Talk:Sakura Kinomoto

What the..

"Sakura Kinomoto is revealed to be the original Syaoran's mother in Chapter 189."

Really? I mean... really?? I know, I'm an experienced Wikipedian, and the talk page isn't for this kind of ta.... REALLY?? That doesn't even make sense. Can we get some confirmation on this? -- Ned Scott 05:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it actually makes sense if you think that xxxHOLiC is set about 20 years after CCS. I've seen the chapter 189 and the description is confirmed in the manga. A young Syaoran is shown talking with Yuko, and she sends him into Clow Country. As a payment for that wish, Yuko says his mother (Sakura Kinomoto) already paid for it with her Star wand (the ultimate form of his Sealing wand). I guess you know the rest. --Exephyo (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So he's basically Syaoran Jr. who decides who hook up with his mom from another dimension... Suddenly my desire to read the manga has lessened. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated... according to 190 spoilers he doesn't really expect that at all. And it's as Fai said once (after his 'same soul' theory) in 73 (I think): "It's not her, is it? She looks like her but it's a different person." (He was referring to Tomoyo) so I think that'll come into play at some stage. Also there's theories Syaoran's feelings could be platonic (but I'm not so sure). Ggctuk (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got to love those clamp writers though, if anyone can create a storyline that seems to be on the verge of controverse and then pull it back with a storyline that would give anyone a headache, its them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.13.2 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say as a reader and non-user the sentence, "This means that Sakura is dead," in TRC/xxxholic should be changed to "...may be dead." There is certainly support to the theory that SxS are dead, but CLAMP hasn't even come close to stating this as a fact yet. This is a very bald statement to make with no verifiable proof to back it up.

Aaaaand Chapitre.223 reveals without any original research that Sakura Kinomoto is not the mother of any Syaoran shown in Tsubasa. Akata (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tsubasa information

Those anybody mind finding some more information for the web and pasted in sakura´s kinomoto page? Thanks it would really help a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Kool Mushi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people would mind. That's copyright infringement and this article is NOT about the Tsubasa character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, he probably just didn't know we split the info off into Sakura (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle). -- Ned Scott 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That SHOULD NOT mean ridding the article about info on Sakura Kinomoto in Tsubasa. Sakura Kinomoto and Princess Sakura are two different characters, but it's CCS Sakura we are talking about (Yuko says CCS happened in her world, that the Sakura and Syaoran living in her world are the parents of 'Syaoran' etc... all this is relevant but it got deleted... why?) Ggctuk (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a section for appearances in other media. They are still different characters, and as such, info on Princess Sakura does NOT belong in the infobox, only briefly mentioned in the appearances section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds awfully like you're saying that Princess Sakura (the TRC Sakura) is Syaoran's mother. Yuko herself said it's the same Sakura as CCS. 213.166.17.13 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that THIS article is about Sakura Kinomoto from CCS. Whatever is said in Tsubasa is about Tsubasa's Sakura and characters, not this series, nor this character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about CCS Sakura too. That's why I started the trend of splitting the articles. CCS Sakura is mentioned in xxxHolic, then explained in Tsubasa that she (CCS Sakura, NOT TRC SAKURA) is the mother of TRC Syaoran. Basically what I'm saying is that this info should be worthy for inclusion since we're not talking about TRC Sakura, we're talking about CCS Sakura in TRC. 213.166.17.12 (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, you are adding WP:OR and false information and it will continue to be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR or false information. It's stated explicitly within Tsubasa itself. They are referring to THIS Sakura Kinomoto, not Princess Sakura. Are you even reading this manga? - 98.209.188.228 (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is both. No one has yet to provide an actual reliable source stating that it is the CCS Sakura Kinomoto, and not just another iteration of Sakura in Tsubasa. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If Chapter 189 of the Tsubasa manga itself is not a reliable source (and likely the ONLY source you'll ever find in English) then there's no point to a good deal of information within the Tsubasa articles, and it might as well all be flagged and deleted. 98.209.188.228 (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tsubasa chapters are fine for sourcing characters IN Tsubasa, but not for claiming that the exact same Sakura in CCS is the one metioned in Tsubasa as Syaoran's wife/mother. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm not even going to bother updating these pages any more with all this in-fighting and obvious blindness. I'll take the info elsewhere. I have to agree with 213.166.17.13, AnmaFinotera, you make it sound like you're saying "Hey, Yuko said CCS Sakura but actually meant TRC Not-Sakura". Ggctuk (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yuko didn't say CCS Sakura at all, she simply said Sakura. Considering Tsubasa is an alternate universe version of multiple CLAMP shows, that could be any version of Sakura, NOT the exact same Sakura from CCS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnmaFinotera: Though it is implied that CCS Sakura is meant, it's never explicitly said. She might be another version of the character. --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The wand might have been circumstantial, as might the Jian. Yuuko's mention of Syaoran Li being R!Syaoran's father is less so. But then CCS Sakura's circle appears? Let me tell you what I had in mind when I split the articles - I had in mind that the Princess Sakura article would be changed as soon as we found out her name. As with TRC Syaoran. Not 'Sakura's appearance in TRC' but the character itself. My, no wonder I go to the CCS Wikia instead, Wikipedia is losing too much information and making less sense each day. Ggctuk (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

