Talk:Universe of Kingdom Hearts/Archive 1

Order of the worlds?

There doesn't seem to be any particular order that the worlds are placed in... If no one objects, I'm going to be doing some editting/rewording and then putting them in the rough order that Sora visits the worlds in the games. Axem Titanium 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest instead to order them as they appear in Jiminy's Journals, save that any repeat worlds not be listed twice. How Twilight Town would be handled, though, is up to you, since the actual TT didn't show up until KHII, yet it was listed in the Journal in CoM. T.J. Fuller, Jr. 10:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea Wiki link

I removed the link to the list of fan ideas for future KH worlds, forms, etc. Even though the link isn't to a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia is not for speculation (see WP:NOT), and there is no evidence any of these ideas will be used (KH3 hasn't been announced yet). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Realm?

Sould the dark relm be listed here? Or atleast be in the destiny island page because it is a world connected with destiny island. Logmon1

The realm of darkness is its own plane. I don't think the Door to Light leading to Destiny Islands is that specific, it's just to take Sora and Riku home, like the dark passages subconsciously lead a person to a place they can be safe (i.e. to Traverse Town).—ウルタプ 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Realm of Darkness should be listed, because it is pivotal to the story of Kingdom Hearts. Kamin 978 15:34 , 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The Dark Realm's importance merits a seperate inclusion, as information on it is all in different places. The same could also be said of Kingdom Hearts (not game title) itself. Ramallan Sparx 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting most/all of the article

Because it looks and reads terrible. That last edit was by me, but the stupid computer logged me out while I was writing. Axem Titanium 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking Problems

Hey, does Hollow Bastion have its own page or not? The link at the top of its section that claims to lead to the main article just brings you back to the top of the page. That seems a little pointless... Clevomon 21:07 EST, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Title

I don't mind a move, but wouldn't it be better as "Worlds of Kingdom Hearts" or "Universe of Kingdom Hearts"? Maybe I'm just being pedantic. ' 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. My OCD was simply trying to preserve the parallel construction of the article titles. Axem Titanium 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea.--Tempest115 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Axem Titanium 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosmology

I think it might be able to hold its own as an article.--Tempest115 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait before we spin it off. Other "World of" articles (like World of Final Fantasy VIII or Spira (Final Fantasy X)) were meant to hold the sum of its cosmology on one page so it wouldn't splatter onto a bunch of random Wikipedia articles that would be difficult to navigate. Axem Titanium 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe, regarding the new text from the merger, I can see how some of it can be speculative. But some of it isn't, surely some of the text can be kept. Like the descriptions of what forms it took. Could you maybe copy edit the info to include some of it? Besides, we just need to reference the info. That section only has one reference in it right now. This article is on my list to clean up and reference once we get the main game articles further along. Once we get the info in there it's easier to know what to look for when finding references. (Guyinblack25 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm shying away from any concise descriptions because the game purposefully leaves the properties of Kingdom Hearts ambiguous. People can't seem to make up their minds about whether the door seen in the first game is Kingdom Hearts or the Door to Darkness, for example. Doesn't help that some critical plot points are found only in Japanese Nomura interviews. ' 01:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Neverland" and "Pride Land"

I may have missed a big discussion topic about this, but all the games thus far have referred to "Neverland" as "Never Land", and "Pride Land" as "Pride Lands". Now, I can understand "Neverland", since that might've been the spelling in the original book, maybe even the film. Simba's home, however, has always been known as the "Pride Lands". In either case, semantics of the book and film versions involving these places should not be carried over here, given that artistic license (what little Wikipedia cares for it, at least in regards to article and preposition capitalization) has named them differently in the subjects being covered (that is, the KH series, not the source materials). T.J. Fuller, Jr. 10:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But the KH official Strategy Guide refers to Simba's home as the Pride Lands.--Tempest115 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Pride Land - Having recently played KHII, I noticed that the in-game graphic for the name had it as "Pride Land", as did the same graphic in the KHII official strategy guide. However, I also remember them refer to it as the "Pride Lands" in in-text dialog from KHII as well as in content from the guide. The Kingdom Hearts Series Ultimania α ~Introduction of Kingdom Hearts II~ has the same graphic and text that says プライド・ランド (Pride Land). This is just my speculation, but it seems to me that this may have been an error on the Japanese development side that was fixed in localization, except for the title graphic. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Back when I was editing this article more heavily, I used the title graphic as a reference, rather than dialogue because dialogue tends to be more casual and could be heard either way. I'm pretty sure the title graphics show "Neverland" and "Pride Land" but I'd have to check again. Axem Titanium 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops - By in-text dialog, I meant the in-game subtitles. It was spelled as "Pride Lands". It stuck in my mind because I remember seeing the first comment above, and after playing that part I noticed the difference between the two. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Couldn't be a translation error? They happen all the time or maybe soembody got lazy?Kou Nurasaka 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Corridors of Darkness

