Forum:Should there be a page for Fragmented Keys?

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Should there be a page for Fragmented Keys?

For those who don't already know, it was revealed that Disney was creating a new Mobile and Android game called Kingdom Hearts: Fragmented Keys.

It is believed that such a game is cancelled but such info could be revived based on the potential that it could still be developed. Many official concept art has revealed the following:

New Worlds based on Wreck it Ralph, Star Wars, Lilo & Stitch, and Frozen

Returning Worlds: Dwarf Woodlands, Agrabah, Neverland, Space Paranoids, and Wonderland.

(More info to be mentioned as it relates to this discussion) --Riadse96 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Was this actually real or just some fanboy's imaginings? I've only heard about it through Reddit (through which all other sources got it from), and any possible official source hasn't said anything about it. You want my opinion, it looked fake from the start. Ultima Spark (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, link a source.

Secondly, UNTIL AND UNLESS we have information about this picked up from every Kingdom Hearts site (which, if this was an official game, would likely be the case), we're not putting this information up. TRSNX 11:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the articles from Kh13.com if anyone is interested: 1 2

Personally, I think that there are a lot of things that don't add up regarding the development history of the game, KHInsider summarized it here. --ShardofTruth 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

So let me sum this up. Reddit user puts up a screenshot. Said screenshot is backed by some unknown user who lost his phone, which would probably turn out to be nothing more than a sockpuppet. Then there are loads of stolen art passed off as concept art of this "game"? Have the creators of said artwork actually said anything? I mean, maybe there'd be no undue distress call for Disney to react to its artwork being used in this manner because they'd just swat it off like a fly. But the fanart? Has no one actually stepped forward to clear the air about this? What's worse is that IGN is also backing this story up, not knowing that it's quite obviously fake. Today you will be examined for the Mark of Mastery. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 16:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I like this article from Khdecoded as it reveals that the art came from GFL Animation Studios which has since taken the images down. The images are rather too complex to be fan art. --Riadse96 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If IGN confirms it, I'm inclined to believe it since we treat it as an official source. TheFifteenthMember 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The KHdecoded article appears to be a reader-submitted article, without factchecking oversight, and even the title casts doubt on the claims -- also, the art is pretty simple, and nothing about it sounds official. If there's no statement from a reliable source, someone not doing laughable "internet sleuthing", then this is an absolute no -- even the IGN article seems to be operating on hearsay. As a basic requirement, any reputable news source would be able to easily get an answer from Disney, GFL, or Square Enix instead of relying on a bullshit reddit post."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hell, have any of the Kingdom Hearts fansites throwing away their reputation on this done a basic trademark patent search? Producers register tons of optional names before they put this much work into a thing, it is ludicrous to believe that they got to the concept art and story planning stage without staking claims on possible names."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, today's the first time I see this has actually gotten any attention. My understanding is different to the one expressed in KHInsider, though I remain equally skeptical. Based solely on what is expressed/written in the KH13 articles, from what I know, the entire concept of the game is based on the leaking of information by a "former developer" of the game, who posted this information on his personal LinkedIn profile. Then come all the blog links that supposedly were linked on his profile that housed the concept art. I became skeptical when I saw the concept art. Then there's the issue of Frozen being involved in the game, a game in planning nine months before Frozen had actually premiered. Not to mention, as KHInsider has noted, the concept art is really badly made. My explanation can be found on the KH13 article comments, to which DChiuch strongly believed he there was a perfect explanation for it. There does appear that a game (different from this one) was in development at about the same time, but I think that while that one is more probable to have existed, this one...not so much. It is my belief that the game never existed, and KH13 is the sad victim of a scam levied against the Kingdom Hearts community, probably for the purpose of upping up the scammers own resumes (Kinda wish that the this kinda publication had been given to our "scam"/prank). KeybladeSpyMaster 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What would really help, right about now, is if Disney or SE actually issued an official statement either supporting or refuting this, so we know once and for all. That might happen, I don't know, several months from now... but it would really be appreciated. Not for our sake, of course, because we're not buying it -- but for the sake of the hundreds who have gone gaga for it, not knowing if it is a scam or not. Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 10:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to clear up KH13's reputation regarding this story. Kingdom Hearts Fragmented Keys is definitely 100% real, and any claims that have been made about us being fooled are completely untrue. Even more evidence has appeared since we initially broke this story – for instance, check out this user on LinkedIn. This user is a verified ex-employee, and links to 11 other team members who worked on the Fragmented Keys project. You can check out all of their profiles and cross-reference them – a bunch of them mention Fragmented Keys and many of them can be verified as legitimate. There is tons of evidence. I've taken a screenshot of this in case they remove it from their page. --DChiuch (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As it's a cancelled project, I think it's important enough that we go ahead and actually make a page on it. Truth be told, it's not much different from our Removed content page. The problem at hand is the lack of, well, content regarding Fragmented Keys. There is no concept art. The "screenshots" that I've seen, if they can even be called that, are dubious at best (deviantArt has better fan-made stuff), and we don't even have so much as a tentative project logo. Other than a name and an incomplete staff list, we just don't have enough to actually make anything of it. A Fragmented Keys page would look a lot like "Kingdom Hearts: Fragmented Keys is a cancelled Kingdom Hearts spin-off that was undergoing development for the iOS. Little is known about it as no official information was ever made public." The end. That would literally be the entire composition of the page. --Webber22 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there's a substantial amount of information. From 1 we know the studio that was developing the game was Wideload Games (now defunct), we know a feature list, the platforms it was going to be on, and the game engine / language that the game was developed using. 2 has a screenshot of the title screen of the demo (we contacted this user and verified that they really were indeed part of Disney's beta testing program, so this is almost certainly legitimate) as well as a screenshot of the app's icon in the comments. 3 has information about all of the concept art that we found for the game, which allows us to write about all of the worlds/movies that were at the very least considered during the concept stage. Yes this concept art was contentious due to its quality, but it was on an official website for a very real animation studio with a confirmed history of working on big name titles. Another site tried to spread some misinformation that this wasn't on GFL's official website, but this is untrue, you can verify that www.gflanimationstudios.com is official. Although GFL took the concept artwork offline as a result of us breaking the story, you can still see a reference to it on the director's LinkedIn page and you can still access the pages through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, eg. here. We also backed up all of the art in our gallery.