More recent chapitres of Tsubasa have confirmed that AnmaFinotera was right, and everyone else was assuming, despite CLAMP themselves saying that it wasn't CCS Sakura Kinomoto, that it was CCS Sakura Kinomoto. There is however another Sakura pictured which may have been Sakura Kinomoto, or may not, that gives the staff to a TRC Sakura. Akata (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think the argument for identifying both characters is straightforward. In any work of fiction we take for evidence that some character is identical to some other character based on the fact that they share the same histories, properties, etc. Therefore in works like 'The Amazing Spiderman' or 'The Spectacular Spiderman' we do not regard the character appearing in both as different, in the sense that both works reference each other, and various storylines in one are continued in the other, etc. So the standard way to interpret the evidence of the connection is to assume that, ceteris paribus, if some evidence points that the character in one fiction has the same background, characteristics of the character in the other then they are both the same. This is clearly the case with Tsubasa, XXXholic and CCS. If we accepted the argument by Collectionan thay they are possibly different characters we should then say the same of the characters which appear in both XXXholic and Tsubasa, like Yuko and Watanuki, perhaps say that those are possibly individuals from another world. But if we examine the evidence impartially without any bias it seems evident that CCS Sakura appears in both Tsubasa and CCS, and therefore that since this article deals with the character all information about that character ought to be available. In the case of R Syaoran's mother and Sakura Kinomoto it appears that they both employ the same magic circle, both are heirs to the legacy of Clow Reed (as stated in XXXholic 164-165), both have a star wand, both have premonitions and both inhabit the same world as Yuko, thus the most reasonable conclusion given the identity of indiscernibles is to suppose them the same character. So Collectionan, in my view, is modifying the article merely based on his desire that the character be different in both works. Either that or he needs to come up with a better argument against the identification, as well as an argument as to why we should interpret evidence differently in the works of CLAMP than in any other work of fiction. Stating that it is logically possible that they are different characters just won't cut it, since that could happen in any other work of fiction or even in real life (for example, it is logically possible that President Bush was replaced by a clone at some point, but it is not plausible, there are no good reasons to alter our interpretations of the evidence that he has not been so replaced). In both cases we interpret the evidence straightforwardly and only modify our attitudes if further information comes to light. So in this case, the onus probandi is on him to show why we shouldn't infer from these works of CLAMP what we would certainly infer in any other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoisesMB (talk • contribs) 14:04, November 17, 2008

