.

3. Your theory that Joker's glasses being purely aesthetic is also just a theory. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it as still being an unproven theory shows how bigoted and headstrong you are. You're such a hypocrite. You accuse other people of being irrelevant, while using irrelevant ad hominem yourself. You claim you have logic all figured out, while you deny any other possibilities that go against your stance simply because you don't agree with them, and label them as "irrelevant" when they are possible and relevant to the topic at hand. I feel there's not much more to be said here, so I want to finish this. —AlexShepherd 00:19, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

1) Why go to such lengths to argue then, if you feel his vision impairment is so minor. It reaks of needlessly ascribing traits to a character (why? perhaps because you'd relate to Joker more if he also suffered from visual impairment?). Your defense is accurate in the same sense that me saying Ann star has a shaped birthmark on her left breast is accurate. You can't 100% rule it out, after all! Though considering lens defeat of the masks in the first place (the masks are very clearly based off stage masks) and the fact that it's doubtful that a magic mask would match Joker's (supposed) astigmatism, I think you're wholly off base here. I would also be careful to say that Joker's figure is innacurate since they were supervised by Atlus, so that's just your own speculation.

2) Personally, running around with my glasses (even as a near sighted invididual) is a pain, but this is a sily argument. Since Joker has a lot of mid range maneuver's, it's difficult to say that he'd be able to consistently land his physical hits with impaired. But sure, let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt, you've still glossed over the fact that he can't aim his shots from far away, despite the fact that he has pinpont accuracy. And way to completely misunderstand Ryuji's character; his leg has long healed up since Kamoshida broke it, and his issue with it is psychological (something that is also not spelled out to the player). He overcomes it at the end during the 7th dungeon's cutscene. 

"I would also argue that the mask having lens doesn't count as a conditional fallacy because I never used it to try to seriously prove Joker has vision impairment using it - all I suggested was that it's in the realm of possibilities. "

But there are literally infinite possibilities for everything, following that logic. Ann could theoritically speak sweedish, Haru could be half french, Futaba could be a raging bisexual, and so on. Should I also use these possibilities to fiercely argue points about said characters? No, because it would ruin the integrity of the wiki. We don't need to deal in falsehoods or potential ideas. We just don't. 

3) I don't disagree with most of what you've said about me, but you made a critical mistake. My "claim" is not a theory, but a measured observation based on several key pieces of evidence. All other possiblities are irrelevant in the sense that they're wrong. Your counterargument is entirely hypothetical, merely using the argument that it "could be possible" as justification for it. It's fan fiction, plain and simple and it's honestly detestable. You don't seem like a bad person, but you're similarly headstrong and stubborn (based on your talk page) and arrogant as well. 

I want to finish this too, so let's say we reach a compromise. 

Ziodyne (talk) 02:04, August 11, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

Since I was asked to weigh in, I feel as if it's strongly implied that the protagonist doesn't need his glasses by the item description and his actions during times he doesn't have them. However, this ends up being an assumption on my part. I'm still on my second playthrough and I don't remember seeing anything that directly states whether or not they do. Great Mara (talk) 02:17, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
Our definitive resource for any character design would be the ones published by Atlus, which is mostly in Japanese. I looked up the P5 Official Design Works, and from what Japanese I can read is basically talking about his eyes and glasses being the main point of his character design. His eyes are designed to convey the personality of a strong-willed protagonist, and the glasses is used by the hero to cover that side with the persona of a kind and gentle ordinary boy. What this means that he uses the glasses as sort of a mask for himself. If you would like to check this for yourselves, turn to page 28 of the Persona 5 Official Design Works book. BLUER一番 03:05, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
This is a big help, thank you. This just reiterates what I've been saying all along. Hashino is a very high concept person; it's clear that he intended Joker's design to convey a lot to the player. Duality for example, is clearly a huge aspect of Joker's character (unassuming student by day, daring thief by night), and I feel like his glasses are an integral part of conveying that to the player. They provide subtle storytelling to the player, and while their use technically isn't stated throught text (though again, the gameexplicitly states that they're "hip" glasses designed to make him look smart), it's emphasized again and again, throughout the game that it's all a part of his "fake" look. The official Maniax book should hopefully provide further information as well (if you can get around to it): http://imgur.com/a/oLUFe Ziodyne (talk) 03:22, August 11, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne 
This is correct. I'll give you an attempt on translation by me and my JLPT3 partner as we go through the text from the main character's page in Persona 5 Official Design Works :

"The player character's main design points are his eyes and glasses. For the eyes, it gives off an intense gaze, this creates an impression of strong-willed protagonist. Firstly, the expression of his eyes defines his unusual characteristics. Between his unkempt head and blank stare, and his radiant and shining eyes, it makes him look like two different person. However, these two different sides make for a compatible image. When he wears his glasses, it is a gimmick he uses to hide this aspect from society. Even though he has an intense gaze, when he wears his glasses, it makes him look like a kind and normal boy."

