Zelda Wiki

Want to contribute to this wiki?
Sign up for an account, and get started!

Come join the Zelda Wiki community Discord server!


Zelda Wiki


Hi there, Champion of Nayru, and welcome to Zelda Wiki! Why not check out the community hub? To find out what's been going on recently at the wiki and what articles users are editing right now, head to the Recent Changes. For general wiki-related discussion and questions, head over to the Discussion Center. Also, for wiki usage and policy help, check out our Help Guide. We hope you enjoy the wiki. Thanks!
— The Zelda Wiki Staff

-- TheStoneWatcher (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing trivia

I'd like to ask for you to please stop removing trivia bullets, as you did here. We have not yet reached a consensus as to what we should do with the trivia sections, so you're sort of jumping the gun, here. If you could hold off on this until we reach a consensus, we would appreciate it. As is, I'm replacing the trivia section on said page. I thank you for your understanding.

One more thing, by the way. Please be respectful of others in your edit summaries. The only things on this site which we consider to be "useless," "pointless," or "crap" would be spam and advertising. I'm pretty sure that the authors of those trivia points found them to be interesting and added them in good faith, and I guarantee that they wouldn't appreciate your dismissal of their time and effort, just as I don't appreciate it.Justin(Talk) 10:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I've been too aggressive. I'll only remove the erroneous trivia from now on, and without negative descriptors in the edit summaries. For the record, the Smash Bros stage trivia is now redundentt with the new smash bros non canon section, the Phantom Hourglass section was clearing up something that already pretty clearly explained in game, and the Mediterranean scection is too long to be trivia, although I'll refrain from editing it until a consensus is made.

Champion of Nayru (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

Termina Edit

Hello. I just wanted to ask about an edit you made to the Termina page yesterday. You took out the Theories section on the basis that they were all "proved or disproved", but to the best of my knowledge, neither is true- there's nothing in HH, or any other source that I know of, that I can see that proves or disproves any of them. Could you explain your reasoning and, if possible, provide your source(s)? Setras (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The first theory even states that Hyrule Historia contradicts the theory (and the third one), and the second one really isn't a theory, it's canon. Termina is a parallel world. Period. There's no reason to believe it was a dream, or another country or anything. And just so you know Setras, having lists of theories and trivia isn't a virtue , it's a vice. Have a nice day! Champion of Nayru (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
Actually, the first theory was somewhat mistaken about HH. As I brought up on the Talk page, "parallel world" does not inherently mean "separate universe" or anything like that- it can be interpreted that way, certainly, but all it's really saying is that the two regions share a lot of similarities. The reason for those similarities is then left up to interpretation, with many- but not all- interpreting it to mean another universe. I've also never come across anything to suggest that the second theory is canon- despite being called a "parallel world", Termina is still treated as a world unto itself, and there's not much indication that it's a "reflection" of anything. The bottom line is, there's no conclusive statement anywhere that any of these theories are definitively true or untrue, so I don't know that they can be removed on that basis.
(And for the record, sorry if I'm coming across as snippy- I'm trying to genuinely discuss this, not whine about it. :]) Setras (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The second one is not really proven, I know; issuing it was proven was actually due to an editing error (sometimes my iPad messes up and I accidentally select save page prematurely). But nonetheless it has zero evidence for it. It states that Twinrova is able to move between the worlds. It's not the same Kotake and Koume; their personalities are different and they don't do anything malicious. Also Kokiri don't turn into Stalfos, they supposedly turn into Skull Kids. Termina is very different from Hyrule in every way besides many characters who share appearances and some that share personalities. Also the first theory is not possible, it's a parallel world and Link gets a new shield. It cannot be a dream. What next, Phantom Hourglass never happened? And how can the Lost Woods lead to the middle of a large region if it's just another country? These theories have so many holes in them, it's not even funny. Nice talking to you. :) Champion of Nayru (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
Champion of Nayru, I've already spoken with you about being respectful toward other editors. There's no call to be so bluntly rude and use offensive language. Children browse this site and we aim to keep it family friendly. The next time I find myself having to speak with you on this matter, you will be blocked from editing temporarily. Please take this to heart and treat others with respect. While some of Setras' theories may be a little strange, he is still editing in good faith because he believes that they are worthy of mentioning. I would highly suggest reading this page before making any further edits.
In addition, Setras, please don't antagonize someone if you can already tell that a conversation is taking a nasty turn. It is preferred if you just let one of the staff members intervene.Justin(Talk) 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really sure where I was being antagonistic- I actually tried to apologize because I thought I sounded snippy. But whatever, will do! :) Setras (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Apologizes to both of you. I personally do not find the offending, so I did not consider that others may. I have since removed the unnecessary word from my previous comment. I was not intending to be rude, but Theories and Trivia really big me, due to them often lacking relevance or quality. I will say however, that I tend to find your theories to be far more tolerable than most, Setras.

