Talk:List of The Keys to the Kingdom characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Saturday's Noon and Dusk

I have made a lot of changes to this section. I removed many things, mostly what someone said about servants of Dawns Noons and Dusks, and added some information. There is an obvious problem with the characters, as their names are often used interchangebly. I have moved all things that might be in contention to the "Section Beneath Saturdays Dusk", as described in the aricle. I made some hidden comments. I have checked all of my statements against several major appearences of the two; being the beginning and towards the end of Grim Tuesday,the fight and statements by Suzy in Sir Thursday, and the attack on the Foil Mill of the Guild of Gilding and Illumination and the Scriptorium scene in Lady Friday, if anyone wanted to check me. (I feel this compulsion to explain all of my edits. Bear with me =]) Alcemáe 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday

It states in the article that fridays sin is lust, as she lusts for experiences, however could it not be envy, for humans who have experiences, as she states something to leaf that would imply this after experiencing, this would leave lust for sunday which could explain why he left his position.

I would definitely say that, at best, unequivocably confirming Friday as the embodiment of lust in this article is a bit strong, unless there is some official source I am unaware of. While this would take envy from Saturday, Saturday seems to have very strong parallels with Lucifer, who is associated strongly with the sin of pride.139.102.254.37 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I put my vote to change it to envy it seems right to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfirered94 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

Would it be ok to move the article to a new title? I think Characters of the Keys to the Kingdom sounds odd. Maybe Characters in the Keys to the Kingdom Series? If not, I'm going to move it at least to Characters of 'the Keys to the Kingdom, because unless the the is capitalized, it's a red link. Alcemáe T • C 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence in the House

I always assumed that the Architect was #1, then Sunday, Saturday, Friday, Thursday, and Arthur at the beginning of the fourth book, which makes him #6. In other words, he's now #4. Does that make sense?

72.135.18.80 16:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's ambiguous. If the Architect was ranked, then the numbers would make sense. But it's never stated who was #1. If only Nix wrote faster, we would know ;) I  (said) (did) 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I guess that makes sense. He does take a long time...72.135.18.80 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday's Noon could be 2 because Garth Nix didn't state who was 1,2,3 and 4 either.--Zzz sleeping 08:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, Where would Dame Primus be under all this? As being the embodiemnt to all knowledge I would imagine that she is pretty high up there, of noy above where arthur is in Sir Thursday.1+1=3 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The chamark (talk • contribs)

My assumption would be that the Architect is no longer ranked, as she is gone from the house completely. She may also have never been ranked, being above and beyond any form of precedence. I feel fairly certain that any given Day would outrank any noon, dawn or dusk, except perhaps when dealing with Sunday or Saturday's minions versus Mister Monday. What seems to me the trickiest question is whether Arthur might actually already be first or second in precedence due to his holding of multiple titles versus Saturday and Sunday's one apiece.139.102.254.37 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-Chief

I would like to point out that Sir Thursday was not the Commander-in-Chief. It was explicitly stated by Thursday himself. If Thursday was not in-Chief, then Arthur is not either. I  (said) (did) 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules that the Morrow Days have set out for each other are nothing more than an agreement. They have no real rights since they disobeyed the Will of the Architect, so they banded together - their agreement is mentioned several times throughout the books. As Arthur did not take part in this agreement, he is not bound by it and thus doesn't need to obey Saturday or Sunday. It's only due to the Agreement that Thursday wasn't the commander-in-chief.
Thursday may had the right to be commander-in-chief, but either chose not to or was forced by Saturday or Sunday - he states "Even though I command the Glorious Army of the House, I am not the ultimate commander-in-chief. The Architect was, and when she disappeared I was convinced that Lord Sunday had the proper authority to assume this role, with Superior Saturday as his deputy." He goes on to explain that he was ordered to take part in the breaking of the will, though he didn't mention whether or not he approved of this. Thus, the position of commander-in-chief of the Army may have nothing to do with the agreement of the trustees, and Arthur can assume it without breaking the agreement that prevented the Morrow Days attacking (at least physically, Grim Tuesday is an example of what they could do to each other while obeying the laws of their agreement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.247.198 (talk • contribs)
This is where it gets ambiguous. Were the Trustees in charge of their respective demesnes before the Architect left, or only after? It is irrelevant to this discussion, however. Thursday was given the rights to the Great Maze under the Will. However, he was not given title of Commander in Chief, that still resided with the Architect. So the fact that the Trustees broke the Will has nothing to do with the title, as it was never transferred. Thus, Arthur is still not Commander in Chief. i said 02:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the page.

I think that '"characters of the keys to the kingdom"' is not the right title for this page, as it does not just focus on the characters, it has a wide range of info on all the series.

I thought a better title would be something like '"An insight to the keys to the kingdom series"'

Apart from that, I thought this page was excellent!!!!!

Bioclaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioclaw (talk • contribs) 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this page is about the Characters, and to accurately and comprehensively discuss them, we must discuss the story. So really, it about the characters. In addition, an insight page would be original research. — i said 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dame Primus

could dame be the Architect because with each part of the will she gets stronger maybe any body got any suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfirered94 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. However, this is not the correct place to discuss this. Sorry. I (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Title after Lady Friday

I'm curious, but is there a reliable source that claims that Arthur is "Lord of the Middle House" rather than "Master of the Middle House" (based on his title after he claimed the Lower House). Janus8463 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not. I think for a while we just left it without a specific title, and someone added something and nobody caught it. I don't think there should be any capitalized title in front of Middle House, including Master. I would just leave it out of the title, and make note that there is no specific title for the MH granted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable source. Dame Primus sends a note to Arthur in Mister Monday, and the first paragraph says something like 'to Lord Arthur, rightful heir etc.' I'm pretty sure that is is in there, but i've lost the book, so I can't be sure. 86.134.108.135 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie/Sylvia

I've noticed that in Sir Thursday her name starts off being Sylvia but then changes to Sylvie. I'm not sure if this was a typo in the book. Therefore I am not sure what to do about her name. She is currently called Sylvie in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.176.161 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start class

Certainly not B there is absolutely no referencing or anything verifiable from 3rd party sources. 09:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Overseers

Does anyone think that we should put the Overseers with the grotesques? Grim Tuesday mentions that they are his most loyal servants and they seem to have the same basic role as the other servantgs of the Dawns, Noons and Dusks. Perhaps the same should go for Nissers as well.144.135.180.109 (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Need of Cleanup?

Having read this article, I'd be interested in the community's thoughts on whether or not it might be worth either going through the page and editing out all the poor grammar and coherence, or tagging it for this to be done at a later stage. I'd rather not act on my own with this, but I do feel that the point needs to be raised. 77.103.209.102 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... all of the KTTK pages seem to be suffering similarly, and they all lack references. They should at least reference the books. 209.50.141.56 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of unreferenced speculation and “it is thought that”s. It really does need cleanup IMHO. -- Lalo Martins (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this hasn't already been done, I don't mind doing it. 86.134.108.135 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Transformation??

I think that in the section about Arthur there needs to be some sort of reference to how the Old One said, in the first book, that the keys would "remake its wielder in the image of its creator" (the Architect). And also, in the section about Arthur, there are a lot of times where it says that he was turning into a denizen, which I think might need to be corrected, because the book says that he was not a denizen. Probably there was some confusion about the meaning of whoever was writing that section; I think they meant that Arthur himself thought that he was turning into a denizen. WingedSkiCap (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will=Architect

There is something in the article about a speculation that the Will will become the Architect when all seven parts are gathered together. Is this a character speculation (something that a character said) or a fan speculation? I suppose it could have been in Drowned Wednesday or Sir Thursday, which I haven't read in a while, but I've never heard anythig like that. If it's only fan speculation,I think it should be removed. Library Seraph (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many fans I have talked to seem to be speculating something along these lines, but as far as I know, it has never been mentioned in the books. Lord Mandos (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs of the Will

Who else has noticed that the first two paragraphs of the Will are not accounted for? The first part of the Will is 'paragraphs three to seven', and the second part of the Will is 'paragraphs eight to thirteen'. This would also imply that the third to seventh parts of the Will are not paragraphs one or two, unless they break the exception of the paragraphs being in ascending order, and are rather shorter than their predecessors.

-warning: Lord Sunday spoiler alert-
If this is true, then the Architect could not have been complete at the end of Lord Sunday. Unless The Old One was the first two paragraphs; but this is never mentioned, and his flesh did not seem to be made of text (and also seems unlikely as he his eyes, and previously liver, were repeatedly removed). So we are still left with two missing paragraphs, and a confusion as to how the Architect completed herself. 94.172.166.63 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it?

In Arthur's section, it is said that Suzy claims that she wants to grow up becuase she is nearly 2 million years old. In her section, however, the figure is two thousand. Haven't got the book to check for myself. 90.209.131.145 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guards of Dawn, Noon and Dusks of The Days

This section is in need of a cleanup, since:

  • The mentioned guards are explained in the section about the Dawn, Noon and Dusks themselves.
  • A large part of the information is speculation anyway, e.g. for Wednesday (never mentioned), Thursday (it says Dawn is in charge of The Regiment, but she is seen wearing a Borderers uniform, and also the other ones are not clear. Also, who would be in charge of the Borderers and Artillery then?), Saturday (not clear in any way) and Sunday (never heard of the Sowers, Growers and Reapers. The high servants themselves are called like this, but no servants/guards are mentioned).

THe section should be removed anyway, I guess. I'm willing to do this. Regards - Typhoner (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Keys to the Kingdom characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Keys_to_the_Kingdom_characters&oldid=1173672333"