Hey, a quick question to anybody that remembers. Who are the characters in the games that used the corridors of darkness or something similar to travel between worlds. I only remember a few and knowing more would help me know what to look for in reference sources. This is minor content that will probably amount to one or two sentences, but I'm trying to find content for the "Travel" section, and maybe the "Cosmology" section too. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

They're only mentioned in the Secret Ansem Reports and once in Yen Sid's exposition dump. ' 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What about characters that used it or something like it? Just so I know what to look for in interviews and whatnot. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

I think Mickey, Ansem (both), Riku, Heartless, Organization XIII...? Axem Titanium 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sora unconsciously used it to get to Traverse Town from Destiny Islands. It's also how he got to Castle Oblivion. ' 04:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom hearts (world)

It;s a world, you go there in both 1 and 2. Jman8088 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence for your assertions? ' 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was the world where you fight Xehanort. Or is just the door considered Kingdom Hearts?KrytenKoro 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the director, Tetsuya Nomura, has left a lot of things in the series somewhat ambiguous because he likes people to speculate about possibilities behind them. The only physical thing in the games labeled as Kingdom Hearts was the heart-shaped moon in The World That Never Was. The doors seem like they are implied to be Kingdom Hearts, but never really stated as such (I may be interpreting the dialog wrong, but I think it's meant to be ambiguous). As far as what's behind the door, your guess is as good as mine. Anyway, without proper sourcing, we can't really state anything without it sounding like original research. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

The games can't seem to make up their mind on what the door is. Secret Ansem Report 8 says "the King, who had dived into the realm of darkness, worked with the Keyblade-wielding hero to close the door to Kingdom Hearts from the realms of both darkness and light". The character files call it a path into the realm of darkness, and there are repeated mentions of Riku and Mickey being stuck in the realm of darkness after sealing the door. Chain of Memories has the line "You and I have seen it! The far-off, welcoming light inside the door to darkness... The light of Kingdom Hearts". We know the door's not Kingdom Hearts itself, at least. ' 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what I am thinking Kingdom Hearts is, the possible beginning of a new world, you know, creation and all that. As for the realm of darkness being inside kingdom hearts, if you think about it, it was created from all of the hearts of those gathered into one spot, and they mention every heart having a trace of darkness. Hoping that will answer your questions, Wakisazhi 00:45 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.208.128 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Article review

I have taken on the task of reviewing the article Universe of Kingdom Hearts nominated by Guyinblack25 for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. A full report of the review will be posted when the review process has been completed. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. - .:Alex:. 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article report

1. Writing: PASS - The article is well written and complies with MOS guidlines.

   (a) prose:

   (b) meets MOS guidelines:

2. Factual accuracy and verifiability: PASS - Material likely to be challenged is sourced by quoting in game dialogue. There is no original research.

   (a) provides references to sources used:

   (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged:

   (c) contains no original research:

3. Broadness of coverage: PASS - The article is comprehensive and does not go into unnecessary detail.

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic:

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details:

4. Neutrality: PASS - The article is written from a neutral point of view and is not found to be biased in any form.
5. Stability: PASS - The article is stable and there is no evidence of recent edit wars.
6. Images: PASS - The images are fair use but have been provided a sufficiently detailed Fair Use Rationale. The images are very appropriate to the subject discussed in the article.

   (a) images are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status:

   (b) non-free images meet the criteria for fair use images and are labeled accordingly:

7. Overall: PASS - The article meets all of the good article criteria and will be promoted to GA-status.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. - .:Alex:. 10:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article looks pretty good. There are a few formatting issues (br clear is unnecessary if you are alternating image alingment) and the reception/criticism should be expanded and placed in its own section, but it's a solid effort. — Deckiller 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend reducing the fair use total to nine or so; the fair use users tend to prune articles with fair use images in excess of ten. — Deckiller 12:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Header and In-universe problems

The header has a few sentences which seem to be talking about the series itself, not the "universe of" - for example, the "The Kingdom Hearts games have met with positive receptions and sales, as well as receiving several video game awards. One such award was "Best Art Style/Direction" in IGN's 2003 list of "Best Looking Games on PS2".[1] As of December of 2006, the Kingdom Hearts series has shipped over 10 million copies worldwide, with 2.0 million copies in PAL regions, 3.0 million copies in Japan, and 5.6 million copies in North America.[2][3]"

I can understand where it's talking about the reception of the worlds themselves, but the sentences about how the series has done seem a bit off-topic.

Also, there is the traditional in-universe writing for "Heartless", "Nobody", "Keyblade", "Destiny Islands", and "Disney Castle". For example, Disney Castle's section should include stuff like how it was unplayable in the first game, but customer demand led to its inclusion in the second/third.