Wrong. The onus is on all of the fans to actually provide reliable sources that PROVE their claims these are the exact same characters. They are not by any reliable source. The only "evidence" is fan believes and desires. That doesn't cut it here. Nor does trying to source it to the works, as doing so is, again, purely fan interpretation and therefore WP:OR. That is one of many reasons they have different articles. You want to talk about Tsubasa Sakura, do it in HER article, not the CCS article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. If your argument is sound, then all information on Sakura Kinomoto is fan interpretation as the story of the character has not been directly stated by CLAMP or any reliable source. Again, consider any work of fiction. There is a standard way of interpreting the evidence in a work of fiction. How do you know that the character Shinji in Neon Genesis Evangelion and the character Shinji 'The End of Evangelion' are the same character? How do you know that Oedipus in 'Oedipus Rex' and Oedipus in 'Oedipus at Colonus' and other plays by Sophocles are the same character? Merely by looking at the evidence provided in the work. How do you know that Yuko from XXXholic and Yuko from Tsubasa are the same character? Simply by looking at the evidence provided in the work. There is a standard interpretation of the evidence. If you wish to deviate from that merely because of the logical possibility that Syaoran's mother and Sakura Kinomoto are two different characters sharing an enormous amount of traits and background it won't cut it, since you don't apply those same criteria in your analysis of other works. Just because it is logically possible that the person looking like my dad today, and the person looking like my dad tomorrow are not the same person that does not make it reasonable to suppose them different, I'd need an argument for that. The onus is on you in fact since it is you who is demanding stronger desiderata in the case of the works of CLAMP than in any other work. I and other contributors have already mentioned extensively evidence to establish the connection when the standard interpretation of the evidence is applied. It is you who claims that evidence ought to be interpreted differently than it is standardly (i.e. assuming sameness from background and traits shared in common), and for that you need arguments. Either that, or you should be consistent and erase all information about any fictitious character which has not been directly stated by the creators or any reliable source but inferred from the works. Since that evidence points to the sameness of both Sakuras, and this article is about the character and there is no contradiction in supposing there is a character appearing in different works of fiction (think of Falstaff in Shakespeare's works) then all information about Sakura which can be inferred from other works should be legitimate. Regarding Falstaff, Shakespeare never stated that the same character was in all three works, but we infer that he is by the standard interpretation of the evidence i.e. the same properties and background entail it is the same character. And maybe you might think that literature professors discussing Falstaff are reliable sources, but how so? Since clearly they just inferred the sameness of the character from the evidence presented in the work. So, again, is there an argument for not applying this criteria in the works of CLAMP but not in other works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoisesMB (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but now you're just being silly. NGE's anime is based on the manga. Obviously the same character. Tsubasa and XXXholic are NOT the same work, they are not adapatations of one another, therefore one can not claim that they are the same character, even if they are the same author, without reliable sourcing saying otherwise. Even Clamp themselves have not published anything in any fan book saying "these are the exact same characters." You don't get to decide they are the exact same, only as far as we can see, they are visually similar and are the same basic character design. And sorry, but its not on me to prove the negative, it is on those who want to add unverified information to actually prove it. This is properly noted in this article, nothing else is needed. You seem to again be forgetting that Sakura in CCS and Sakura in Tsubasa have separate articles! There is not a single valid reason for repeating the content of that article here. As the other Sakura article nicely puts it "Her character is similar in looks and personality to her Cardcaptor Sakura counterpart. Tsubasa Chronicle takes on a new story with new histories for each of its characters." They are NOT the same character.

Nor are your arguments making any sense again. These criteria are applied to all works, not just here. I realize you're new, so go read up on a few guidelines before trying to argue that I must prove some fan claims are false rather than the other way around. WP:V and WP:RS are down the hall, along with WP:WAF, WP:OR, and WP:MOS-AM. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Employing ad hominem arguments like stating that 'I'm new' or 'I am just being silly' does not make your case stronger. About your point of CCS and Tsubasa not being the same work. Consider comics, when Spiderman appears in the X-men comic we assume it is the same Spiderman as the one who appears in 'The Amazing Spiderman' unless evidence to the contrary appears, but those are different works. Therefore, being in different works is not a sufficient condition for being different characters. As for my other points I think your ad hominem responses fail to adress my points. How do you know XXXholic's Yuko and Tsubasa's Yuko are the same character? By your argument those are different works, and therefore nothing should be assumed unless reliable sources intervened. I am sorry, but I'd like to see a response point for point. You do not refute an argument by stating your belief or insulting the person, but by showing either that it is invalid if it is deductive (the conclusions do not follow from the premises) or refuting the premises. You have done neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoisesMB (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your newest is a valid point as you obviously lack basic knowledge about Wikipedia editing, our guidelines, and policies. My arguments are based on those guidelines and policies. Yours appear based only on your personal opinion. You aren't even properly signing your posts yet (I've let you a note on your page to help you learn some of these basics). Your arguments are silly as they are a bunch of unrelated things. Shakesphere and X-Men (and FYI, the owners of those series HAVE said they are the same, its proven)? So yes, being different works IS a sufficient reason. And its specifically stated that Yuko is and I believe they have don actual cross overs where in something that happens in one series is concluded in the other. There is none of that in CCS/Tsubasa, rather Tsubasa has been very clearly stated by reliable sources to be an alternate universe version rather than being a cross over. Since you like unrelated comparisons, HLOTS's John Munch is the same John Munch now in L&O: SVU as is established through their having cross over episodes that start in one, end in the other, and reliable sources also state "Munch's character is revived from HLOTS." Your arguments mostly make no sense so they can't be refuted because they are nonsensical and unreadable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there's more than similar characteristics between xxxHolic and Tsubasa. If you read both, where they have crossovers, the scenes mirror each other to the point that the dialogue is the same and the images are the same or mirrored from the other's perspective. This could easily shown as WP:V by taking 1 page scan from both books depicting the same scene, such as the first time meet at Yuko's place. That, if anything, is probably one of the best uses for why Wikipedia wants to have media files; it allows to visually present something that can be hard to understand without visuals.

