Talk:Gustaf

Gustaf....king? Well He's not the first king unless he's the Ocarina's Zelda's fathe considering the civil war was unified by the Ocarina's king. reference by the hero of time's origin told by the new deku tree --Legend 03:12, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

---

Hrm... Maybe we should make a category for characters like Gustaf, Spookter, and Spekter, kind of like "Spirits" or "Ghosts", as a subcategory of "People". Would that be overdoing it? Just a suggestion. Dinosaur bob 09:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

No that's a pretty good idea since many characters are spirits or ghosts.--Green 10:05, 6 November 2007 (EST)

So how would one go about creating a category? I don't think I've ever gone over how to do that yet... Dinosaur bob 10:24, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Just decide on a name for it, and add that category tag to all the pages you wanna include. --Adam 13:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Just wondering, would such a category only cover ghosts, or also be used for just anything that's dead (like stalfos indivuals).IfIHaveTo 14:46, 6

November 2007 (EST)

If it were titled Undead, that should be broad enough to include all possible entities. --Adam 15:53, 6 November 2007 (EST)

All righty, I'll get 'er up! Dinosaur bob 15:56, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Now I could use some help making sure I don't miss any. Getting Captain Keeta or Skull Keeta or whatever we're calling him these days next.Dinosaur bob 15:59, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Timeline Significance

Christopher, it is speculative because it assumes that Hyrule was created just before OoT. I removed it because it relies on a theory which you made based on this quote. "Some time ago, before the King of Hyrule unified this country". However, as you would notice, no were does it state Hyrule was actually created just decades ago. The King of Hyrule unified Hyrule,

yes. But that does not imply the creation of Hyrule. Its equally likely that the King already was king of Hyrule when he unified Hyrule, bringing an end to war, which this quote seem to imply.

Also, as told by Lanaryu in Twilight Princess, Hyrule existed long before there ever was any wars in Hyrule. "The lands where the goddesses descended came to be known as the Sacred Realm. For ages, the people lived at ease, content in mind and body… But soon, word of the Sacred Realm spread through Hyrule, and a great battle ensued" As you see, Hyrule was not created after a long war. It existed way before then.

I suggest that we either put this 'Timeline Significance' under a Theory Warning or just remove it seeing how insufficient it is.

Sorry that it does not agree with your theory, but the facts are the facts. It's very very sufficient as it has quotes to prove it. Link87 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I never once said "creation", I said "as a kingdom", so that argument you make is invalid.Link87 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The King of Hyrule could equally likely have been King before he unified Hyrule, as the quote seem to imply. No were does it that 'Hyrule then became a kingdom' either so it is still speculation at best. Unification does not mean becoming a kingdom. That you refer your own theory as a fact is staggering. Nerushi 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry once again, but you are trying to protect your own theory against actual facts. Let's put two and two together:

1. Hyrule is unified into the kingdom it would become around the time of Link's birth in Ocarina of Time. (This is a fact)
2. In The Minish Cap, King Gustaf states that he "ruled" Hyrule "countless ages ago". (Again, this is a fact)