Justin, I agree that my use of the since-removed-word was potentially offensive, but I do believe your view on what is rude is a little extreme. Setras was not rude at all, he just disagreed with me. Disagreements will by nature by potentially offensive. Setras and I were having a discussion and I used a colorful adverb, with no anger directed towards Setras. This is not an article and I had little to no reason to believe that children, most of whom routinely here words far worse than the one I used by myself, would read this. I now realize I'm being a bit confrontational here, so apologizes once more. I tend to intensely respond to disagreements, even if I have no anger. Have a nice day, both of you! Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru

Dark Rites

What is "erroneous trivia" meant to refer to? Drake Clawfang (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

adjective 1. wrong; incorrect.
The trivia I removed was just false. Destruction is not a reversal of Power, it's a potential consequence of misusing Power. Sorrow and Wisdom are wholly unrelated. Despair and courage are somewhat related, but they are definitely not antonyms. The Triforce and the Flames both forming a triangle is pointless to note; every single trio ever forms a triangle, it's just a consequence of having three connected points. The trivia was also to long. I do hope you understand why I am going to revert your edit now. In the future, do not revert edits unless you can confirm that the new edit is, in some way, false. Champion of Nayru (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
"every single trio ever forms a triangle" - well first this is flat wrong.
"In the future, do not revert edits unless you can confirm that the new edit is, in some way, false." I agree, you should not revert edits that are perfectly valid, though I understand why one would jump to that action since it's so much easier to just remove it than actually trying to improve it, as I will do not by rewording the point.
"I do hope you understand why I am going to revert your edit now." - back at you bro.
Drake Clawfang (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The staff will not tolerate further edit warring from either of you. Please take this conversation to a more central location so others may weigh in on the issue. The content of the article concerns everyone.
I trust that you two will be able to take a step back and talk this out civilly. We are all acting in what we believe to be the wiki's best interests; there is never reason for editors to be jumping down others' throats. — Hylian King [*] 06:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I jumped down no one's throat. I asked for a reason and he spoke down to me like I was some moron. I treat people as they act so I responded in turn, added back a tweaked version of the Trivia to fit his one valid point, and then found someone else to consult for opinion to settle it. Drake Clawfang (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Champion of Nayru's actions do not give you free license to engage in edit warring. You guys hash this out whatever way you can, I'm simply saying keep it civil or the staff may be forced to take action. — Hylian King [*] 07:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

About the Quality Standards

Please understand that there is a fine line between adhering to the Quality Standards, and citing them to make a final executive decision to end a discussion (see here).

I can appreciate that you're trying to clean up articles. It is important that the wiki remains concise and on-point. But keep in mind this wiki is for everyone to contribute to. As an editor, you must be able to collaborate. If others disagree with a contribution of yours, they have a right to discuss it and argue their case until an agreement is reached. One cannot simply say "this does not meet the Quality Standards therefore I'm removing it, end of discussion." It doesn't work that way, not for editors nor for any staff.