If you'd like a second opinion, the source should be your starting point. If there's any correction, just point it out to me, and I'll humbly correct it. BLUER一番 06:05, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

1) The entire point of this debate is whether or not his glasses serve any sort of vision purpose, so even if he has minor visual impairment, it still counts and is worth discussing. And no, this has nothing to do with me wanting to relate to a character, it's about me trying to find absolute truth of the developer's intent. Ann having a birthmark is a false equivalence as it's not remotely hinted it, while most people wear glasses for vision, so it's only natural for a lot of people to come to the conclusion the protagonist does so.

2) Agree to disagree. Also, how is Ryuji's issue psychological? He literally PHYSICALLY collapses while running during the castle escape scene. Where is your proof it's psychological? About your other point: if such stuff is hinted at, such as Futaba being bisexual, then I don't mind its inclusion. It's why I'm not removing your "aesthetic glasses" theory (yes, I'm calling it a theory even if you disagree), I just don't want it to be confirmed as fact.

3) Agree to disagree. I still consider it a theory. And yes, I consider myself stubborn and headstrong, but not arrogant, just assertive. I don't think you're a bad person either - although you really need to watch your attitude. As an editor of this wiki with 10k edits, who pours a lot of blood and sweat into it, I don't exactly like being questioned if I have "a shred of pride as an editor" and being called "borderline juvenile" because I happen to disagree with you. It comes off as plain rude and offensive. As an editor's tip, wiki debates occur more smoothly when both parties are polite, civil and avoid ad hominem. The best wiki debates are the ones without hostility. As for the compromise, I am perfectly fine with the page as it is now. If you want to add the blurb about "having a meek and shy persona", then talk to Great Mara.

As for the guidebook, Bluerfn's overview is just a fan synopsis which may be inaccurate, so we can't use it as proof until an accurate translation is done. However, it does NOT prove they are purely aesthetic and have no vision purposes, the glasses could have two purposes: functional (vision correction) and symbolic. The only way I would be convinced is if a developer blatantly said "They serve no functional purpose and do nothing for his vision." Anyway, let's please start trying to end this debate, so let's have shorter replies.

One more thing, Ziodyne. How do you know Margaret does not have the Wild Card? I haven't played Persona 4 Arena Ultimax, just curious where you found that out. —AlexShepherd 04:08, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

1) I don't care about your desire to find the absolute truth though. I'm more concerned that can't grasp the concept of basic theming, and need to have things explicitly spelt out for you which is an issue that caused us to debate for this long. His glasses serve a specific purpose; to mask his true nature and tie into the duality, and this is explicitly mentioned in the artbook. There was never any intent to portray someone who needed vision correction. Saying otherwise is speculation at best.

2) I could be wrong, but I assume Kamoshida broke his leg months ago and Ryuji hasn't really gotten over it. In any case, I don't feel like belaboring the point. By the way, Futaba's bisexuality is hinted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG_u5nOQ_9Y&t=375 but I'm sure as shit not going to put that into the wiki, because it's circumstantial at best. And my observation is not a theory; don't act like it is, please. A theory would be your wild assertion that Joker might have lens under his mask. What I (and I assume several others here) are pushing forth is a measured observation (backed by the developer commentary, no less)

3) I'm not discounting your passion or work ethic, but I think you have some issues you need to work through. You can't seem to grasp something unless it's explicitly spelt out, which is problematic in a wiki for a series like Persona, which is fundamentally about symbolism. You expect explanations for everything, even for things that will never be spelt out. I mean you're even discounting someone's translation as a "fan synopsis" which is... worrying.

In any case, let's put this discussion to a close. I've rewritten the profile overview:

The protagonist has wavy unkempt black hair and dark gray eyes. For most of his civilian outfits, he wears a set of black glasses. While wearing his glasses, he has the appearance of a normal and kind boy. However, when his glasses are removed, his eyes give off an intense gaze and he is described as looking like a different person. As he does not wear his glasses in his first encounter with Masayoshi Shido or the fireworks scene, it is likely that he does not need them for vision correction and that they are fake glasses, which he may have adopted as part of his "meek" public persona to make himself seem more unassuming during his probation.