Please let me know if anyone is unconvinced about anything, or has some doubts, or requires more information. I know the quality of the concept art makes this look dubious, but we're very confident about all of our published findings. --DChiuch (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could put it on the Removed Content page? Chainoffire 04:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a cancelled game is very different to removed content from released games. Personally I think we have enough information here for an entire article (which I've outlined above), but if everyone is against that then maybe a "Cancelled games" page? There is also "Kingdom Hearts Online" to talk about (but there is strong evidence that Kingdom Hearts Online became Kingdom Hearts Fragmented Keys), and the original "mystery game" "Birth by Sleep sequel" referred to in a few interviews, which was originally going to be on PSP and of course is now being realised as BBS0.2. Either way, I feel like Fragmented Keys is fundamentally different to the stuff on the "Removed Content" page, and my personal view is that each of these cancelled titles deserves its own page. --DChiuch (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Did Disney or anyone else actually trademark the name, though? That should neatly answer whether the game was real or not. It should also be fairly easy to contact SE or Disney about it."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of things are real and not trademarked. In fact, only "KINGDOM HEARTS" and "KINGDOM HEARTS CHAIN OF MEMORIES" are trademarked in the US, none of the other games appear on trademark databases (you can verify this on uspto.gov). Also, they wouldn't trademark a secret title until they were sure that they were going to release it. Not sure why you'd think that it has to be trademarked to be real. It also wouldn't be easy to contact SE or Disney about it, since not many companies are happy to openly talk about secret, unannounced and cancelled projects. --DChiuch (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not a trademark law buff, but I was able to find more than just KH and CoM.

• Birth by sleep, filed just a few days after the game was announced in Japan.
• 358/2 Days, filed at the same time.
• (Incidentally, CoM is trademarked as "Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories" because a trademark for "Chain of Memories" already existed.)