Also, in the case of inexperienced editors, you're more than welcome to help them out, nothing wrong with that at all. And well done spotting that vandalism. Just be careful about how you contact these new users, especially when speaking on the behalf of the wiki itself. It may give them the false impression that you are staff. — Hylian King [*] 09:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

About Stallord.

I do admit I made an error there, by confusing two music themes (Fyrus/Volvagia), but I personally did not felt the need of calling my edit "opinionized", well, for the simple reason that it was not. --Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to reread the changes I made. The revision of your edit was not the only thing I changed; I was referring to the other trivia as opinionated
...Because of this, it is also the only boss that does not guard either of those, although a piece of the Mirror of Twilight is already left in its pedestal, which can be considered to be the piece that Link obtains for defeating Stallord.
Both Stallord and the Stalhounds resemble Cortez from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, especially when Stallord's head is severed.
Opinionated was not the ideal word to describe these trivia, regardless, they are poor trivia. Either way this discussion is completely pointless, as the edit I made was correct, as you misinterpreted me. Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru

Re: Moon trivia

Well, it's certainly not supersolidperfectevidence, but it's a great indicator of something; that scary face of the moon had an awful lot of effort put into it and its various repercussions, so the official "cover image" lacking it is probably stranger than anything in the game.

Since it'd be treated as trivia, it's also much better than most other trivia (not just bits simply present in a given article, but bits tolerated). Technically, by your logic, we shouldn't have any information on theories whatsoever.

I don't know... it just seems odd to try and hide this tidbit, considering what all this site is supposed to be for and/or what truly terrible and pointless things have been tolerated so far. ZeldaDoritos (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1 Day Ban

You have been warned multiple times to stop reverting staff edits and causing edit wars but you have not - hence, the 1 day temporary ban. We also feel you need to be more polite and cooperative with the staff and other users as you often times come off too aggressive or intimidating. We hate to have to ban users; however, if the situation merits the ban - we will do so. --Autydi (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see what merited a ban. My actions are no worse than many members if this wiki. Nobody else has been banned for the same reason as me. I have to ask, does the rest of the staff believe my actions deserved a ban? Champion of Nayru (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The ban was not without the support of the other staff members. I simply was the person who actually performed the ban. --Autydi (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
There was indeed staff consensus. We never act without carefully discussing the facts and our options and opinions.Justin(Talk) 16:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Deuteragonist vs. Antihero

I'd like to clarify a common misconception that many people believe. The antihero is a character who lacks a certain trait that, if the character had it, would make them the perfect hero. Take Jay Gatsby from The Great Gatsby, for example. He is generous, kind, generally noble, and of a good character, but is so cripplingly shy that he cannot even speak to his love interest. His social skills are awful. This one trait keeps him from being "larger than life" and makes him more human and believable. Therefore, he is both the protagonist and an antihero.

If we spin this around for an antivillain (a term which doesn't actually exist), we see that she exudes maybe one trait of a villain, manipulation. Otherwise, she is not a villain in any way.

The deuteragonist is the second most important character in a story after the protagonist while excluding the antagonist. Hilda fits that role perfectly. Without her, nothing in this game would have taken place the way it did. She manipulates Link while helping him, serving her own purpose. Obothehobo (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC) OboTheHobo

I agree, on second thought, perhaps anti-villain is not the most appropriate title for Hilda. I'm not to sure Deutroagonist is either, though. Also, the definition of anti-hero is not so cut and dry: the Ancient Greeks defined anti-hero as simply a protagonist that simply wasn't a god or demigod. The reason I said that she was an anti-villain is that she is most definitely an antagonist, however, she herself is not villianous at all; everything she had done was for the good of her kingdom.
The thing about deuteragonists is that they tend to be on the protagonists side. Sam of LotR, Edward Cullen of Twilight, Ron Weasley of Harry Potter, Spock of Star Trek, and Midna of Twilight Princess are all great examples of deutroagonists. When it comes down to it, I think that simply antagonist is the best word to describe her. She is definitely an antsgonist, as she opposes Link, the protagonist of the game. I'll admit that there is an argument to be made that Hilda is a deuteragonist, but I believe that a full discussion should be made to solidify her status.
I suggest that we move this dialogue elsewhere, so as for this discussion to be more accessable to other members. Champion of Nayru (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