That's the only problems I can see, though. Is there anything I can do to help this article become FA?KrytenKoro 14:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'd forgotten about the world descriptions after it reached GA. The sentences about the series were to just give a quick overview of the the series' reception. Also, the "Art Style" award is linked to the graphics of the game which is linked to the reception of the world.
The Heartless/Nobody info is relatively new and is still a work in progress. Personally I'm content to leave this as GA for now, but if you have any ideas to improve the article go for it. I know that we need more information regarding reception. The article has been peer reviewed at the Video games Project, but could probably use a peer review from non-gamers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Keyblade Discription Correct?

On the Bio for the Keyblade it states that the Keyblade is the only weapon capable of destroying nobodies/heartless. Isn't that wrong? Cloud, Squall, and maybe Yuffie, Riku (when he had the dark wing sword) all these people can kill the heartless I know for fact. I'm not sure about Nobodies but I think that was the invasion of Hallow Bastion (Radiant Garden) when Squall and company helped out. not to mention the guest party member as well as Goofy and Donald. If anyone agrees then we should cahnge it but its your calls. Kou Nurasaka 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Saix says so and what he says is canon. Seems to be a retcon of the nature of Heartless and the Keyblade. Axem Titanium 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other characters have said so in the series as well, I believe Leon said the same thing in the first game about the heartless. But if only Sora was the only one in the battle party that could defeat the heartless then the gameplay would be quite different than what it is now. The other thing to consider is that maybe the keyblade is the only thing that can release the corrupted heart. Either way I'd chalk this up to the developers' need to make workable and enjoyable gameplay. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

I can't seem to find a specific mention of the Keyblade being the only thing that can destroy Heartless. Axel and Saïx say that the Keyblade releases the hearts inside the Heartless, but nothing else. Leon just says "The Heartless have great fear of the Keyblade." I'll remove it for now until we can source it. ' 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

":Saix says so and what he says is canon." - the guy who has a reputation for toying with people is going to be believed unconditionally? WTH?! This is exactly what the in-universe guidelines forbid!KrytenKoro 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not because a specific character said so, it's because it is in-game dialog which tells the story. We're not taking into account his personality or anything of the sort, like you said that would be against guidelines. Saïx said so because the director made him say it. Besides, the content was removed because we can't find proper citation for the statement. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Whether he said it or not, he could easily be lying. It is absolutely foolish to take a fictional character's word as truth, even in the fictional world he is describing - at best, the Jiminy Memo can be trusted as completely honest, but even then...we should only take what the creators say about the fictional world as "absolutely true" - anything less, and we're being silly.KrytenKoro 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether he was lying or not is not really the issue in this case. Unfortunately, whether or not it's true is not an issue either. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Regardless, the statement has already been removed, so it's not really an issue anymore. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

I get that the specific line is no longer an issue, but the same kind of faulty usage is still in a lot of places in the KH articles - yes, verifiability — for out-of-universe sources. The in/out-universe guidelines for fiction say that "Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information." is one of the main problems; it used to say that taking character's words at face-value was incorrect, but the whole article's been reorganized and rewritten - this is a similar thing, though; the characters are not always omniscient and honest, and we must accept that.KrytenKoro 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see your point now. Forgive me for playing devil's advocate with regard to your statement, but by the logic that the video game character could be lying basically rules out almost every use of video game quotes on Wikipedia as a reference. I think the current phrasing of the guideline was made somewhat ambiguous to allow for reasonable judgement on the editor's part. If you feel that the current use has been a problem on Wikipedia you may want to bring it to the attention of the Video game Project. We've tried to use reasonable judgement for the use on this page and have tried to stay within the guidelines of avoiding in-universe descriptions. Although, after looking over the article again, I do now see some new areas to improvement upon. Thank you for the feedback. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Oh no, I'm not saying we can't use quotes as references - we just need to make it clear to the reader that it is a quote, not an ironclad claim - for example "Saix claimed blah blah blah", rather than "blah blah blah is the absolute truth". Does that make sense?KrytenKoro 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, that is along the lines of some of the tweaks that came to mind in order to improve the article. I'll try to get around to it after I finish up on some of the other KH articles. Thanks gain. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm a bit late, but the Keyblade is actually the only weapon that can release the hearts of the Heartless, could this be a vital difference? Whovian13 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception and criticism?

