| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 33: |
Line 33: |
| The "logo" is the name that appears upon entering a world for the first time. Look at the gallery for other world pages. --[[User:Neumannz|Neumannz]] 23:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC) | | The "logo" is the name that appears upon entering a world for the first time. Look at the gallery for other world pages. --[[User:Neumannz|Neumannz]] 23:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC) |
| {{SLH|time= 23:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)|happy= Well that picture shouldn't be called EOTWLogo then.}} | | {{SLH|time= 23:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)|happy= Well that picture shouldn't be called EOTWLogo then.}} |
| We'll survive all the same. --[[User:Neumannz|Neumannz]] 23:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :The fangs are out! {{User:Sleepy LionHeart/Sig}} 23:12, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Chernabog=Somebody?==
| |
| {{LCCH|text=Not sure why anyone would make him a Somebody. I mean, he's a Heartless, isn't he?}}
| |
| {{Xabryn|text=No he looks like a heartless but he isn't he is a Disney character from Fantasia see [[Chernabog#Origin]]}}
| |
|
| |
| == The Heartless's ==
| |
|
| |
| No, it's referring to "the Heartless" as a species, not a specific group of Heartless. Like saying "mankind's destructive nature", not "the humans' destructive nature".
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| *"mankind" would here be a a group. It doesn't make sense to talk about it as a species, because humans aren't destructive species-wide. Similarly, not all Heartless are destructive.
| |
| *End of the World is specifically the effect of ''all Heartless'', i.e., the Heartless as a group.
| |
| *It would be non-plural if it was something like "man's destructive nature", which would refer to man as one whole. However, that grammar pattern would require "Heartless" to be usable in the same manner, i.e. "Heartless's destructive nature", not "''the'' Heartless's destructive nature".
| |
| *"The Heartless" plainly refers to the group as a whole, which jives well with all other uses of that phrase in the series, as well as what we've actually been told about End of the World.
| |
| *It may just be possible to twist in a reading as singular or generic (I don't think it is, but maybe), but it is neither necessary nor the natural way to read the line.[[User:KrytenKoro|(ಠ_ೃ)]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>Bully!</small>]] 14:39, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| :"''"mankind" would here be a a group. It doesn't make sense to talk about it as a species, because humans aren't destructive species-wide. Similarly, not all Heartless are destructive.''"
| |
| :All Heartless have a naturally destructive nature (can you name one that doesn't--not counting Sora's Heartless?), and the End of the World is created as a "by-product" of this.
| |
|
| |
| :"''End of the World is specifically the effect of ''all Heartless'', i.e., the Heartless as a group.''"
| |
| :I completely agree with the first half of the statement--if you're referring to every single Heartless, it's not a group, it's simply the Heartless in general (the species).
| |
|
| |
| :"''It would be non-plural if it was something like "man's destructive nature", which would refer to man as one whole. However, that grammar pattern would require "Heartless" to be usable in the same manner, i.e. "Heartless's destructive nature", not "''the'' Heartless's destructive nature".''"
| |
| :Except, as I said before, "the man" is not the name of our species whereas "the Heartless" is the name of theirs. Replace it with something more general, like tigers. If we sad "It is the tigers' natural habitat", that would infer that it belongs to a specific group of tigers (you know, like saying "It is Tim's friends' home"--where Tim's friends live). If, instead, we write "It is the tiger's natural habitat", that refers to "the tiger" as a species, and says that it is a generic habitat for any member of the tiger species.
| |
|
| |
| :"''"The Heartless" plainly refers to the group as a whole, which jives well with all other uses of that phrase in the series, as well as what we've actually been told about End of the World.''"
| |
| :I don't read the Ansem Reports or anything that thoroughly so I can't really argue this. But I'd think that, like you said above, that it's all Heartless and not a specific group of them, it should refer to Heartless in general.
| |
|
| |
| :"''It may just be possible to twist in a reading as singular or generic (I don't think it is, but maybe), but it is neither necessary nor the natural way to read the line.''"