You have taken out the part where I stated that the Link from the adult timeline in Wind Waker does not have the Spirit of the Hero claiming it is just a theory. I would like to rebuttal, before I choose if I should add it again or not, and say that it is supported. How it is supported is by this (weakest arguments first, strongest ones last):

1. The Link from Wind Waker was not recognized as a hero until he passed a test to prove it.

2. Unlike others that had the Triforce pieces, Link had to find the Triforce of Courage in shards. The only time a Triforce has ever been in pieces has been when it was broken by someone else, yet there exists no one to have broken the Triforce of Courage after the wish to flood Hyrule was made as the Triforce of power went to Gannondorf and the Triforce of Wisdom was given to the royal family. This means that Link was not courageous enough to be given the Triforce of courage, and that no one was. If he had the Spirit of the Hero then he would have already been courageous enough.

3. The Gannondorf from Wind Waker is the same Gannondorf from Ocarina of Time. If Link truly had the Spirit of the Hero, then he would have been attacked by the moblins, instead of imprisoned, and Ganondorf should have recognized him in some way as per Demise's Curse.

4. Demise's Curse was placed on the Spirit of the Hero during Skyward Sword, causing an incantation of his hatred to doom all those with the Spirit of the Hero. When we look at the adult timeline the only incantation of his hatred is the original Gannondorf from Ocarina of Time as the Hyrule Historia says that Gannon was sealed, not killed, by the king.

5. Link, the only person with the Spirit of the Hero, left this timeline. Just as the Era without a hero happened because the hero was removed, the reincarnation of Link cannot happen with the Spirit of the Hero removed.

6. With no Spirit of the Hero, the Era without a Hero is also possible as the Spirit of the Hero will appear whenever Hylia/Hyrule is in danger. Hyrule was in danger during this Era, but no one with the Spirit of the Hero appeared. Either that means that not everything in the Hyrule Historia is cannon, which means that we must take everything from it with a shred of doubt, or that the Spirit of the Hero does not exist in this timeline.

Points 1-4 are not enough to make it anything but a theory, but when we look at points 5 and 6 then it is obvious that it is not possible for that Link to have the Spirit of the Hero, even point 6 alone shows that. Because of point 6 we can conclude that either the Spirit of the Hero is lost from the adult timeline or that not everything that is claimed within the Hyrule Historia itself is cannon. If we take the former, I will put the information back. If we take the latter, then the information that was "confirmed" by the Hyrule Hostoria should be moved to a section of each article called Theory or taken out.