I can't find Unchained or coded, but those are also super-generic words that Disney may have not been able to trademark. Almost all of them are copyrighted, too. Fragmented Keys produces no hits.

This guy was the one who arranged for us to participate in the launch of KH3D. Why not just send him an e-mail, asking if he is able to discuss the matter? He, or whoever he refers you to, may not be able to actually give specifics, but you can trust they wouldn't outright lie about whether there were specifics to be had."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops my mistake, you're right – there are some trademarks for other games, but still, not all of them, so the lack of a trademark isn't evidence. It's neither here nor there that "Fragmented Keys" has no hits on the trademark database. It makes sense that they wouldn't want to register it at the trademark office until it was officially announced, they wouldn't want to reveal the game that way. I know that some game announcements get leaked this way, but this is relatively rare.

I don't think he would be the best person to contact as Fragmented Keys seems to have been 100% a Disney thing, similar to KH V-Cast, with no involvement from Square. It would be better to contact some of the people from Wideload Games / Disney who list the game on their CVs. Still, even without doing this it's a certainty that this game existed. --DChiuch (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

But it doesn't really change the fact that we have next to nothing to go on, and the little that we do have is hilariously suspect. I'm fairly open-minded; I believe this has just as much of a possibility to be real than fake, but to side with the real bit I'd need more evidence that what we currently have. --Webber22 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The evidence that I outlined a few posts up is absolutely solid, I see no reason to doubt it. If it was a single piece of evidence, maybe, but we have multiple sources of evidence that can all be cross-referenced, and that are all very solid if you look into it. --DChiuch (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry man, but that stuff is just too easy to fake.  :( A couple of years ago, I trolled the FF community regarding a Type-0 stateside release, with all the bells and whistles. If you want the confirmed existence of something that is dubious, you need at least three individual sources that can be corroborated, preferably in direct contact - ideally, each contact assigned to a different person. To further make it concrete, these contacts should all be consulted by different sites. Fragmented Keys was only covered by you guys, only has a single contact with an extremely suspect portfolio to begin with, and the included "screenshot" contains JPEG artifacts forming a sort of "halo" around the logo - something that can only come from image editing resources. In contrast, an actual game screenshot would utilize image compression with the same pixel ratio as the rest of the individual assets on the image, even IF compressed to a JPEG resolution, like Famitsu does. Like I said man, I pulled this stunt before myself and I can recognize it a mile away.  :< But all the same, I'm all for putting up a page - IF we can get enough concrete evidence on it. This is a wiki based on factual information, so for all intents and purposes, we follow the rules of journalistic integrity...right? So, there are certain standards we gotta abide by. Ask any other site out there, from KHInsider, to KH-Vids - it doesn't even HAVE to be KH oriented, and they'll tell you the same thing. Pete Campbell from KHU now works as a professional editor and AT consultant; he'll tell you the same thing. And I know you know him and are cool with him. --Webber22 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be easy to fake some content, sure – but it's NOT easy to get 11 Disney employees to list the title on their LinkedIn, to get a major animation studio (GFL Animation) to list the game and concept art on their LinkedIn and websites, and to get a confirmed Disney beta tester to post a fake screenshot on reddit. Absolutely none of that would be easy to do. Tell me how ANY of those could be faked, and then tell me how they can ALL be fake together, it's just impossible.

You are trying to disprove the whole thing by pointing out little quality things, while addressing none of the solid evidence. It's not just a single source, in addition to the GFL Animation thing and the person from the Disney beta testing program, we also have all of these employees: [there's the first one that removed their profile, he requested that I remove him from this story so I won't link to him] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Note that some of these people list it as "Unannounced Mobile Game for Disney Interactive", while some multiple the exact same project as "Kingdom Hearts Fragmented Keys", they can all be cross-referenced. Tell me that ALL of these profiles are fake (even though they go years back and are linked to from the employees other social media channels) AND that GFL Animation Studios is fake (even though they appear in the credits for several motion pictures, and that their Kingdom Hearts Fragmented Keys concept art page was online multiple months before this story ever broke). Just saying "oh this pixel here is off" or "this is terrible DeviantART quality" is not an argument for it being fake, unless you address all of this solid evidence and provide an alternate explanation.