Is that enough to justify them being the same? No, however, both are considered complimentary by CLAMP, both are considered complimentary by the anime industry who package and promote them as such. They don't do that for other titles by related authors which means that those 2 share closer relation.

Finally with the character deisisng being similar and being done by the same group that should be enough evidence for something of this nature to be shown to be tellings of the same story from a different perspective.Jinnai (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this has gotten silly and vindictive on your part (only ad hominem arguments, etc). So I'll just end on a note of logic just that my position is clear. What you call 'unrelated points' are in fact relevant. The way you establish that some proposition P is sufficient for some proposition Q is by showing that it cannot be the case that P is true and Q is false. You can check the articles on first order logic if you want. In this specific case, think of the Yuko in XXXholic and the Yuko in Tsubasa, you state that it is a sufficient condition for two characters to be different that they are in different works. But Yuko XXXholic and Yuko Tsubasa are in different works (P), and they are the same characters (not-Q). That means that the truth of 'being in different works' does not entail 'difference in characters'. What I did with my example of Spiderman and the X-men is to note that it is not stated for every X-men comic in which Spiderman appears that he is the same character from 'Amazing Spiderman', yet we assume, surely truly, that he is. If what you say that being in different works entails different characters were true, then since that is a conditional assertion then it would follow that it is impossible for a character to be in different works and be the same, i.e. it should have general validity, but clearly there are counter-examples like the above mentioned. Proof:

P1: For all x and y, if x & y are characters in different works, then they are different.

P2: (Follows from Universal Instantiation on P1) Then particularly, if Spiderman from Amazing and Spiderman from Xmen are characters in different works, then they are different.

P3: But they are not different.

C: By modus tollens from P3 it follows that: not-For all x and y, if x & y are characters in different works, then they are different.

By the equivalence of the quantifiers that means only that there is some x and y, such that is it not the case that if they are characters in different works, then they are different.

So it is not really unrelated, rather you are not aware of the logical etailments of your views.

Since P is sufficient for Q iff P entails Q, and P can be true and Q be false, then by the truth table for the 'implication' it is false that P entails Q, and by the 'biconditional' it is false that P is sufficient for Q.

If there are any doubts about the terms of the proof like 'quantifier equivalence' and 'modus tollens', feel free to read the relevant wikipedia articles.--MoisesMB (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoisesMB (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By that definition, Tom Sawyer in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is not in anyway related to Tom Sawyer in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.Jinnai (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh stewardess. I speak logic.