Therefore, you cannot have Hyrule being established as a kingdom just shortly before Ocarina of Time and having existed for generations in The Minish Cap without The Minish Cap occurring LONG after the foundation of Hyrule as a kingdom. Sorry, but there's just a major contradiction in your theory. This is not a theory, these are facts, and never once do I say they are official, I say they "cast doubt". So sorry, but I just don't see your view here. I find it "staggering" that you continue to defend a point of view that has clear evidence against it and that makes no claim to official status. Link87 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But it is not a fact that Hyrule was established as a kingdom just 'decades' before OoT. That is something you completely made up based on a single quote refering mentioning unified This has absolutely nothing to do with me defending any theory, as much as it is making you realize that you are just forcing your own interpretation on everyone by falsely labeling them as facts. Nerushi 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is, it's stated by the Deku Tree Sprout, and Link was born shortly before that time. The quote is there, and to say that I "made it up" is a blatant and heinous lie. He was around 10 years old in Ocarina of Time, therefore it can be generalized that Hyrule has only been an established kingdom for about the same length of time. I am "forcing" nothing, I am casting doubt upon your preferred theory and rightfully so apparently. It is you that is trying to bolster a theory here, not I. I am merely pointing out some valid discrepancies in your theory. Please understand that I respect everyone's theories and understand that not all people are going to agree, even when faced with valid evidence to the contrary apparently. Sorry that these facts do not agree with your theory, but you cannot say that I am "making things up" or that I am "forcing" anything upon everyone else. I'm merely pointing out the fallacies in the idea that TMC precedes OoT. I have stated that these facts "cast doubt" upon your theory, not that they dictate that it is false. For you to try to depict otherwise only discredits your cause. Link87 18:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't you pointing out any discrepancies in any theory, particulary not mine, since I haven't suggested any. And it is not rightfully so, as you would have noticed if it weren't for you begin completely full of your so called theory, "the kingdom of Hyrule is confirmed to have only been established for about a decade at the time of Ocarina of Time" Just HOW is this confirmed? It just a theory based on this quote. "Some time ago, before the King of Hyrule unified this country" This, in no way whatsoever confirms anything regarding Hyrule actually being established at all. If anything, the quote seem to say that Hyrule already was established as kingdom seeing how it is implied that the King was King before he unified Hyrule. Your so called fact is just speculation, a theory among many, but it is anything but a fact. Nerushi 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are only trying to shift conversation away from the point here: no claims are made, two very valid quotes are pointed out, and it does not constitute a theory. This only casts doubt upon a theory that I've seen that you support, and that's really the only reason you're making any kind of stink here is because it does create a problem for your timeline theory. The "kingdom of Hyrule" (meaning the entity that governs the entire country) was established around the time of Link's birth in Ocarina of Time, that is made clear by the Deku Tree Sprout. Whether or not the king ruled his tribe before that is moot because he did not rule all of Hyrule obviously prior to the war. This discussion is closed, I will not waste time debating with someone who is unwilling to accept that there could be problems with their theory. I appreciate your passion in defending your theory, but this discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned. This is not a forum either, so I suggest if you have any further questions to take them there. Link87 19:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well look at who is trying to shift the conversation here.

"the kingdom of Hyrule is confirmed to have only been established for about a decade at the time of Ocarina of Time"

This is a claim, and it is not justified by any quote or source by either Ocarina of Time or a developer. However, you interpretated another quote as saying this, while it in fact doesn't even nearly resemble that. So there, you should rightfully remove your "claim" that it is "confirmed" or else maybe I could do you and everyone else that favor.Nerushi 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is you making a claim in your timeline theory and protesting anyone that presents evidence to the contrary. You should withdraw your unwarranted words and accept that there could be potential pitfalls to your point of view. When quotes are presented and it is made clear that no claims are made one way or the other, the information is considered suitable for mentioning on a page according to certain staff members I have worked with in the past. Link87 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DUDES! Let's chillax, here. It is speculation somewhat because interpretations can be different, but it's worth keeping. It just needs:

1. A little rewording
2. A {{Theory}} tag

So let's just all relax and think of how to rewrite it so that it describes the theory and doesn't state it as a fact.—Justin^(Talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This page has been locked to prevent further un-constructive edit warring. Chris, your history regarding causing issues and counter-productive edits is very very bad. If you continue, I will temporarily block you. I suggest you just give it a rest now before we get involved with a messy banUser:Mandi/sig 19:29, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mandi I have returned at the request of other staff members, and if such action was taken against me without warrant, I would permanently leave this site as I have a lot of other things I can do besides trying to help this site get what others don't. And with all due respect, you as administrator are supposed to be unbiased in these situation and address both people involved, which is not a good practice. Considering the past history you have with this issue though, it's not unexpected. I have done nothing to merit a ban, I put the information where it was supposed to be, with tags and with quotes. There is no reason for its removal. If the information is not restored (as it met requirements), I will seek action from more unbiased staffers. Link87 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've come up with a more neutral version of the theory. Take a look here to see it.—Justin^(Talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it, and the only change I would request is the last bit about "concrete proof" because the king's words are a sort of proof. I would say that his words are "disputable", that is a good way of putting it, but it would be untrue to say there's no "concrete proof" at least to me. The rest I am very much supportive of. Also, the page protection, once all is settled, should be lifted before it's forgotten to be done. Link87 19:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection will expire tomorrow, which I think would be best so no one attacks the page. In response to the bit about concrete proof, it's the view of the people who see TMC as the first in the timeline. I didn't say it as a fact, but as an opinion of those people :P—Justin^(Talk) 20:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not looking for another debate here, I just wanted to add that regarding my debate with Link87, it wasn't the Kings word in TMC that was argued. The Hyrule being -established as a Kingdom- part just prior to OoT was, however. Since all it says is that Hyrule was unified, which could means a dozen of things, and is completely up to individual interpretation of it. And since there are other sources indicating that Hyrule existed way before OoT, which were nicely ignored, there certainly never was anything concrete about it.Nerushi 21:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)ë