| |
| :Not sure on this one. It's how I naturally read it. ;)
| |
|
| |
| ::Perhaps the solution here could be to write "End of the World is a by-product of the destructive nature of the Heartless". Thoughts? {{User:Soxra/Sig}} 15:25, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Is Giant Crevasse the largest single area in the game ==
| |
|
| |
| Is the Giant Crevasse the largest single area in Kingdom Hearts? Excluding areas only used for boss battles and not revisitable, I think it might be. [[User:M0ffx|M0ffx]] 05:19, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| It seems like that to me. [[User:Kutlessrocker|Kutlessrocker]] 06:45, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Realm of Light ==
| |
|
| |
| What sources do we have that End of the World is in the Realm of Light, as the Universe page claims?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
| |
| :I'm, pretty sure there are no such sources, since we're working the other way around here. If a world is part of the realm between, then there has to be a source for it, otherwise it simply belongs to the realm of light. We had a somewhat similar discussion with the Keyblade Graveyard, from which the Magic Mirror states it's a place "beyond both light and dark". Following Nomura's logic in the Director's Secret Report XIII, where he sorts the world on a scale how close they are to the light, End of the World is certainly very close to the realm of darkness. So in this regard it would be a world from the realm between. It's just strange that he didn't mention it at all, probably because he doesn't consider it a real world, because, as Goofy said, it's more like a Heartless of a world. --{{User:ShardofTruth/Sig}} 20:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
| |
| ::Makes sense.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 00:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==The "Heartless" of worlds and the "Nobody" of worlds==
| |
| What's the source for End of the World being the "Heartless" of worlds and The World That Never Was being the "Nobody" of worlds? --[[User:Elfdemon|Elfdemon]] ([[User talk:Elfdemon|talk]]) 04:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
| :Let's consider the Heartless part: End of the World is a result/what remains of a world consumed by the Heartless. Take a [regular] human being for example. The person is consumed by darkness and loses their heart. What remains are the two shells: Nobody and Heartless- both results of a "destroyed" human. The same idea can be applied to a world: a [regular] world is consumed by the Heartless. Instead of disappearing completely, however, a tiny fragment of it finds/becomes a part of End of the World. Although not a "physical being" like a Heartless, the world acts in a similar fashion. {{User:Xion4ever/Sig}} 02:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
| ::Isn't that just figuratively speaking though? And I thought that was said in a game or something, but it's really just conjecture? You say that "The same idea can be applied to a world". You used the word "can" which means it's subjective and you don't have to think of the worlds that way. What's the point of having info on a wiki that's subjective like that? I've seen several people across the internet say that it's fact and use khwiki as a source, so wouldn't it be best to just remove it from the articles, so no one gets mislead? (I'm the same guy as before btw, I just keep on getting logged out for some reason. It logs me out and doesn't let me log back in sometimes. It says "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again." Anyone know how I can fix this? --[[Special:Contributions/76.102.24.151|76.102.24.151]] 03:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
| :::The fact that the words "seems" and "could" are in that line is so people DON'T take it as fact. It's just an observation. If people are going to misinterpret it as fact, then you should talk to the misguided people. [[User:Rex Ronald Rilander|Rex Ronald Rilander]] ([[User talk:Rex Ronald Rilander|talk]]) 03:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I don't see the point of having the info in the first place. If you have to put "seems" and "could", then maybe that info shouldn't be there in the first place? If something isn't a fact, then it shouldn't be on a wiki. --[[Special:Contributions/76.102.24.151|76.102.24.151]] 05:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
| :::::"Goofy: This is a Heartless world, so maybe it’ll just disappear."
| |
| :::::According to the web, Nomura once said something about it being the Heartless of Worlds, as well, but I can't find the interview yet.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 17:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Crumbling Island ==
| |
|
| |
| "Crumbling Island" reappears as the name of the mission in which you fight the first Ansem battle in FFRK.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Emblem or Pureblood?==
| |
| Since the End of the World is considered as a Heartless of all worlds, the question that remains is... Can it be considered as a Pureblood Heartless, or an Emblem Heartless? I'm saying this since, as a Pureblood, it does has an organic feeling, like it's trying to emulate the appearance of the Realm of Darkness's geography. But it can also be an Emblem heartless due to, despite not looking like one, the heartless sigil is located before The Final Rest, far bellow the Crater at the Evil Grounds. That and also that a lot of Strong Emblem heartless are also encountered in there, like the Behemoth. {{User:LuisArturo/Sig}} 12:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
| |