PS: I find your comments about journalistic integrity bizarre. I don't have to ask other sites to know journalistic integrity exists and is important, obviously we know that and it plays a role in KH13. That's why we did our due diligence in researching the story, considered the possibility that it could be fake, found that it couldn't and only then reported the story, laying all of the evidence out there. Does it matter that I know Pete, and that he has a respectable profession with standards? I could tell you all my real life stuff and career but let's not make this about reputation, let's actually examine the evidence. --DChiuch (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's anything bizarre about this is how hilariously defensive and militant you are about this. I'm saying consult Pete. Let someone professional examine the evidence. Technically speaking, I'm capable of doing that - but like you said, I won't enter my reputation or work life into this. Not to mention I have biases about this, even if I admit I'm fairly open-minded about the possibility.  :/ --Webber22 (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Guys, we need to stop getting heated about this. Let's cool down.

DChiuch, I think the wiki, per the discussion above, would be happy to cover Fragmented Keys if we can get an official statement from someone with authority still working at Disney. That's the main sticking point, it sounds like. Can we please make an attempt to contact Disney itself?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 14:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll encourage the News Team at KH13 to contact some Disney and Wideload Games people, and try and get an official confirmation. But I wouldn't expect results, not many companies like to talk about their cancelled games – they were cancelled for a reason, after all. Actually the original Disney employee who requested that I remove his name from the article (and out of respect for that I don't think any of us should name), in their email to me, stressed that employees are not allowed to confirm or deny anything that was not announced by Disney themselves, and could get into trouble by doing so, so I really don't think this will go anywhere. --DChiuch (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, even them saying "It's theoretically possible that work was done on this title" would be a step forward. Not related to this topic, but internet sleuthing has left a bad taste in my mouth recently, and I'd much rather we have some sort of tolerable statement from an official source to use before going forward."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that we should have a "Cancelled titles" page, since there's also things like the TV series. TheFifteenthMember 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That could work! Since we have so little to go on for every individual project, I think it's a great idea to lump them into a single page. --Webber22 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If we can't find proof of it being an actual title, can't we have a page called "Rumored Games" or something that lists games like this one? TheSilentHero 17:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What else would even go on it? Erg...I guess we could have it on a "cancelled games" page, provided we make the earnest effort to get official comment, and disclaim it with a template similar to 'translation' stating that the veracity of the claims are under dispute, and the reader should make their own decision from the evidence present. Personally, I really don't like doing this kind of thing, when we've made it a point in the past to not even accept rumors about VAs or new features in games until we get official documentation."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with "rumored games" is that it would end up into a circus. You'll have droves of people adding all sorts of crap to it. Remember, "Kingdom Hearts: Final Dive" was a "rumored" game for a long time - yet it was as bona fide as any April Fools page here. As I said, I'm all for clumping cancelled stuff into a single page. But reiterating Kryten here and myself from a wee bit up above, there still isn't anything substantial - anything that can't be faked - that proves this was a real thing. And I know emailing SE directly would result in the automated response of "We don't comment on rumors and speculation." So....if someone is feeling brave, there's E3 in just two months. I'm pretty certain Tae Yasue will show up to promote Unchained and 2.8, and I'm even more certain Churro will be there. That's pretty much the best chance to know whether this was a real thing to begin with. --Webber22 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

TheFifteenthMember Yes. You're creepy. I can't say we'll miss you while you're gone, so it'd be best if you did go. We all win that way. — TheFifteenthMember 18:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC) This is a new direction that I'd be interested to see the wiki taking. Originally, I pitched this plan to the Keyhole, where they'd focus on "out-of-universe" information related to Kingdom Hearts, including culture and events. Since they've opted for the simplified KHWiki purpose instead, I wonder if we could integrate some of my ideas into this wiki. We are the Kingdom Hearts Wiki and our mission purpose is to "document all things related to Kingdom Hearts" (emphasise mine), so I don't see why we can't cover major KH rumours, interviews, events etc. Even if that information isn't relevant to the games, it would be cool to document Kingdom Hearts history. As a fan, I'd sure appreciate it if in five years time, I could look back and see all the interesting things that happened in the past. This sort of content can be easily lumped into a few list articles, mainly segregated from the rest of the wiki, so I don't see any harm in our encyclopedia storing valid information related to KH. Therefore, I support a "Rumoured games" article with all the necessary disclaimers. In response to Webber's argument against it, I think that only rumours posted by major sites (IGN, Gamespot, any other website we take as an official source) since those are the only ones that I'd deem worthy or significant enough to be covered.