I recommend combing media reviews for critical response on the worlds. Perhaps stuff like the graphics, design, style, etc. — Deckiller 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Worlds within the "in-between realm"

I'm new to Wikipedia in general and I'm not sure at what points I need to check with other editors, so here goes, anyway... So, under Cosmology, it mentions the various realms in Kingdom Hearts, and more specifically, the existance of an "in-between realm" where select worlds are found. I found an interview with Tetsuya Nomura that has some information on the worlds in between. I want to include some of what I found in thsi interview and include it into that section of the article. Would that be objectionable to anyone?
One other question though. I was going to source the interview, but although the original interview is from an official source, the translation into English is not. Is it still usable as a source? How should I approach that? --Falcon 23:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Another Report interview? ' 00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I should say go for it and we'll help you format it. Axem Titanium 05:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at the interview from Another Report. Or the translation of it, anyway. I'll go ahead and work on that then, later today.--Falcon 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The information you added seems better off in the sections for the individual worlds. Yen Sid's Tower and the others aren't all that relevant to the universe as a whole. ' 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I'll move the related information to its respective sections, but in order to keep it from sounding redundant, feel free to add to it, reword it, whatever may be necessary...--Falcon 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

About the Keyblade section

Should Mickey's dark realm keyblade and Riku's Way to Dawn be mentioned in that section at all? I think it's relevant to note that there are multiple keyblades, not just the one Sora wields.HadesDragon 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The new worlds

Should the new information from the trailers be mentioned? Perhaps not the new worlds, but at least the scenes in Olympus Colosseum and Destiny Islands? Yemboy42 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have to ask ourselves, "how does that benefit the article?" It's nice to know and it's a cool bit of trivia, but simply stating that without any source is number 1, not really allowed on Wikipedia because it falls under speculation and original research, and number 2, it doesn't really help expand the information of the article. I'm not saying we can't have it in, but at this point with none of the new games released, I think we're jumping the gun. Let's wait and see, and even if it is added in before the release, it will need proper sources, not just saying that it was in a magazine; see Talk:Organization XIII#The Fourteenth Member... for a similar discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

So what's the point of the whole article? If magazine's are not valid sources, then the games themselves are no better. I understand completely that we should NOT speculate or anything similar to it, but I think that simply stating that Olympus Coliseum and Destiny Islands are set to appear in upcoming games is absolutely fine. It's not speculation, and it has been confirmed in a screenshot of the game itself. If that's not enough, then we might as well delete all the articles to do with Kingdom Hearts, since screenshots are just as valid as the games themselves. Stating that worlds based on Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, now THAT would be speculation, because it hasn't been confirmed whether or not they ARE those worlds. Jienum 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole does not really help your argument. I would recommend mentioning it on the respective game's article instead of here. It would be more relevant and less trivia-y. Axem Titanium 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That and no source was provided. I think the misunderstanding here is we may have different definitions of speculation. You know it's true because you saw the article scan. I know it's true too, because I saw the same scan, it has Master Xehanort and Ven in what looks like the front area of the Coliseum. But the readers of the article don't know it's real because there's no source provided. Because of that, Wikipedia deems that as speculation and original research, and that is the definition we have to follow. Simply citing a magazine scan without adding a reference is unfortunately not citation. It would be easier that way, but on Wikipedia, the burden of proof lies on the editor adding the content. The magazine is a valid source, but what magazine is it? What issue? When was it published? What was the title of the article? etc. If you want to add it in to the Birth by Sleep article, go ahead, it could expand the "Plot" section a bit. But putting it in requires proper citation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

World names

FYI- I just removed the Japanese text and translations of most of the world names. The main reason was because most of the titles were originally in English. I saw no reason to keep them simply because the game was originally in Japanese, and most of the world names were katakana translations of the original English name. This basically applied to the Disney worlds, I left the Japanese text on the original worlds created by Square. This was done in the clean up of the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article also, but I think we had forgotten how it was done in this article. It's all in one edit in case it needs to be undone, but let's talk about it first beforehand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Universe names

Most works of fiction have universe names. Like the buffyverse, daisyverse, and the view askewniverse. Shouldn't this have one. It would make the page name easier to find and shorter. I was thinking Kingdomverse, or soraverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugatu3333 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Those names exist because the fandom came to a general consensus over the name and the directors and creators have accepted them. Any name we create for the Kingdom Hearts universe would be WP:OR. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Your right

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugatu3333 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts and charity

A realworld Keyblade was sold on eBay in November 2007 with profits donated to Child's Play.[1][2] Should this information be added to the article or is it considered trivial? I find it interesting and maybe this could help broaden the article's scope for a potential FA nomination (eventually). FightingStreet (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what would help make this more notable is the amount that went to charity. Plus this might be better suited for the series article. This article has actually been on my list to clean up and copy edit for a while now. To be honest, I don't know if this could ever get to FA, maybe after the three new games come out, more info will circulate. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Did a cleanup...

The article REALLY needed a cleanup, since some of it wasn't a NPOV, and some of the sentences could confuse the reader. For some reason though, the things I did to the world paragraphs doesn't show up in the History section. Oh well. Abby724 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC) what happend to all the other worlds not consumed by heartless and the keyholes that were not locked in the first [2nd chain of memories] and 3ird games would the heartless and nobodys have strong holds on all of them are there worlds still conected the company never answerd the questions i have just stated. by darth dread 11/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth dread (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Awakening

As I remember, the Awakening was considered its own world, and it is definitely one of the most memorable and important settings in the game. Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobodies

the nobody section implies that anyone that becomes a heartless will have a nobody. but that's not true entirely.

anyone that has a strong heart who becomes a heartless will obtain a nobody with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.62.214 (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tha Ghoul: Quick Question.