P1 is a straw man. The opponent never stated that $\forall x,y(work(x)\neq work(y)\Rightarrow x\neq y)$. Rather, the statement was more that $\exists x,y(work(x)\neq work(y)\land x\neq y)$. Therefore, the proof falls apart. --Raijinili (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the point here is that all available evidence points to "Syaoran"'s parents being, in fact, Sakura and Syaoran from Cardcaptor Sakura. To end this argument, why don't we note this as such, instead of stating it as fact? (Even though every Clamp fan must, at this point, assume this to be true, it is still possible - though not at all probable - that they may turn out to be from another world only very similar to CCS's, which I think is AnmaFinotera's problem.) --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Tsubasa article, maybe, but it still is not reliably sourced. In this article, which is purely about CCS, there is really no need to go into extensive details/theories about the character's possible roles in that series. Its already mentioned that their designs are reused, with links to those articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an argument that completely falls on deaf ears: I SPLIT THE BLOODY ARTICLE BECAUSE OF TWO DIFFERENT CHARACTERS! Sakura-hime is NOT SYAORAN'S MOTHER as AnmaFinotera is implying (possibly through no intention, but that's what she's implying). If there is going to be an argument over this, then I am going to merge the two articles back together again and let everyone fight amongst themselves. I have better things to be getting on with. Ggctuk (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you will not just merge those two articles back together. Regardless of why you may have split them, the split is appropriate and will be maintained. They are DIFFERENT CHARACTERS from different series, period. And I am NOT implying that Princess Sakura is Syaoran's mother. Obviously Tsubasa has multiple versions of both characters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't detect sarcasm in that (and I have a massive sarcasm detector). HOW ON EARTH can Syaoran be IN LOVE WITH HIS OWN MOTHER??? This is the worst case of denail I have ever seen - if I had a penny for every revert made I'd be a multi-millionaire. Goodbye. Ggctuk (talk)

Actually, that was missing a not in there. Not that a character being in love with his own mother would somehow be hideous or even unusual. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Although I have to agree with you, AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs), that it is not explicitly stated that CCS Sakura and Syaoran's mother are the exact same person, the evidence weighs VERY heavily in that direction. MoisesMB (talk • contribs) makes several valid arguments about the sameness of the two Sakuras. Still, if you are going to argue your point, AnmaFinotera, you might want to bring it up in Princess Sakura's page, CCS Syaoran's page, and Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle)'s page, all in which it is stated that CCS Sakura and Syaoran are TRC Syaoran's parents. Oh, and then there's Watanuki's page and the List of xxxHolic characters, and some others I probably missed. You really want to go through all this (you know it's going to be fought) all those times?

I propose a compromise: State that is is HIGHLY POSSIBLE that CCS Sakura and TRC Syaoran's mother are the same person, based on wand, seal, chapters so and so, etc. PeRiDoTs13 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a deduction is very subjective and the evidence would not necessarily convince all of such. Better to say that there is evidence towards it, such as blah blah blah, and that there's no evidence to the contrary. --Raijinili (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Highly possible != meet WP:V. Not a single reliable source backing up any of these claims have been made, while several sources note that it is an alternate universe series and that they are NOT the exact same characters. Its already mentioned that their character designs are reused in the other series. That's all that needs to be said. Repeating the plot from all those other articles is beyond unnecessary. Let readers draw their own conclusions. And thanks, but I have enough big series I'm trying to clean up at once to even bother with the Tsubasa mess right now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was told once that if a piece of information is not explicitly stated but still very likely and highly relevant, it should still be noted in the article. I don't remember when or where I was told that, but I'll look for it if you'd like. PeRiDoTs13 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rajinili, I appreciate the fact that you examined the argument, I resorted to FOL to clarify a point, since my arguments were just dismissed through ad hominem attacks. In fact, if you read carefully what was said earlier, AnmaFinotera indeed states that 'So yes, being different works IS a sufficient reason', at least as written it suggests that the view being advanced is in fact P1, which you claim to be a straw man. In fact she advanced, as far as I can see, only two points in favor of her claims. The first is the suspicious and unargued claim that the only "evidence" of the connection are the beliefs and desires of the fans, this in spite of the latest contents of both TRC manga and XXXholic manga. As far as I can see the main argument was that TRC and CCS are different works, that suggests to me that she does indeed accept P1 since she never said in what way TRC was different from other works so that the typical criteria for identifying a character, which is not the statement by the author that it is the same character but rather background and sameness of properties, does not apply there. In any case, it is, after all, logically possible that she is right (though obviously, logical possibility is not sufficient for truth). Ironically, I really wish that Sakura Kinomoto did not appear in TRC (if it is true that she actually does appear). I think CCS is a great manga and anime, and should be left as it is, without having its characters appear elsewhere.--MoisesMB (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Its still a great manga, and its characters do not appear anywhere else. The character designs are reused in an alternate universe, however, they themselves are not the same. TRC and xxxHolic are being produced at the same time and, as has already been pointed out by more than just me, has fully and truly established cross overs in which something that starts in one series ends in another, and even using the exact same scenes. There is none of that for TRC and CCS nor, again, is there any reliable sources supporting the claim that the Sakuras and Syaorans (notice there are multiples even) mentioned in TRC are the exact same ones as the ones in CCS. There are reliable sources noting characters from Tokyo Babylon reappear in X without relying purely on fan interpretation of the manga panels. So, again, if it is true that CCS Sakura, the exact same character with the same history, background, personality, etc, appears in TRC, where is the REAL reliable source, not interpretation and presumption of the plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if you read carefully what was said earlier, AnmaFinotera indeed states that 'So yes, being different works IS a sufficient reason', at least as written it suggests that the view being advanced is in fact P1, which you claim to be a straw man.