"so I don't see why we can't cover major KH rumours, interviews, events etc." -- Events and interviews? Absolutely! We already have guidelines that those should be covered, it's just that almost no one has the time or desire to make the necessary articles. But rumors? No, because if you don't police that stuff for notability, it very quickly becomes a total shitshow of "here's a thing my cousin swears is true." Hell, even the Zelda Wiki had to ditch all the "theories" sections they had been allowing, because people were abusing them to just be "I think this, even though it flagrantly contradicts canon.""We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, only rumours reported by official sites will be covered. Also, rumours are very different from theories. I'm talking about covering encyclopaedic information, not anything subject to conjecture. TheFifteenthMember 19:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you defining as an official site...?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Any site we already deem trustworthy enough to get news, such as release dates. TheFifteenthMember 20:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

But here's the thing - if an "official" site, like IGN reports on rumors, the ugly truth is, those rumors will ALWAYS be sourced back to a fansite of some sort! It always happens. KHInsider were the first ones to report on "Kingdom Hearts 2.9", followed swiftly by IGN and Siliconera. Of course, that turned out to be misinformation - it was 2.8, and has some notable differences from the rumored 2.9. IGN isn't so much as a news source as it is a news aggregate. Name one time IGN had an "exclusive rumor." You won't find it lol. Sites like IGN, Siliconera, Kotaku, etc, they just go around and collect shit posted on other, bigger sites and share them with a wider audience - if it's an exclusive, it'll state as much. And site exclusives are about the only reliable and legit official sources you can use - everything else just comes from tweets, message boards, or fansites - hardly verified sources. So, even with stuff like IGN, you're gonna need some digging - have to have some way to trace the rumor back to an official - i.e. Square-Enix affiliated - source. Otherwise, like Kryten said, it'll just turn into a shitshow. "Only verified sites like IGN are allowed in the rumor section." "But! But...IGN originally got it from KH13!!!" Stuff like that will happen. All the time. You overestimate this fanbase's adherence to responsibility lol. There's as much wishful thinking in this community as there is in the Sonic fanbase, and the moment you enter rumors into it, it all goes south. And you know what? Even I'm not above it! If you introduce this section without a proper level of discretion, I guarantee you, at some point in the future I'll end up trolling all of you with some seriously convincing shit spread all over the interwebz. For the longest time, I had Xenosaga fans and Nintendo fans and even IGN fooled into thinking a Xenosaga HD collection was headed to the Wii U lol. Don't allow evil men like me prevail! --Webber22 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's so complicated. The actual validity of the claim is irrelevant. For our purpose, we're not claiming that what these sources are saying is correct, we're just saying that these things were said. It doesn't matter where the official site (let's carry on using the IGN example) got their info from, all it means is that this rumour appeared on a big shot website, so it's important enough to document. It's a criteria that decides which rumours are added and not. As long as we have a list of sources we deem official (and that resource would be useful for VAs and release dates too), I don't see anyway in which the page could fill up with random rubbish, so long as we're enforcing the policies. TheFifteenthMember 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea. Especially the fact that we know it's rubbish, yet we still let it hang around just because it follows our guidelines. I mean...exception like that are the very reason our current world is as fucked up as it is. Things that follow rules shouldn't have to be flexible in order to fall within them, it's the rules that are supposed to be flexible enough to begin with. That goes both ways. Let's see what the others think. To summarize, my stance is that we should have a page(s) on cancelled projects, provided we have sufficient sources, but not on rumors. --Webber22 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Like SmashWiki, I think we should only allow rumors that are believed to be true by a large part of the community, like Fragmented Keys and 2.9 were. We can avoid users adding random rumors by protecting the page, so they would have to bring it up on the talk page first. TheSilentHero 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