Since the start of your edit-train (best phrase I could think of to describe it), you've added a lot of unsourced OR. Do you have a source for any of it? I don't mean to sound rude, but some of the information you've added is blatently incorrect. (FYI: so far, everyone who has had a keyblade has started with the basic Kingdom Key. And there doesn't appear to be different keyblades, just different keychains, with the possible exception of special keyblades like the Way to the Dawn. And as each keychain represents something/someone unique, duplicates are highly unlikely.) -Tainted Conformity ^Chat 03:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

it does appear to be a bit of OR, and additional refs are needed. still, be careful with the word "you" it's a collaboration, your basically blaming this on everyone who has worked on the article.

you are welcomed to fix the article and remove some information or change it.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From the "Heartless" talk page

The entries that follow were on Talk:Heartless from the time when it was a separate article. Apparently, when the content was merged here and the article replaced by a disambiguation page, nobody thought to merge the talk page contents as well. Not sure how useful any of this is as I'm simply moving it en masse as a cleanup effort. - Dravecky (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Pureblood Heartless

Seriously, it's safe to assume which Heartless are pureblood and which are not. Sure, if they have no knowledge or do not know those Heartless, it's useless information, but if they do, it can be quite useful to know, even though they can make there own presumtions. I'm adding it back. Also, I'm sorry for making those mistakes about "Purebread", we all make mistakes but thats no reason to take the whole damn part off.

~ Ultimate Perfect Chaos 23:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC) ~

WTH?!

Extend it to cover diffrent kinds of heartless that sora and co. encounter,as well as how they are opposed to nobodies and such-GRAHAMR

i think heartless are intelligent,due to that fact that they form teams with names in the coliseum.(perhaps,however, Ansem/Malifecent/whoever knew that the keyblade bearer was going to show up,so they sent them to sign up for the tournament so that they could kill him) in the second game,they even work with nobodies in the underdrome battles.

- Information on every kind of Heartless encountered in the game is better suited for a Strategy Guide, and would be superfluous here. As well, the only Heartless that display any intelligence are a few Heartless bosses; the rest are essentially mindless, as noted by Yen Sid and Xemnas. If the structure of the Coliseum/Underdrome battles have to be attributed to anyone in-game, I would say they are the work of Hades. - Kalarchis 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Information on every kind of Heartless encountered in the game is better suited for a Strategy Guide, and would be superfluous here. How so? I don't see why info on different Heartless types, provided that it's written in a formal, encyclopedic tone, would be 'superfluous' here. Jerkov 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes!! A professional and NPOV-centered list of Heartless is just as relevant to this article as a list of the game's characters would be to the Kingdom Hearts article. This is BS. My edits were removed twice without consideration at all for their encyclopedic value, and I'm prety sure others' contributions were, too. Rather than delete it on the spot, why not improve it? --Wikiwow 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A list of Heartless is absolutely irrelevant to the general reader and isn't good prose in the least. Encyclopediae do not contain every single bit of inforrmation, sorry to say. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

um, no. Many other entries, for example Metroid's bestiary page, or even episode guide like pages, are considered relevant. As long as information is given to explain what the Heartless do, it is extremely relevant. At this point, we basically have that they are bogeymen. At the very least, a few pictures of more than just the first two heartless would serve to show the reader what kind of creatures the Heartless are: somewhat like the Transformers in that they manifest in a form adapted to their world.

If it helps the reader to further understand the different aspects and characteristics of Heartless, then yes, it is relevant. How can you have countless articles on nearly every Final Fantasy enemy and not have one section on the Heartless article about the subject of the article--the Heartless! Completely nonsensical to me. I'm not suggesting a strategy guide with info on their HP and strengths/weaknesses or anything like that, just one to three sentences on the appearance, abilities, physical characteristics, and niches of every species--or at the very least, the Bosses, since most played vital roles in the game. That's not too much to ask for. --Wikiwow 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you must throw a fit about not having the list, at least include information on the bosses, which DEFINETELY had places in the storyline. For example, It is explicitly said that Darksides are reflection of the darkness in one (Zexion to Riku). That is important info for this entry. The journal entries are always more indepth with the bosses, telling how they relate to the story, and it is easy to see how heartless boss information would relate to this page.

