Talk:End of the World

Ummm
I believe i found this on this wikia site the end of the world is artificial, heartless and the world that never was is its nobody something like that....I think oh um here it is Coinciding with the End of the World being the opposite of the World That Never Was, the End of the World seems more naturistic whilst the World That Never Was seems more industrial. This could coincide with the fact that Nobodies, as opposed to Heartless, rely on intelligence rather than instict whilst Heartless are vice versa. trivia in end of the world

While you are Right regarding the polar opposite natures of each world, you got the classifications wrong, The end of the world is essentialy a collection of worlds that have lost theire hearts when you lose a heart you get a Nobody. this makes it a Nobody of worlds. this explains its proximity to the Door to Darkness and the Kingdom hearts of world hearts, in the realm of darkness. its rustic appearance is due to the fact that it is uninhabited by intelligent creatures. Like wise the World that never was is the Nobody world for the Kingdom hearts of peoples hearts, however the difference here is that the world itself is an artificial construct made by actual Nobodys who are the ones attempting to gain proximity to the heart, so the world that never was is a nobody but it is kinda more like a replica in its artificality except its a little bit more original.--Foutlet 18:29, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Picture
🇲🇦

The LOGO
The "logo" is the name that appears upon entering a world for the first time. Look at the gallery for other world pages. --Neumannz 23:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

We'll survive all the same. --Neumannz 23:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The fangs are out! 23:12, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

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.(ಠ_ೃ)﻿ Bully!  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? 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. M0ffx 05:19, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

It seems like that to me. 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? 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. -- 20:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. 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? --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. 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? --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. 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. --76.102.24.151 05:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)