But what part of the community? We're kind of divided, sad to say. Most of the folks on KH13 would believe anything they read. The people on KHInsider can be more skeptical than even us. And Gamefaqs and Neogaf....let's not even go there. --Webber22 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just this community. If we discuss every rumor on the talk page first, we can add the ones that we believe in. TheSilentHero 16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reiterating the point that the page is NOT necessarily for rumours that we believe in. It's for rumours that haven't been fully validated and has been spread across an official site. At no point in the article, will we say that these rumours are actually true. TheFifteenthMember

I really can't picture a working version of this. Would you care to work up a draft, before we make decisions?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Webber on this point. I don't see the value in talking about "rumours", ie. things that could be made up. I think that's too close to cataloging fan-made stuff, which is outside of the scope of this wiki. I think we should consider the evidence on each rumour individually and only write about the ones that are solid. Also on the point of "What website counts as a source? Does a KH fansite? Does IGN?", I think again we should ignore the reputation of the reporting website and instead look at the specific evidence, and just consider the legitimacy of the actual source of the evidence. --DChiuch (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

But....the whole point - practically the definition - to rumors is that they aren't solid. The....uhm, solidity, is what separates rumors from facts. --Webber22 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Pardon for extending an already extended conversation, but I found the background artist's website, which I'm not sure has been brought up before. Owen Rohu is an Irish matte painter who's worked at Disney, and currently freelances. http://www.owenrohu.com/digital-paintings.html This page from his website features the WIR, L&S, Agrabah, Neverland, Grid and SW backgrounds, all labelled as "Disney Gaming Environment", slightly mixed with his Angry Birds backgrounds.

The kicker is that I found it through googling Traverse Town images. There was actually a Traverse Town background, of the same flattened style (though seemingly incomplete), up on the website that for whatever reason has since been removed. The preview should still be brought up in Google if you search "owenrohu traverse town", though the original image can't be recovered. On top of that, http://www.filmmayo.ie/directory/owen-rohu lists him as working on "Kingdom Hearts", which would support the Traverse Town image's existence.

I'm pondering if this has any value whatsoever towards proving or disproving the rumour, since he does have some legitimate Disney credits. 195.171.114.174 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Does he list contact information?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pardon for the computer switch. His contact button's at the right side of the site header. There's also a button to his LinkedIn, which says he was working at Trilabyrinth between 2012 and 2014 as a freelancer doing "gaming environments for Disney and Lucas Arts". Going to the Trilabyrinth page brings up their 2014 company reel which includes the Star Wars backgrounds shared by both Rohu and GFL Productions in the "PREvis" section of the video. 82.36.144.164 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, someone should contact him."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 22:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

See, now this is a bit more of that solidity I was talking about. Though, I have to note that the Traverse Town matte image search is a no-go. His work page has also been web archived, and nothing. --Webber22 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't come up as a regular search result, is the thing. I found it by coincidence via Google's 'related images' when looking at the First District picture from the wikia, which was what led me to his page in the first place. If I hadn't recognised the SW and L&S backgrounds that were still up, I never would've made the connection.

I offer a screencap of the search result here, which matches one of the sketches from the 'Game Hubs' section of KH13's upload:

82.36.144.164 07:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That...seems to the point. Who's going to be contacting him? --Webber22 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for Trilabyrinth, incidentally, their website also has concepts for New Town here: http://www.trilabyrinth.com/portfolio/2d-3d-props-assets/

Three-dimensional Disney sets from the world list we have are here: http://www.trilabyrinth.com/portfolio/3dsets/

And all these Disney sketches, including again that part of the Death Star: http://www.trilabyrinth.com/portfolio/design-work/

Most of this was not part of the GFL leak.

It's worth a note that a few of these concepts are for separate Star Wars projects and a few others are for Epic Mickey, but the difference between them is particularly stark. 82.36.144.164 06:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: Rohu has password-protected his front page and digital paintings gallery as of today. 82.36.144.164 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)