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)