Here's where you should have stopped:
"How it is supported is by this (weakest arguments first, strongest ones last)"
That right there should have been the red flag that you're dealing in speculation and fantheory, not canon facts. Everything about your claim is based on your assumptions about how the Spirit of the Hero or Triforce works, not anything stated in the games. If you want to add it as a theory, that should be fine per wiki guidelines, but claiming it as an outright fact is just incorrect.
Also, Cannons shoot Bombs, not facts.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing stating that Ganondorf is aware of his predecessor, thus he doesn't make any decisions based on this. So your third point doesn't really hold any stock.
In regards to your second point, only TLoZ Link and TP Link have the Triforce just given at birth. All the other Links had to earn/reconstruct it, which indicates nothing about their courage. TWW Link had to be tested because the people of old constructed a means of testing heroes long before he came along to protect the Master Sword, which was keeping the evil sealed below in Hyrule. None of it is to question the boy's integrity, and he wouldn't have been granted the Triforce of Courage because measures were made (iirc by the King) to split it into eight to prevent Ganondorf from obtaining (all of) it.
I'd like to see your reasoning for why the Triforce of Courage continues to exist in the Adult Timeline even when Link possessed it both as and adult and when he returned to his childhood. It would seem that a duplicate was made, so who's to say that this supposed spirit didn't remain as well?
Kryten is correct, however. Much of these are indeed assumptions. - TonyT S C 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
KrytenKoro, I stated that my first 4 points were not enough to be canon as I knew they were assumption based, however point 5 stands on partial and point 6 still stands. Point 6 is enough to say that it is canon as Link would appear whenever Hylia/Hyrule was in danger (as said in the manga in the Hyrule Historia), yet the Era without a Hero existed. If the Hyrule Historia is canon than the Ear without a Hero COULD NOT have happened.
Pakkuna Matata, Gannondorf does NOT need to be aware of his "predecessors" as the line of events is: Gannondorf was sealed by the Hero of Time, Gannondorf escaped and was SEALED by the King of Hyrule, Gannondorf breaks free of the seal and that Gannondorf is the one in Wind Waker. He would not need to remember as he is not a different incantation, he is the same Gannondorf. I also said 1-4 were not enough for canon, but to rebuttel, the other Links had to gather the parts of the Triforce that was broken by someone. In Wind Waker the only Triforce piece mentioned to have been broken was the Triforce of Wisdom. The reason the Triforce exists is unknown, so much so that any guess would be a theory. The Spirit of the Hero, however, cannot exist in this timeline as there exists a time in which, according to the Hyrule Historia, Link WOULD HAVE been reincarnated, but he was NOT. As he was not reincarnated when he WOULD HAVE, not should, then there exists no Spirit of the Hero in this timeline OR the Hyrule Historia is not canon. The arguement of the game not existing yet cannot even be made as the Era without a Hero is clearly defined as having no Link in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2014
Please provide the page number in which Hyrule Historia says that the Spirit of the Hero cannot exist.
Also, please remember to sign your posts. - TonyT S C 01:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Since I have said many times that the manga is just as canon as the rest I will start with the manga. Hylia says at the end, "Whenever the land of Hylia is in danger... We shall be reborn..." Which means that when Hyrule, which I hope we all know is Hylia, is in danger that BOTH Zelda and Link would be reborn.
Now let's look at page 69 of the Hyrule Historia at the timeline. We look at the name of the Eras on the adult timeline and the first one is "Era without a Hero". Now Let's look in the book at this section, page 123. "Ganondorf, formerly sealed away, crawled up from the depths of the earth and en-shrouded Hyrule in darkness once more. The prayers of the people were in vain, and the Hero never appeared." As you can see, this is a time in which Hyrule is in danger, so much so that Hyrule must be flooded and sealed away in order to stop Ganon, and Link was not there. Since it says that Link would be reborn WHENEVER Hyrule is in danger and he was not there at the time Hyrule itself was in danger, either the Spirit of the Hero was not able to appear as it does not exist within the adult timeline OR the Hyrule Historia is not canon.
It does not specifically say that the Spirit of the Hero cannot exist, however, if the Hyrule Historia is canon, then no Hero during that Era means no Spirit of the Hero. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That interpretation kind of implies that the spirit of the hero only exists in SS, because that's the only game where the villain doesn't manage to seriously mess up the world before Link works against him. Link didn't stop Ganon from grabbing the Triforce in OoT, he was just there seven years later to clean up the mess (or not, in the downfall timeline). There's also plenty of times Hyrule was in danger that the hero was not said to have been reborn -- there's the civil war before OoT, the magician who put Zelda in a deathless sleep before LoZ-AoL, etc. Even avoiding the child/adult timeline split completely, Hylia's quote cannot mean what you claim it does, because that's not what happens in the canon. In other words, your point 5 and 6, your interpretations of the canon, cannot be valid.