His default outfit is his winter school uniform, which consists a buttoned up black blazer with red buttons and the school's emblem on the pocket, a white turtleneck shirt that has two black chevrons on the collar, and black and red plaid trousers. During the summer, he wears the school regulation polo shirt, albeit untucked and sans the suspenders.

On his days off during the winter, he wears an unbuttoned black blazer over a black collared off-white long-sleeved shirt, blue jeans, and brown shoes. During the summer, he wears an open white button-up shirt with the sleeves rolled up over a black short-sleeved t-shirt, blue jeans, and brown shoes. His lounge wear consists of a baggy black long-sleeved shirt and olive sleep pants.

As Joker, his outfit consists of a black trench coat with a gray collared shirt, black trousers, dark brown Cuban heeled boots, and a pair of red gloves. His mask is a white bird-shaped mask with a black design around the eyes. His expression and demeanor are also markedly different and there's a strong air confidence to him compared to his usual unassuming nature.

This is a fair compromise, yes? I've added more information to better represent the character and removed the "highly" because it was redundant. Are we all good here?

As for Margaret not being a wild card user, it's confirmed in Arena, and not Ultimax. When Elizabeth begins her story, she explicitly states she is not a Wild Card user, and goes on a journey to obtain the power of the Wild Card. As she can switch between Personas before hand, it is confirmed that merely being able to switch Personas is not a mark of the Wild Card (rather, becoming stronger through bonds is). Therefore, Margaret does not have the wild card. Additionally, her arcana in Persona 4 Arena is Death.

Ziodyne (talk) 13:22, August 11, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

I'm not denying that it's a theme, it most likely is. I do grasp it, but I don't buy claims that they have no functional vision purposes until it's blatantly said. Like I said, it's possible for both aspects to be true. It doesn't have to be one or the other. This is what my entire point boils down to - you are denying other possibilities and even blatantly said "it's not true" as if your view is the factual one and mine is incorrect. Also, I've encountered a lot of fan translations which are inaccurate and wrong, so I'm being wary, as an editor should.

As for the re-done part, you are probably too headstrong to change "likely" to "possible". However, there's no sources or citations for any of the mentions, and I have issues with the first and fourth paragraphs. "Described" by what? I think he looks the same, just without glasses. And who says his expression and demeanor are "markedly different"?

Margaret not having a Wild Card is an assumption based on Elizabeth's situation. You're acting as if it's blatantly said Margaret is confirmed to not have one. We can't make assumptions like that without clarifying. Ironically, your fallacy is the same conditional fallacy you mentioned before. —AlexShepherd 13:49, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

1) That's your prerogative, then. They will likely never be blatantly say he doesn't need to wear prescription glasses because it's clumsy and amateurish writing. They're content in conveying that to players who can engage in critical thinking. And I'm denying your "possibilities" because it's speculation, because speculation has no place on a wiki, no matter how you phrase it. And as for your point about translation, you're just being unnecessarily paranoid (and stubborn). Especially if it's a small body of text. Cut it out.

2) You yourself suggested changing "highly likely" to "likely", and possible is simply wrong in this case, because it implies that his vision being impaired is the default assumption, and that the fact that he doesn't need glasses is a mere possibility, which is NOT THE CASE. Everything points to the glasses being fake, so we should convey that that to reader as the default assumption.

""Described" by what?"

The developers, in the design work translation that was recently posted.

"And who says his expression and demeanor are "markedly different"?"

Did you... did you play Persona 5? Did the big grins and confidant flourishes not clue you in? Watch the damn prologue again, Christ.

3) The fact that you need everything spelled out for you is genuinely worrying, but the fact that you won't listen to anyone but yourself is what really disturbs me. Like, I'm watching you fervently argue that Margaret might have the Wild card, even though there's 0 indication of her having it. It's the same thing with Joker's glasses. You're fundamentally incapable of grasping theming (Arena places a great emphasis on the difficulty of Elizabeth gaining the Wild Card, which is essentially unprecedented in the Persona world), and you're feeding me the same tripe of "she might have it." Enough. I'm tired of your "possibilities", and I'm tired of your fallacies (Argument from ignorance). From your point of view, the the absence of evidence makes your claim true. Which is ridiculous and can be used to justify literally everything.

