Forum:Discussion over theories section

Well i'm sure this is most controversial subject to those who like the theory sections and to those who think it's out of place (probably not much who enjoy the freedom of wikia to actually have more sections based out of themselves).

So i'll just get to the point, i believe the theory sections are unecessary and rather out of place compared to everything else i've seen before in most wikias.

Reason #1: they're fan-based, and not even recognized by third party. Now i know this isn't wikipedia, but this is definitely a danger of being "hear-say" scenario. a number of fans talking as if a larger group of fans have been saying this and most commonly accepted only to promote the theories. And i may not be the BIGGEST fan, but i have been around in forums to know which theories are made up of 1 or 2 threads and some of these don't seem that great nor hold much ground.

Reason #2: Some of the theories have already been proven false/correct per information already introduced to us outside of the games, such as manga or interviews and sometimes even within the games. It seems a bit of a waste to show this theories when we can show real world information out there. Also it appears to be "asssumed" that the mangas are non-canonical just because some events were altered. That happens alot in various series, yet still considered canon when it comes to key features. But there are enough information that prove some universally correct to not even state it as a theory or clearly wrong to give it any ground.


 * let's start off with the ones that are correct: Navi (some will recognize this example) being in-love with link. that isn't really a theory, though yes confirmed through outside the game shouldn't be treated as such. the same with the next theory of navi being the friend link was initially looking for. Confirmed through nintendo guide and yet again a manga.


 * now for the ones that are incorrect regardless of who's saying it (the so-called fan). in the timeline article, the one and only theory is "It's just a legend theory" though yes, various games in the past resemble eachother, and have various similarities, it's been confirmed indirectly that they aren't by having different incarnations of link, zelda, and ganon/dorf along with a large group of games having a big difference in storyline. this one is clearly without a doubt incorrect. And obviously with windwaker into the mix this makes it a a number of legends being told by another set of legends. theory paradox is what it is. Another is Darklink's origin being disproven from within the theory.

Reasons #2.5: Now that i talked about the ones that are unanimously correct and incorrect, there are now theories that hold no ground to be even considered true, yet nothing contradicting them. these theories are done most likely on a whim yet, not specific enough to be wrong. Now some would believe these are the most accepted form of theories this wiki can possibly have. But this is where i disagree. because these theories aren't strong at all. Pure imagination yet seemingly looked for loopholes to not contradict much (or possibly just made vague as possible). I'll give the example of Majora all of those theories are all open water.

Reason #3: these are the things that make almost half of the wiki (if not more) runned by fan theories. some of these theories don't even try to sound as convincing. "some fans say this" "some fans use this as evidence". the articles such as majora are more inclined to share theories of it than state the facts.

Overall: there are too many thoeries out there, some even have there own article (such as multi-ganon which isn't that bad, but to have it's own article is pushing it) and single link. And to give a warning for User-oriented information? the "zeldapedia" is really pushing it. it's more and more closer to "zeldapedia of speculation"

How to fix it: well obviously some are more in-tune with keeping theories anyways per informing (not really). but the main problem i see with this is that the theories are loosely associated trivia and adding a conclusion to it all. Which is what i see lacking....trivia sections, the more broader form of theories without the conclusion yet allow facts are commonly accepted information. this will weed out the "complete fan-oriented" from the "series-oriented" information. Share your thoughts. just to be civil, i do believe some will agree some (if not all) with what i've said.Ilaria Mask (talk) 11:57, August 29, 2011 (UTC)