To top that off, the Historia and the actual game both specify that the people were expecting the Hero of Time himself, not just any goof with the spirit of the hero. And like the other catastophes in which Link wasn't (as far as we know) involved -- Hyrule solved the problem without him, with the flood. Drastic, sure, but the problem was solved, so you could argue that Link wasn't reincarnated because Hyrule didn't need him to be reincarnated.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You say that he was not there for those parts, but was he NEEDED? Civil War, did Hyrule end up in any real peril? No, it worked out without the need of the Hero. The magician that put Zelda in the Deathless sleep, was it a real tragedy that NEEDED a hero? Not completely as life still moved on, but with REMEMBRANCE. Those may have been tragedies within Hyrule, but was Hyrule ever in danger during those events? Obviously not to much since things worked out. Granted the Zelda I shows Hyrule in ruin, but let's look at WHY it happened. Was it because of Zelda being put in the magic sleep? Only be indirect means as it affected the King who was most directly responsible. It was not a time where the Hero was needed, it was a time where a true King was needed, but failed. When the adventures in Zelda I start we see the Triforce in the hands of Ganon and an obvious need for a Hero, and the Hero arrives. Wind Waker was different as the entire world was flooded. Every kingdom, even some Hylians probably were killed because of this. This was a time where the Hero was needed, not where it would be helpful to have the Hero come, but a time where they were desperate for him to come. You say they only wanted the Hero of Time, but if they were in such bad conditions that flooding the world was a good option, I think they would have taken ANY hero they could get... But none came. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we stop arguing about whether or not a particular fan theory has any weight on my talk page? There are several places better suited than here for discussions of this kind. In the future, do not harass people on their talk page because they performed a proper revert that goes against your wishes. If you wish to contest a revert, then do so on the article in question's talk page. Champion of Nayru (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, bro.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I apologize Champion of Nayru, but is it a theory? IF the Hyrule Historia and the Manga in it are CORRECT, then it is NOT a theory, but is a FACT. You were the one that took the information off of the page, and that information is canon if the 2 sources used are also canon, and ONE of the sources is indisputably canon as it is even talked about in Wind Waker. This is not just a discussion about if this information is canon or not, but also about if YOU should have taken the information off the wiki page or not. This discussion is happening to decide if YOU were in the RIGHT to take it off the wiki, or if you were WRONG to take it off. I apologize that it is annoying you, but I do not apologize about it happening. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay then:
  1. It's the policy of the wiki that you are incorrect about which works are considered canon. If you wish to change that policy, you need to bring it up for community discussion; CoN is not in violation of that policy whatsoever.
  2. I've amply demonstrated that your "if-then" statement is logically flawed. You are relying on a mountain of assumptions and fanfiction, most of which is not only unsupported, but openly contradicted by the canon.
  3. "Civil War, did Hyrule end up in any real peril" Holy hell, yes it did, the Deku Tree Sprout even says it was in flames. It's called a civil war, and therefore necessitates a much higher body count than the divinely-ordained flood would have. Also, the entire world didn't flood, only Hyrule did.
  4. You have yet to cite a single source that says "The Hero of Winds did not have the Spirit of the Hero". In fact, you've been instead presented with citations that the Hero of Winds is specifically stated to be the reincarnation of the Hero of Time, meaning, once again, the canon directly and explicitly contradicts your claims.
  5. Please leave CoN alone, he's not only completely justified in his actions by wiki policy, but also by the explicit franchise canon.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I can see this conversation going on for much longer, so I'm just going to say that what Justin said here applies to this, as it's an extension of the same conversation. Given that Champion of Nayru was acting in accordance to our policies and that he's asked for this conversation to cease, the staff may decide to take disciplinary efforts should anybody continue to argue.
We're asking nicely that everyone restrains the desire to submit any further rebuttals. - TonyT S C 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Are you on any channels?KrytenKoro (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really do use anything other than Steam and, occasionally, Skype. My Steam account is Squidfang, and I don't remember my Skype off the top of my head. I should probably add some contact information on my User page... Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