And I say you don't want to admit what the Deku Tree Sprout all but confirmed, that Hyrule was united into one nation shortly before OoT, and you conveniently try to evade this by trying to weasel out of it. Sorry but I definitely see concrete evidence to disprove talk of TMC preceding OoT. Notice first you attack with a "creation" argument and then when that fell apart you try to twist the sprout's words to suit your argument. Sorry but that has no credibility with me. Link87 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's this quote from the Deku Tree Sprout that was just mentioned:

	Some time ago, before the King of Hyrule unified this country, there was a fierce war in our world.
— Deku Tree Sprout

I'm not so sure you can solidly pin that as one way or the other. It doesn't specifically say that Hyrule didn't exist before this "unification". Texas is a good example. Texas was its own country, bigger in terms of land area than several European nations. And it in a sense united with the United States. This unification made the whole nation bigger, but it was still the United States and it existed beforehand. To me the quote seems to imply this is the case. That Hyrule itself as a nation already existed, it was merely increased in size at this war by uniting the other three tribes together. But Hyrule was still Hyrule. User:Matt/sig 23:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hyrule was not a unified country until after the war. That is EStablished by the sprout. Link87

A Better example would be Germany. Prior to 1871, Germany was a geographical expression. People would use "Germany" to refer to places like Bavaria and Prussia, even though those were separate countries. In 1871, Germany was unified. Then, in 1945, it was divided again, only to be reunified in 1990. In the Template:LOZ manual, we have references to Hyrule being a relatively small kingdom, whereas in other games, it's a huge empire with provinces, like Twilight Princess. The war was when the country was unified, but this does not mean that it did not exist prior to that. Ganondorfdude11 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for TMC preceding OoT, Eiji Aonuma said that Four Swords was the "oldest tale" in the timeline. Because TMC is the prequel to Four Swords, wouldn't that make it even earlier? Bill Trinen, the localizer for the American version, also said that TMC was the origin story for Link's hat. Ganondorfdude11 00:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this has never been about Hyrule "existing" as a physical entity, this is about the "government" of Hyrule existing, the government that is headed by the Royal Family of Hyrule was established as a result of the war. Gustaf states that he headed said government "countless ages ago", leaving little to no chance that TMC can possibly precede Ocarina. Actually, Aenouma recanted that as well as a mistake and both he and Miyamoto confirmed some time ago that Ocarina is the first. This information about King Gustaf further reveals why Aenouma recanted his error. Hyrule existed as a continent but not a country under a single government. That took place shortly before Ocarina, as revealed by the sprout. There is no disputing that, it's stated by the spout expressly. And no, TMC is not the origin tale for Link's hat, that would again be Ocarina, where it was Kokiri tradition adhered to by the Hero of Time. TMC merely starts Link out with no hat so that Ezlo could fill its place. Link87 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh they did? You have the link to that by any chance, I'm kinda interested int he whole TMC placement thing.User:Steven/sig 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was on this wiki at one point, so why don't you go look it up yourself, b/c I don't keep a link to everything I read on here. Go read the releases for the game and you'll likely find it there. There have been several instances where they have contradicted themselves, that's common knowledge. Ultimately, Miyamoto is the sole decider on the continuity of the series, and his version of events state Ocarina to be the origin story of the series. Aenouma was not always part of the Zelda franchise. As for the hat, neither Twilight Princess nor The Wind Waker make any mention of Ezlo as part of the legend of the Hero's Tunic, rather they all refer back to the Hero of Time, who wore it as part of Kokiri tradition. Link87 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Eiji Aonuma never recanted what he said about Four Swords. I don't know where you heard that, but it's not true. is Aonuma's statement about Four Swords, and is Bill Trinen's statement about TMC. Eiji Aonuma has been an important part of the Zelda series for over ten years now. He's the one who directs the games now, Miyamoto just produces them. Yes, Miyamoto and Aonuma said that OoT was first, but that was back in 1998, long before TMC came out. About the government never having existed before OoT, the sprout says that the king unified the country, not that the government did not exist before then. Back to the Germany analogy, the House of Hohenzollern existed from as far back as the seventeenth century, and then ruled Germany after it was unified in 1871. Couldn't a similar situation have occurred with the Royal Family? Ganondorfdude11 01:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Kokiri tradition" is a bit of a fanon explanation as for the green clothes. Recall that not all of the Links wear the tunic because of the Hero of Time. Only TWW Link does. In TP, the tunic is given to him because he is the legendary hero, and in ST it's the guards' uniform. The tunic is tied to the hero by fate, so OoT Link does not have to be the first to have worn it. However, we can point to TMC as a definite origin point for the cap. We see a hero in the stained-glass windows who looks identical to Link, but is not wearing a cap. To say that this is not significant is ignoring all of the evidence present in the game.Ganondorfdude11 01:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, yes he did recant it later on GD11 if you cared to search for it. He later admitted error in that assessment, and Miyamoto never endorsed that statement either. Miyamoto is the final say and has been there from Day 1, not merely half of its existence like Aenouma. Aenouma has contradicted himself more than once, and this was one of those instances. So I do not go by said statement. I go by what Miyamoto has endorsed, and that's the opposite. And no, there was no central government that headed all of Hyrule before the war according to the sprout. That was the reason for the war in case you hadn't noticed. The Royal Family may have led their tribe, but did not rule over all of Hyrule obviously prior to the war.

