PhantomCaleb (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(→top: Mass Sig Updates - Round 4) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This is epic. But maybe the OoA image needs... I dunno, something better? Maybe it should show two very miniature maps of actual Labrynna, where better details can be seen. -[[User: |
+ | This is epic. But maybe the OoA image needs... I dunno, something better? Maybe it should show two very miniature maps of actual Labrynna, where better details can be seen. -[[User:Midoro|The Goron Moron]] 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
This page probably needs to be deleted entirely. Aside from being utterly unsubstantiated (and certainly not more than dozens of other theories which do not have their own pages), Spirit Tracks debunks this as the basis of Hyrule after TWW. And besides, this article has ALWAYS been in need of some neutrality, it was written with some blatant biases that don't acknowledge counterpoints. I've done a little bit as a temporary measure. --[[User:Impossible|Impossible]] 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
This page probably needs to be deleted entirely. Aside from being utterly unsubstantiated (and certainly not more than dozens of other theories which do not have their own pages), Spirit Tracks debunks this as the basis of Hyrule after TWW. And besides, this article has ALWAYS been in need of some neutrality, it was written with some blatant biases that don't acknowledge counterpoints. I've done a little bit as a temporary measure. --[[User:Impossible|Impossible]] 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Adding a disclaimer that this is no longer a popular/supported theory and keeping it as an archival example would be best I think. [[User:PureLocke|PureLocke]] 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
+ | :Adding a disclaimer that this is no longer a popular/supported theory and keeping it as an archival example would be best I think. [[User:PureLocke@legacy41961787|PureLocke]] 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
So people will still edit the page to avoid pointing out its pointlessness, but nobody will acknowledge that this is no longer a relevant, major or popular theory? It simply should not have its own article. It's not a significant point of content, not even compared to numerous other arguments and theories that do not have their own articles. Can we have any kind of reasonable discussion about what to do with it, or just delete it entirely? --[[User:Impossible|Impossible]] 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
So people will still edit the page to avoid pointing out its pointlessness, but nobody will acknowledge that this is no longer a relevant, major or popular theory? It simply should not have its own article. It's not a significant point of content, not even compared to numerous other arguments and theories that do not have their own articles. Can we have any kind of reasonable discussion about what to do with it, or just delete it entirely? --[[User:Impossible|Impossible]] 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:Yes, this theory is definitely disproved. Still, I would propose that we remove it from the timeline template (along with the Oracle confusion) and keep it by changing the intro a bit. We can mention the reason for which it was proposed and of course that it's not valid anymore (basically it had been invalidated since the release of Spirit Tracks, but anyway). [[User:Zeldafan1982|Zeldafan1982]] 20:49, 28 January 2012 (EST) |
:Yes, this theory is definitely disproved. Still, I would propose that we remove it from the timeline template (along with the Oracle confusion) and keep it by changing the intro a bit. We can mention the reason for which it was proposed and of course that it's not valid anymore (basically it had been invalidated since the release of Spirit Tracks, but anyway). [[User:Zeldafan1982|Zeldafan1982]] 20:49, 28 January 2012 (EST) |
||
| − | I think we should keep it, we can make it clear that it was disproven. Its also an interesting theory, and can we have that its disproven maybe an image or a link, because if this is deleted Hyrule Historia is dead to me for destroying a cool theory! [[User:XXSuperXXNintendoXx|XXSuperXXNintendoXx]] 20:15, 29 January 2012 (EST) |
+ | I think we should keep it, we can make it clear that it was disproven. Its also an interesting theory, and can we have that its disproven maybe an image or a link, because if this is deleted Hyrule Historia is dead to me for destroying a cool theory! [[User:XXSuperXXNintendoXx@legacy41963859|XXSuperXXNintendoXx]] 20:15, 29 January 2012 (EST) |
| − | :I was thinking we could condense all disproved theories such as this one into one page, which we could call |
+ | :I was thinking we could condense all disproved theories such as this one into one page, which we could call Disproved Theories or perhaps as a subsection of Timeline Theories or History of the Zelda Timeline. These theories have had notable community support in the past regardless of whether they are now disproved; they should be kept for historical reasons. This way everything else remains totally factual. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 16:49, 2 February 2012 (EST) |
| + | |||
| + | :: That sounds like a good idea. I would vote for it--Link, the Hero of Light 17:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT) |
||
Latest revision as of 20:04, 13 August 2022
This is epic. But maybe the OoA image needs... I dunno, something better? Maybe it should show two very miniature maps of actual Labrynna, where better details can be seen. -The Goron Moron 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This page probably needs to be deleted entirely. Aside from being utterly unsubstantiated (and certainly not more than dozens of other theories which do not have their own pages), Spirit Tracks debunks this as the basis of Hyrule after TWW. And besides, this article has ALWAYS been in need of some neutrality, it was written with some blatant biases that don't acknowledge counterpoints. I've done a little bit as a temporary measure. --Impossible 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Adding a disclaimer that this is no longer a popular/supported theory and keeping it as an archival example would be best I think. PureLocke 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So people will still edit the page to avoid pointing out its pointlessness, but nobody will acknowledge that this is no longer a relevant, major or popular theory? It simply should not have its own article. It's not a significant point of content, not even compared to numerous other arguments and theories that do not have their own articles. Can we have any kind of reasonable discussion about what to do with it, or just delete it entirely? --Impossible 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hyrule Historia completely disproves this theory. It should definitely be deleted. Ganondorfdude11 20:32, 28 January 2012 (EST)
- Yes, this theory is definitely disproved. Still, I would propose that we remove it from the timeline template (along with the Oracle confusion) and keep it by changing the intro a bit. We can mention the reason for which it was proposed and of course that it's not valid anymore (basically it had been invalidated since the release of Spirit Tracks, but anyway). Zeldafan1982 20:49, 28 January 2012 (EST)
I think we should keep it, we can make it clear that it was disproven. Its also an interesting theory, and can we have that its disproven maybe an image or a link, because if this is deleted Hyrule Historia is dead to me for destroying a cool theory! XXSuperXXNintendoXx 20:15, 29 January 2012 (EST)
- I was thinking we could condense all disproved theories such as this one into one page, which we could call Disproved Theories or perhaps as a subsection of Timeline Theories or History of the Zelda Timeline. These theories have had notable community support in the past regardless of whether they are now disproved; they should be kept for historical reasons. This way everything else remains totally factual. — Hylian King [*] 16:49, 2 February 2012 (EST)
- That sounds like a good idea. I would vote for it--Link, the Hero of Light 17:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)