Also, it is still not right that information was deleted FROM THE COMMENTS PAGE. It was up there so that people could add more info to it before deciding to place it on the article page. 74.132.225.145 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion on improving the article, not an way to shunt information unacceptable to be in the actual article into. Regardless, the presence of other shit articles does not warrant adding a shitty list of only interest to Kingdom Hearts nerds. Black Ballades, Bulky Vendors, and a bunch of other meaningless names and characteristics aren't very interesting or relevant to the general reader, sad to say. Add some prose about how thare can be many types; fine, whatever. No shitty lists. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IT WAS DISCUSSION FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE. It was just not in a finished form yet. And actually, if somebody was just casually reading the page on the game, Kingdom Hearts, maybe it wouldn't be interesting. I can say from experience that when they go to pages on story errate, such as "Heartless", or the individual character pages, then they want actual information, not just the kind of stuff they have on game previews or reviews. Here's an example of how it could be organized to be presentable and useful: organizing them by worlds, first visit (before they mix). EX: "In Beast's Castle, Heartless such as the possessed Gargoyle Knights and Warriors, along with Lance Soldiers and Hook Bats appear." Maybe throw in a picture, maybe have little sentences for what each one looks like. Gives information on what type of setting the world is, and its atmosphere (in this case, a medieval type of setting, or a gothic-ish (the architecture term, not the fad) type of thing. Seriously, information like this isn't as "fan-crufty" as people seem to think. I always like articles more and find them more useful if they have detailed information on them, especially if I've never heard of the thing before.

I agree with wikiwow about the articles on individual heartless. maybe just the shadows or the bosses --wizard5311

question

I'm not sure if this is right or not. I've seen heartless do what appears to be shapeshifting (one pretended to be Belle to annoy Beast, and a group of soldiers turned into heartless before Shang's eyes) but this has never been proven should someone look into it. that way we could decid if we could add shapeshifters to the list of appropriate groups for heartless to be in.

The soldiers had just turned into Heartless, they weren't already. This is shown by the comment that they are dying (I think it was something like that). Certainly they were shown to be dying, though.74.132.225.145 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Heartless List?

I understand why this might not be appropriate on the mainpage (at least, until information was added to each entry (ex. the journal entries), but why was it deleted from the comments page? I thought that comments were not supposed to be deleted.

No, I don't understand. I was the one who began putting up the lists of Heartless (I think...maybe someone did it before me and it got deleted) on the main article. But why was it removed? Isn't it relevant to the article? I'm not trying to sound angry with my words, I just wanna know why my contributions were deleted so quickly (less than a day, I think). --Wikiwow 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep on deleting my Heartless List? --User:Oblivion111

It's already been discussed many times, people simply do not want one on here, so....that's why they get rid of it, simple as that. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least make another article about the Heartless List. That would be nice. Would you please make one.

You could easily find such a list on mutiple other websites.

--Tempest115 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heartshower disproves?

The shadows still appeared from puddles of darkness, though I do admit that emblems only seem to appear when a heart is seperated from the body (Traverse Town Soldier, LoD Nightwalkers), with no need to be produced by the machine (which, admittedly, is never said to actually be the source of Heartless, merely a factor in producing them: it could be some kind of signal or something that causes lost hearts to reform as Heartless). And Yen Sid clearly says that the Heartless exist as long as darkness exists in any heart: not that the hearts must be seperate.

The heartshower sequence doesn't disprove anything. Because the hearts disappeared for a moment before the shadows arived (unlike the traverse town soldier who appeared as a floating...darkness ball i suppose) it's open for interpretation whether the hearts became heartless or the heartless consumed the hearts. Additionally shadows are pureblood heartless and therefore have nothing to do with the machine. Emblems are more common and have been shown to appear from hearts that go missing. We can therefore conclude that emblems appear from the machine or from the heart of someone who has lost their heart to a heartless. Purebloods are more of a mystery as they were originally created though the collapse of hearts, this might mean that they are the darkness of a heart that is released when a heart is completely destroyed. It's all speculation but the heartshower doesn't really give much in the way of support to any idea. 69.117.57.73 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ansem Reports

This is all well and good to have an article on, but at this point, this article is about the reports, which were there to explain the plot, not the Heartless. Excluding the first paragraph. It even has a paragraph bout the Nobodies! I suggest this article be renamed to "The Ansem Reports", and include information on "The Other Ansem Reports" as well, or it be totally reformatted. As it is now, it's pretty much a failure of an article.