And wrong, TP Link is given the clothing of the Hero of Time. That's not difficult to see. The Master Sword right where he left it, his bow left in the hands of the Gorons, and his tunic left in the hands of the spirits. And what's more, Kokiri tradition is anything but "fanon", while suggesting that TMC is the origin of Link's hat is certainly fanon. Link87 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I did care to search for it, and cannot find a recantation. Eiji Aonuma said that Four Swords is the oldest game in the timeline, and TMC is obviously earlier than that. Eiji Aonuma is the man who did such things as confirm the split timeline. I think he is generally reliable in matters such as this. Provide the quote where he recants this. We have two developers supporting an early placement for TMC. Miyamoto's quote about OoT being the earliest is from 1998, not 2004 like these two. When we have a game like TMC clearly putting forth the origin of Link's hat, and have developers saying that it is the origin of Link's hat, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it is the origin of Link's hat? OoT makes no effort to show the origins of Link's clothes like TMC does. Link begins the game without the hat, and does not receive it until the very end of the game. Link's predecessor is shown to act and appear very much like him, but is never shown wearing the hat. OoT Link has the hat from the beginning, and no explanation is given as to why he is wearing it, unlike in TMC.Ganondorfdude11 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The country is also much older than just ten years. There is evidence even in OoT for this. King Zora is the sixteenth in his family line, and the Zora are described as longtime allies of the Royal Family of Hyrule. At the very least, the political union of the Zoras and the Hylians has existed for way more than just ten years. We know from Lanayru that the land of Hyrule itself is ancient. The unification referred to by the Deku sprout was probably the unification of the other races with the pre-existing Zora-Hylian alliance. This does not mean that the kingdom of Hyrule was suddenly created, or else how could an alliance have existed for sixteen generations before the war? Ganondorfdude11 01:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw it a couple years ago. I don't know what the precise statement was, but he did recant that statement. Miyamoto is the final say on all matters, not his subordinates. Heck, Aneouma said TWW occurred a hundred years after Ocarina, and in the game the king makes clear that it's been "countless centuries" since the Great Flood. Aenouma has contradicted the material of the games more than once before, and he's even acknowledged this in the past. The material presented in the games also precludes his statements, as they have been so varied and unstable. And once again, no other games reference Ezlo that are the major parts of the series such as TWW or TP, they refer back to the Hero of Time. And his hat was based upon Kokiri tradition. Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree there and discussion closed. For my part however, Gustaf's statement certainly shows that TMC is not even close to being near the beginning of the series, as "countless ages" is certainly not "early". Link87 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Current wording

Just a simple yes or no? Is the current wording of the section good enough for all factions? There's no point in arguing interpretations bc we aren't likely to all agree on much thanks to cryptic in-game statements. As long as we avoid any definite statements, theories can be presently neutrally with few problems. User:Axiomist/sig 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with its present wording, yes. Link87 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)