It's very important what it's a reason for. Your claim is that what she said amounts to P1, which is to say that being in different works implies that the characters are different. On the other hand, AnmaFinotera's claim was closer to saying that it was a reason to not include the statement "Tsubasa(Sakura)=CCS(Sakura)" in the article, and this claim can't be stated in first-order logic because it has subjective quantifiers. Also, your statement P1 is not equivalent enough to the original statement to be used as you used it in your proof because her statement was not made as a universal statement, and thus can't be disproven using a counterexample. Therefore, your proof used a straw man because her original claim would not have worked in the proof.

The first is the suspicious and unargued claim that the only "evidence" of the connection are the beliefs and desires of the fans, this in spite of the latest contents of both TRC manga and XXXholic manga.

Evidence is another thing which is subjective. But that's besides the point. Given evidence, making a conclusion and putting that conclusion on the encyclopedia is classified as WP:OR (actually, one of the most common types of cases of OR, and thus subject to be removed after a challenge if the conclusion can't be cited.

--Raijinili (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I get your argument and I think it better than what was said earlier. However, I am aware that TRC reuses character designs and also I am not arguing that Princess Sakura, the heroine(s) of TRC is the same character as Sakura Kinomoto, there is absolutely no evidence for that. I am arguing rather for the claim that Sakura Kinomoto is the mother of the real Syaoran, something which is supported by the writing in both XXXholic and Tsubasa, as for instance when Yuko speaks of the star wand relinquished by the true heir of Clow's legacy, or when Sakura Kinomoto's magic circle appears to protect Syaoran from Fei Wong Reed. But it is very difficult to agree on this. You back your claims with the guidelines which is a valid point, nevertheless you must be aware that not every fact in fiction is stated in reliable sources and much is interpreted and inferred by the readers employing ordinary criteria for assesing works of fiction. That has been my point throughout the whole debate. But I will leave it at that. At least we had the chance to present our arguments and the latest arguments have been civil, which is good.--MoisesMB (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it might be better to put it in a wikia and link the wikia from this page. If you look at a feature character article like Batman you don't see anything that the readers consture for themselves. You could link those pages and site the possibility of some kind of relation with her at most, however by WP:V standards, even that is hard to prove; it's easier to prove a link with Clow Reed than with Sakura.Jinnai (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Except Wikia links violate WP:EL. (though agree, it is the sort of content you'd find there). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as long as the wiki is fairly stable, has a decent level of editors, and is sourced, it can be sourced from what that article says.Jinnai (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It can't be used as a source, ever (no self-published are RS :P), and the CCS wikia does not meet any of the criteria (like most wikia). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

True, it isn't that stable. Point is, if it ever was, it could be, as long as it was referenced, which also is rarely done, but I have seen some wikias do that.Jinnai (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:ELNO #12, if the wiki has a substantial history of stability and large number of editors, it can be used as a reference. CCS wikia obviously doesn't meet those criteria, but as Jinnai said, if it ever did.... PeRiDoTs13 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe to confirm or blow out of the water whether this is CCS Sakura or not, we actually need her, and the Sakura Cards, possibly Yue and Kero too, to appear in TRC/xxxHolic. Something CLAMP hints so heavily at. 213.166.17.13 (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure at this time, but the new proposed guidelines of WP:FICT could affect this.Jinnai (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Redux