So far we have 1 1/2 paragraphs about Heartless, 7 about the Ansem Reports, and 1 about the Nobodies. This needs to change.74.140.118.84 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

important

can i add something?Christopherbenoit 22:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

go ahead User:Oblivion111

Heartless List

I would like to add a Heartless list on another page, but have not finished the first game a do not have pics, so it will have to be expanded. Any objections?Therequiembellishere 07:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Kamin 978

NO! STOP! CEASE AND DESIST! DO NOT DO THAT! Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Axem Titanium 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, they still get away with the FF Beastery(sp?), tell me something though, are those lists being considered for deletion at all? Cause if not, then a Heartless List would seem just as appropiate to me as the FF Beastery list. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Kingdom Hearts only spans three titles (currently) so it has not had time to establish too many consistently recurring enemies yet. Second, WikiProject Final Fantasy is in the middle of a large campaign to remove as much unencyclopedic fancruft from Final Fantasy articles as possible and present the information in a professional way (more details here). Part of this campaign is the consolidation of the FF Bestiary pages into a more condensed form, focusing only on the most notable and consistently recurring monsters. So, to answer your question, yes, they will be considered for deletion as soon as the important information is culled from them and placed into the less listcrufty article. And I think they were considered for transwiki before too. Axem Titanium 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Heartless needs a complete rewrite. There are only a few sections on the topic of the article, the rest are about the Ansem Reports. There's even a section on the Nobodies! We need to delete all the sections that have no relevance to the subject of the article and replace them with sections that provide actual information about the Heartless. There is no information on the fact that the Heartless are opposed to the Nobodies. There is no information on Pureblood Heartless.

Kamin 978

Article seems fine to me, and there's excellent information on the Pureblood. Where is this information, you ask?

Simple. If an Emblem Heartless has that emblem, it's reasonable to assume that Pureblood don't. Using this logic, just playing the game can tell you everything in the Pureblood section. Emblem outnumber Pureblood something like ten to one. Just watching someone fight any Emblem Heartless- and the fact it's heart comes out- versus the little Shadows- who just dissipate to black mist- all of it is reasonable.

This article is almost professional in its doing and I'm getting rid of the rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.133.205.171 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

prior to the seires

The this needs a rewrite because its false. The heartless came from the realm of darkness

Only if you fell asleep throughout the games.

"The experiments caused the test subject's heart to collapse, including those of the most stalwart. How fragile our hearts are! My treatment produced no signs of recovery. I confined those who had completely lost their hearts beneath the castle.

Some time later, I went below and was greeted by the strangest sight. Creatures that seemed born of darkness... What are they? Are they truly sentient beings? Could they be the shadows of those who lost their hearts in my experiments?"

"Students do take after their teachers. Only a fool would be your apprentice. After all, none of this would have happened without you. YOU are the source of all Heartless. It was your research that inspired me to go further than you ever dared."

Please don't make up story details in your attempt to rewrite this "false" information. ' 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From charles:your the one who pretty much fell asleep boy. If you played the game you would realized that in the reports ansem "discovered the heartless" and if they came from the experments how come they came from kingdom hearts and their were millions of them. Read the kingdom hearts article it contrdicts your thinking or even better replay the whole game. You should use your head before you start talking about stuff that is based on opiuion

By the way when he said that"shawdows of the guys in my experments" he realized that his students turned int heartless.ou can't interpet things very correctly. Besides the heartless gave them interest to study the heart in the first place. You should know what your talking about.

Oh, Christ.

• "if they came from the experments how come they came from kingdom hearts and their were millions of them"
  • Kingdom Hearts attracts darkness. Bugs don't come from your porch light.
• "By the way when he said that"shawdows of the guys in my experments" he realized that his students turned int heartless.ou can't interpet things very correctly."
  • Xehanort wrote most of the original Ansem Reports. Your "inerpretation", for lack of a kind term, would be completely out of order with the timeline established in the Secret Ansem Reports. Apprentices become Heartless, but then help create the device for Emblem Heartless? You're supposed to use the information in all games to piece together a rough timeline, but you fail miserably at it. "ou can't interpret things very correctly." ' 05:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How old are you five years old. Like I said your wrong agian. read other articles and see if they agrre with you for example the kingdom hearts article or the xenhnort article. They discovered the heartless while expermenting but they orginally came from kingdom hearts, moron. Have you even played the first game or seconed. you have aboslutly have no idea what your talking about. look this stuff up on the internet and see if your "facts" are corect. Heres is a quote from the xenahnort article "This resulted in Xehanort's discovery of the creatures which he named the "Heartless" which means he dicovered what happens when a person secumbs to the darkness of ones heart that doesn't mean he created them, it means he discovered them and here is a quote from the kingdom hearts article " her group is to collect seven maidens of the purest heart, the "Princesses of Heart", in order to open the pathway to Kingdom Hearts, which is the origin of all Heartless and a limitless repository of power and knowledge, equal to that contained within each individual's heart. In this sense, Kingdom Hearts is the heart of all worlds." and this one "the door to the realm of darkness threatens to unleash billions upon billions of Heartless". the heartless could have not replicated that fast to billions of pure bloods, they are not like insects as you desribed getting every where because they would never be able to get into the door way to the realm of darkness unless they came from their. USE COMMON SENSE and don't talk like a baby and try to discuss this inmaturly "oh christ" if you discuss somthing with someone, discuss like a debate not "oh christ"

