I am talking almost exclusively about the word used, Tobimisa. I am saying that with that term, it states that the person has strong feelings of love but it does not necessarily state these feelings are romantic. You can have strong feelings of love for someone that you aren't in love with, which is why I brought up close friends and family. That is all I meant. The word USED suggests selfless and strong attachment that is not inherently linked to feelings of desiring someone (but can be, which is why I'm not excluding the possiblity). It doesn't matter at all how that love is interpreted by others, that is the connotations it has.
At the moment right now you are arguing that the text is implying Bruno's feelings are romantic because it doesn't explicitly say they aren't. And I don't buy that at all. That's not good argument form. There could be a number of reasons mothy put it the way he did, including the fact that they had a master/servant relationship for much of the time they knew each other. He likens his feelings for Gallerian to the feelings that Allen had for Riliane.
Let me put this another way. Clarith and Michaela both use the term "aisuru" to explain how they feel for each other. I am not arguing that their feelings "may have been platonic" because we have Clarith saying that she's not attracted to men, she gets noticeably jealous of Kyle, proposes to Michaela while drunk, and the two of them french kiss later in the story (granted for a specific purpose but that's still not something you do with a platonic friend), and Michaela clearly returns Clarith's feelings. If I felt like there was anything that actually suggested the same for Bruno I would be more open to outright saying that's how his feelings went.
It's not something I'm arguing strongly against but to say "Bruno's feelings could be interpreted as romantic" on his article feels less like a statement of the facts of the text and more "some fans see it this way". Bruno has expressed no desire to be with Gallerian as anything but a friend within the story. And it's not the article's job to list ways the text could be interpreted, it's its job to list what actually is. Hence the contention lately with trivia that says "it could be inspired by X".
Again--not trying to write a manifesto or anything but I want to make sure I'm clear with what I'm saying.