I moved all TRC info to List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle characters page, where it belongs. Ggctuk (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And this will continue to be undone. You are now bordering on disruptive vandalism. Per the MoS, the "Appearances in other media" section is perfectly appropriate and was already rewritten to be a summary format. Stop trying to delete it just because you can't get your way about having excessive details about the other series here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah, sorry to burst the bubble. Sakura Kinomoto herself appears DIRECTLY unmasked, handing the star wand to an older Sakura (wtf btw?) in chapter 217. 90.196.33.232 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, she doesn't. A character named Sakura appears. Unless it is explicitly said "from Cardcaptor Sakura" it is still just another alternative world version. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Two alternative world versions appearing right in front of each other, one who speaks of Sakura Cards and hands a star wand to the adult Sakura... what are the odds? Any case, I edited the article to reflect this, but I really think it should be moved now it is no longer needed here. Ggctuk (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How many Syaorans have there been in that series now? How many Sakuras? Just because you want to believe its actually the CCS Sakura this time does NOT make it so. Once again, attempts to fluff up this article with excessive detail from Tsubasa have been reversed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a game of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" right? We can't say she is, then we can't say she isn't when that is stated? That's double standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggctuk (talk • contribs) 13:36, March 31, 2009

No, its a game of verifiable content, not just your presumptions, assumptions, guesses, etc. Unless it says specifically "This is the exact same Sakura from Cardcaptor Sakura" then all that can be said is the same character design is used and it is not known if it is the same or not because it isn't. All that is known is that some fans thing it is, which is WP:OR and not appropriate content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera you are completely wrong. According to your thinking, Tsubasa and Holic take place in different worlds. Syaoran from Tsubasa in not the Syaoran that appears in Holic, as well as Yuko, Watanuki, Kurogane, Fay, Mokona and so on, because it was never stated that those are the same persons. So why don't go that page and edit that too?

There is only one person with the Star Wand: it's Sakura Kinomoto. This was stated by CLAMP themselves through Clow Reed's words, since he designed the wand. Sakura appeared in Tsubasa with the Star Wand, with the same uniform she wore in chapter 50 of CCS. That's her. --Exephyo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Clamp themselves have, in fact, said that while Tsubasa and xxxHolic are crossing over, the characters of Syaoran and Sakura are NOT the ones from CCS. Claiming "clow Reed" said he is the same one because he designed the wand is neither a reliable source nor a fact, its an in-universe statement valid only for the context of that series. Again, unless any character explicitly said "I'm from Cardcaptor Sakura" or CLAMP themselves reverses their own remarks, they will continue to be considered separate entities and treated as such. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As for Tsubasa and xxxHoLic having any remote chance of being incredibly similar alternate happenings, the Caracterè Guides, which are written out-of-universe, state that they are the same happenings from different characters' perspectives.

For the Sakura that appears in Chapitre.217, she also states that she is with personified cards. Sounds pretty likely that it is the Sakura from CCS to me, although hopefully an interview or another Caracterè Guide soon will provide official notice on this. Although as for multiple appearances of the same characters or different characters which can be determined from in-universe evidence, we do have some precedent as having seperate articles for Jack Harkness and the Face of Boe. Akata (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sakura's profile

I was just wondering shouldn't sakura have a relationship part in her profile? its a big part of the series 87.38.218.2 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as most relationship sections are magnets for original research and some editors' points of view. —Farix (t | c) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

True but it does seem to be on most other characters pages 87.38.218.2 (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are other character articles that have relationship sections doesn't mean that they is appropriate to begin with. Most of those character articles more than likely wouldn't pass the inclusion guidelines in the first place and should be merged into a character list. —Farix (t | c) 12:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ashley

sex sakrua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.157.101 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sakura's pansexuality

I have removed this from the article and the subject lists as this information was mainly based on pulling a number of facts out of context. Firstly, her "crush" on the teacher was due to her magical aura, and like with Syaoran's crush on Yukito, was never seen as a real love interest. Secondly, CLAMP never called her pansexual in interviews, this is an original study based on a source. They were asked a question implying that the show is centered on a heterosexual couple due to heteronormatism, especially given the writers' past gay work. To which they replied that Sakura and Syaoran are bound by fate and meant for each other, so they would be together even if he was a girl. This doesn't make her bisexual, it just explains why the straight relationship between the characters isn't an attempt to somehow tie it into homophobic stereotypes. I won’t even talk about attempts to declare her pansexual on the basis that she does not have transphobic or homophobic stereotypes. And thirdly, all of her canon love interests were male, we were even specifically told that her love for Tomoyo is different from her love for Yukito and Syaoran (accordingly, it does not appear in the show in any way). I don't see the point here of promoting her as a queer character unless you want to at least formally define her as such. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)