I find it increasingly difficult to find the impetus to argue with you. You implore me to "discuss like a debate", yet your paragraph is rife with grammatical errors, incoherency, and lame insults. Believe whatever you wish; "YOU are the source of all Heartless." is more than enough to determine whichever interpretation is correct. ' 05:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus calm down. I realized i was wrong in some places, the heartless in the realm of light came as a result of his experments but the orignals came from the realm of darkness right? The debate topic you clearly missed the point on, when you debate you debate calmly not try to inslut people. "your insluts are lame" You know I am just asking, how old are you

"your responsible for all the heartless" this means he is responsible for all of the heartless in the realm of light. OK so please stop acting like a little kid and talk like normal human beings

I fail to see any adjectival clause stating only in the realm of light. You're entirely making up this nonsense without actual evidence. I also implore you to find what "Pot and Kettle" mean in colloquial English. ' 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

i had enough talking to a little kid like you and fighting over a game. If you like to fight over video games their is obvoiusly somthing wrong with you. I gave you evidince and because you play to much video games you don't want to discuss this in a cilivized way. If you keep making personal attacks i will report you. I am not making anthing up, the realm of light is part of the game lore.

I implore you: Pot and Kettle. You have failed to prove that the Heartless were only introduced in the realm of light by Xehanort's experiments. ' 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop fighting over this stupid thing. You don't have to turn this into a personal fight

Read other articles about kingdom hearts ok and see if your correct. You failed to even check them because your afraid of being wrong

You hypocrite, first you said that the Heartless only came by Ansems experments and now your telling me to they didn't "You have failed to prove that the Heartless were only introduced in the realm of light by Xehanort's experiments" Why would you want me to prove somthing that you already believe and your calling me the hypocrite. What did I say thats hypcritcy anyway. By the way the saying is called "pot calling the kettle black"

I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what I'm saying, nor if you understand what hypocrisy entails. ' 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a hypocrite means to claim or talk about somthing you don't really know or possess and/or to contrdict yourself. I am sorry for saying that stuff to you, your right and I am wrong. Sorry for getting off at a very bad start.

Big heartless question

What kind of Heartless do people turn into? I always assumed people became pure heartless (like shadows) Kingdom Hearts II contradicts this very often. I mean first of all Ansem, Seeker of Darkness has the symbol, but he could have put it there himself. Most of the contradictions come from the Land of Dragons where the two soldiers become emblem heartless and the dragon boss you fight was a dragon-turned-heartless which also has an emblem. Aren't the emblem heartless supposed to be artificially created or are we to assume that after being created they are able to multiply themselves and turn other creatures into emblem instead of pure heartless? Problem is saying this would be speculation. Is there any explanation for this supposed plot hole? Mavrickindigo 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No plot hole. Just you assuming that Emblems can't reproduce. ' 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Every instance where someone was actually turned into a Heartless, they turned into an Emblem (Soldier in KH, Revenant(?) in KH2). On the other hand, "Pureblood" always appear from puddles of darkness - Guardian and Darkside appears to reflect the darkness in Xehanort (and Riku, Sora, and presumable Donald and Goofy (in the ending FMV), the Possessor line appear as darkness, without the heart fading thing, and the Shadow line appear from darkness, and into darkness (Also Darkballs, Bit Snipers, and anything else I forgot). Yen Sid also says that so long as darkness is in people's hearts, Heartless will exist - even if they do not lose their hearts. So while it may be OR, my personal conjecture is that Emblem Heartless (those who consist of only a heart, and thus the heart is busy providing a body and can't do its normal work as a heart) are the remains of hearts, and Pureblood Heartless (the truly heartless) are emanations or reflections of the darkness in people's hearts.

• On a semi-related question - was Chernabog supposed to be some kind of Heartless in the first game? My instincts tell me no, since he wasn't in the journal and was a Disney character, but I can't think of any other reason for him to just be hanging out in the World Terminus.KrytenKoro 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, as much as I hate reviving the topic, this needs to be pointed out.

Wikipedia does not discriminate on basis of popularity, or other things that lead to unencyclopedic articles. This article is very much pointless, it's far too short to actually be worth much merit, and unless it beefs up, I think it'll become a candidate for deletion. The article's contents could simply be placed in an already existing page, such as Kingdom Hearts (series), being listed as a recurring enemy. Which is what leads me to say this: Since the article itself is very much pointless, and since it's allowed, I believe an enemy list for the article would be apropriate, not so much as to note variations of the same kind of heartless (AKA You could list "spellcasting heartless" instead of things like "blue ballade"). This would quite certainly improve it, especially since half the people that go to this article are probably looking for pictures of enemies... -63.229.188.33 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)(chao9999 on his mom's computer)

I'm planning on merging this article to universe of Kingdom Hearts. I just haven't gotten around to it. ' 06:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)