Talk:Yosuga no Sora

Harukazuhāto

I'm not sure but "ハルカズハート" (Harukazuhāto) seems to be a portmanteau of "Haruka", "Kazuha" and "hāto" (heart). kazu (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably is. If you look at the rest of the titles, there are a few where there are similar titles using the various characters' names. tra- (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Last episode - Did they die?

There is a discussion going on over at MyAnimeList as to whether Haruka and Sora actually died in the lake. The issues seem to be:

• The stuffed toy bunny owned by Sora was seen torn to pieces by their friends after they had supposedly left the house, yet it is seen whole on the train carrying the twins
• The twins had no money left to them, yet were able to afford flights to Europe and multiple train tickets.
• Haruka asks Sora if they are alive, and she does not answer.
• The origin of the text message received is in dispute.
• When their friends visit the house, it is still in the same state of disarray as the night of the drowning.

This being the case, should the episode summary be updated to reflect this possible interpretation of events? David Bailey (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We simply summaries the episode. We do not interpret it. —Farix (t | c) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. The author of the ep12 summary has already interpreted the events portrayed when they wrote "though they somehow remained alive. Days later the two leave the place to live together overseas in the city where an artisan who had connection with their parents lived, hoping to find happiness elsewhere". It's their opinion of what happened and doesn't take into account the inconsistencies I mentioned above. The summary may need to be re-written so that either or both possibilities are covered... or so that the summary is ambiguous, allowing the reader to apply their own interpretation. David Bailey (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The summarizer told it that way because that's what he saw. Unfortunately, if the summarizer were to interpret it, it'll never be a summary anymore, but an opinion entry. But, bottom line, the ending is kinda tricky to understand. But I'm not counting the intervention of some strong swimmer in there out. Kenshinflyer (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we are forgetting one probable variable here: Nao. At that time she was helping Haruka look around, and she might have also taken a clue from Akira herself. As for the stuffed bunny, it is probably a run-of-the-mill model, and that Sora may have picked up another one. Kenshinflyer (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The bunny was a gift from her dead parents, so it's unlikely that she would just buy another. Better to repair the original one with the sentimental value. David Bailey (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people could buy an identical item and still evoke memories. Or, if the bunny was a custom made one, Sora could have probably traced the maker of the original and commissioned another. Still that replica can evoke memories. Just like Number 5 in the Short Circuit movie--the robot in the second film was a replica of itself. Kenshinflyer (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• The lake myth promised something akin to reincarnation for a better chance. They left the lake and went to take their chance. Maybe that was the myth at work. Or maybe they just believed it to be the myth at work. Or maybe they believed that they swam out, whether or not that actually happened... But, most likely, THEY don't know either. 208.127.80.135 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Proper genre title

This anime/manga is not a "comedy" or any sort. Anime News Network(which Wikipedia anime articles all uses as a reliable source) does not even list the anime/manga as a comedy. I can't find anything on the official website of this anime that mentions it being a comedy. This anime is NOT a comedy. ALSO, someone keeps using the word "Wincest" which is not an word use on anything outside of fan fictions. Win = Win(duh). cest > inCEST. The word "Twincest" is not even really an accepted word in outside of fan fictions that I am aware of but I am going to ignore that. I do ask that who ever is posting this as a comedy and as a "wincest" refrain from doing so. It is misleading and it is unacceptable. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The ANN encyclopedia is not a reliable source. The rest of what you are describing is vandalism. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if it is not reliable, why does every anime and manga article on Wikipedia link to it as if it is one? I'm not denying what you said, I am just asking. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The news section of the ANN site is reliable but the ANN encyclopaedia isn't considered so, because it is user editable. See WP:A&M/ORS David Bailey (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. Fair enough. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is linked in external links because it is useful, but the encyclopaedia cannot itself be used as a source or reference - instead check what sources are provided there (note that these may in turn also not be reliable - a lot of credit data is based in turn on Japanese wiki pages). Shiroi Hane (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yosuga no Sora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100921011410/http://www.cuffs-sphere.jp:80/yosuga/ to http://www.cuffs-sphere.jp/yosuga/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100918071024/http://www.cuffs-sphere.jp:80/haruka/index.html to http://www.cuffs-sphere.jp/haruka/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)