I like coming up with my own fanon as much as the next guy, but this fandom's propensity to claim things as "the only logical answer" or "most plausible" when they're based on nothing at all but the author's whimsy...arg.

I am so incredibly glad you're on this site.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I tend to run from the assumption that all fan theories are wrong, except for the ones that are less theories more connecting the implied dots. While I do find them occasionally interesting, I do not try to pass them off as fact, as so many do. I agree that those who do so can certainly be testing (even maddening).
By the way, are you on any forums? I'm trying to fix my computer right now, so I won't have Skype until then. Champion of Nayru (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Third me, I'm glad that C.O.N is here too! --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm on xkcd, kinda? Also a Digimon forum. I've been trying to wean myself off forums for a while now.
I'm also glad you're here, Vaati.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Right Back at Ya! --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If everyone else isgoing to profess thankfulness at each others' presence, I think I shall as well; I greatly appreciate your presences on this wiki. Champion of Nayru (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Thanks for the warning, I'll make sure to pass it on to the staff if he does anything again.

Honestly, I didn't even consider that edit warring -- the plain evidence of the canon notwithstanding, the topic has been discussed to death, with the admins even stepping in, and consensus is (rightly!) plainly to list Rosso as a Hylian pending an official statement otherwise. If consensus had gone the other way and Ludwig was editing the page the other way, I would have still reverted him for ignoring the community.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop talking about me like an enemy. I don't know what you guys are talking about. What edit war?--Prince Ludwig (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The two of you combined edited that page like 15 times in the last week. That called an edit war. Even three edits would be an edit war if they were reverts of each other. Champion of Nayru (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. Okay... Reverting edits is one thing that can really tick off the other user. If you want to know what I did, try viewing the history of the article. I was fixing, adding more information, also re-put back the info that got erased accidently. Specifically, what I did to Rosso's article was removing information that caused such debates after my edits get reverted. After all, even if it seemed like an edit war, Rosso did needed to be fixed, even if it's minor. I rarely revert a user's edit, trust me. I rewrite them instead, if they are interesting or very important for an article. As for my edits, they get usually reverted and I never reverted back, I never wanted to cause an edit war. By the way, I saw your message to me and KrytenKoro's talkpage. I didn't reverted KrytenKoro's edits -- not even once. After all, KrytenKoro actually had nothing to do with this, I don't have any issues with him, not you neither. As in, don't want to. I truly don't and so sorry about all of this. --Prince Ludwig (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Guys. No need to argue about this stuff amongst yourselves. Our time is better spent doing things to help the wiki, so let's just focus on that.Justin(Talk) 20:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with users

Instead of following ReDead64 around and repeatedly berating him/her, it would be significantly more efficient to message said user on his/her talk page, as I have done. In addition, please keep the editing etiquette in mind, as your posts seem to carry a level of unwarranted hostility. As an active editor, you're bound to encounter new users who simply have yet to completely learn the ropes, but from my repeated observation, you quickly turn to criticizing. This isn't the model that we want to perpetuate here. If you cannot treat all editors with respect regardless of their actions, then perhaps you shouldn't try to communicate with them. - TonyT S C 02:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it rather alarming that a mere two weeks after Pakkun left this message, I see you leaving this message on someone's talk page. I'm going to have to ask you to please refrain from communicating with other users unless you have legitimate questions to ask. If you see someone who is not adhering to our policies, please simply report it to the staff from now on. Your lack of tact could very well drive users away, and that is not what we want to do around here. We are not elitists, and we take all kinds. I really don't know how else to get through to you, CoN. You're a good contributor, but your attitude is becoming a big problem. Please take some time to think before you post. Think about how someone might react to what you've said, and how you personally might react if someone else said the same thing. I'm not saying you were entirely in the wrong with that edit, but the tone you carried was very blunt and was likely to evoke either hostility or shame, and neither one is good. We're not out to get you, trust me. We really do appreciate your contributions, but the well being of the community is equally as important to us, especially since we're entirely volunteer and don't allow anonymous editing.
I hate to say this, but this is the last time any of us will be speaking to you regarding this matter. The next time we find ourselves needing to speak with you, we may well revoke your right to use talk pages at all, making it completely impossible for you to edit any pages in any talk namespace. We've had to do so only once before in the past; please don't make us do it again.Justin(Talk) 18:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)