Ziodyne (talk) 17:16, August 11, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

1) I don't think it's clumsy or amateurish writing at all. Being blatant about something doesn't necessarily equal bad writing. Not everything in a game needs to be subtle. Also, it's not just speculation, it's *analysis*, which is a basic part of wikis.
2) Saying something is "possible" doesn't imply a default. I've never heard someone get so defensive over "possible" conveying a "default assumption" in my life. For example, "It's possible she likes tofu" doesn't mean her not liking tofu is a default, or that her liking tofu is a default. You're obsessed with trying to ensure your viewpoint is the status quo, and are hypocritical when it comes to preventing the "editorializing" you claim you want to prevent. It's NOT a fact that he doesn't need glasses. You refuse to admit that as a possibility because you are so stubborn and headstrong, and you won't listen to anyone but yourself (which you claim is also a fault of mine).
As for the description, it's poor to say things like "he is described" without making proper sources, so I assume you'll create a references section.
You don't need to phrase things like "Did you... did you play the game?". Quit it with the smartass condescending patronizing attitude, please.
This is a wiki. We NEED things "spelled out" for us if you want to state it as fact. For example, Joker's glasses being purely aesthetic is not a fact, and we will not state it as a fact. We already agreed to do this.
I'm not "fervently" arguing Margaret having the Wild Card, we literally JUST started this (exaggeration on your part). Persona is a very mysterious world. If the protagonists of the games can obtain Wild Cards so easily, I don't see why a Velvet Room assistant can't. There is also a contradiction: Margaret's article currently claims she does have the Wild Card. If no one really knows, then we should clarify that. Your claim that Margaret doesn't have the Wild Card is also speculation because nowhere is it claimed as fact, and is an assumption on your part. I haven't played the Arena games so I can't speak for them. —AlexShepherd 18:54, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

1) Except in this case, subtlety works best because it doesn't break the flow of the game. It's something the player can appreciate on their own, without having their hand held. Needless explanation is exactly why Shido's scene with Akechi (where they exposit about their crimes) was absolutely terrible. They don't need to state that Joker doesn't need to wear prescription glasses; the pieces are all there for the player the figure out (almost immediately, even).

2) When the game all but spells out that he doesn't need glasses, saying "it's possible" defeats the entire purpose of that. It's such a major downplaying of his character. It's like taking Kanji and saying it's "possible" he feels insecurity over his sexuality. It's ridiculous.

":As for the description, it's poor to say things like "he is described" without making proper sources, so I assume you'll create a references section."

Noted.

"You don't need to phrase things like "Did you... did you play the game?". Quit it with the smartass condescending patronizing attitude, please."

Noted, but please don't ask such unnecessary questions.

"This is a wiki. We NEED things "spelled out" for us if you want to state it as fact. For example, Joker's glasses being purely aesthetic is not a fact, and we will not state it as a fact. We already agreed to do this."

I agree with this. It's better to be as objective as possible. Therefore, taking the sheer evidence we have (Joker not having his glasses prior to meeting Shido, Joker taking off his glasses in the ending, Joker not needing to wear glasses in the metaverse) we should convey that with the word "likely" over "possible." Given the evidence, it is *likely* that Joker does not need them to correct his vision. There's nothing faulty with this statement.

3) Then play the games and be done with it.

In any case, we've wasted enough time. We've more or less come to an agreement collectively. You might disagree, but the rest of us lean (or outright believe) towards Joker not having vision impairment. Can we finish this off?

Ziodyne (talk) 19:08, August 11, 2017 (UTC)Ziodyne

I'm not going to argue with you on what method of storytelling you prefer. Not in the mood.
Once the article is unlocked, I'll see what you can do with properly citing references. I don't think your evidence qualifies as evidence that is strong enough to make me favor "likely" over "possibly". But as I already said before, I'm sick of debating with you, and you will try to justify using "likely" no matter what, and I'm tired of this, so go ahead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Unfortunately, the Arena series is stuck on PS3/360 (I don't want to have to buy them), and I do not enjoy fighting games. Just please citate and clarify your positions and reasoning from now on. And I think I'm done with this for now, hence my short reply. —AlexShepherd 19:16, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Dialogue PortraitsEdit

This page shows some dialogue portraits for the protagonist. Are they used anywhere or not?Tokoyami no Nietzsche (talk) 14:37, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Have I been banned?Edit

I wan to ask an admin if this page is protected from editing or it's me that I've been banned. If it's protected, what happened? Were there any problems recently?Tokoyami no Nietzsche (talk) 19:24, November 25, 2017 (UTC)

If you bothered to check the edit history of the article, you'd know it was locked earlier today because of a recent bout of edit-warring over the protag's birth year.DirtyBlue929 (talk) 01:42, November 26, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.