Talk:Ganon/Archive 4

Overcategorization
I removed: centenarians because he does not age and thus, does not qualify (another category such as "fictional characters who do not age" or something, if it exists, would be better); demons, he is not a demon, as far as I know, he was a Gerudo and then became immortal but the game does not list his race as "demon" (maybe in TP, but I haven't beaten it yet); emperor-for this one, he's the "Great King of Evil" in OoT but I don't recall him ever getting the title of emperor (unless in TP); deities, he is definitely not a deity; Kaiju, just because he's made by a Japanese person doesn't mean any monster that Japanese person invents is a Kaiju. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a demon, as his title is "Demon Emperor" (Maou) in many of the games. He is called the Emperor of the Dark Realm in TWW; and is definitely a deity according to FSA, OoT, and TP. I agree on the kaiju and centenarian bits. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not following you on the deity bit. What exactly qualifies as a deity then? The rest I can agree to. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these look unexplained: demon (thought it was only a title, not specie), pig (couldn't he shape-change into anything)? And since when is he a god? Think he was only a sorcerer. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need of having any of those "fictional" categories. PS: Kudos to the user adding the lead image. The Prince (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I like the image. Although it depicts him in his pig-form it looks scary and imposing enough to be a good (evil?) representation of Ganon. As for the categories I think they're more or less all accurate.

Centenarians - Yes. He's been around for more than a hundred years. Think that qualifies him as a centenarian. As for Fictional characters who don't age, there is actually a horribly under-used category called Fictional immortals which (like the Fictional dictators cat actually) suits him perfectly but which nobody seems to want to use.

Fictional demons - Yes. He's a malevolent, supernatural creature who has been referred to as a "demon" or "devil" on numerous occasions. You don't have to be born a demon to become one. Look at Randall Flagg.

Fictional deities - He is a god-like creature who is worshipped as a deity by his servants. So yes.

Fictional emperors and empresses - Yes. He's the King of Evil. There's quite a lot of evil in the universe and if he's the ruler of it all then I suppose that makes an emperor. Furthermore he ruled Hyrule (and possibly the world) for a while and Hyrule's big enough to qualify as an empire.

Kaiju - Hmm. Not sure about this one. But the others, deffo.

--Illustrious One (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "demons" bit is more apparent in the Japanese, as he is frequently called "Maou" (Demon King), or Yami no Maou (I think, "Demon King of Darkness"). In TWW he is explicitly said to be the "Emperor of the Dark Realm", and as for deity:


 * In OoT, Gerudo worship him as a god
 * In FSA, Deku worship him as a god
 * In TP, Zant outright says that he is a deity
 * Fictional centenarians - I disagree with this as he's not so much immortal or ageless as constantly resurrected. He dies plenty of times, and while the Gerudo lifespan seems to be long, it certainly allows him to age. I wouldn't claim that he's ageless without any proof from the games. As for kaiju - no, not at all. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I quite agree on the subject of demons and deities but with with regards to the centenarians business I'm afraid I beg to differ. How do we know he doesn't have a lifespan of over a hundred years. He has certainly lived for more than that long even if he has been killed on the odd occasion. He had already lived for a century or more in Wind Waker. Furthermore I think Kaiju is debatable. The term Kaiju is Japanese for "strange beast" and as Ganon is indeed a strange fictional beast of Japanese origins he could be classed as a Kaiju. The Kaiju category is pretty much the same as the Fictional monsters category but it can also encompass creatures in mythology as well as fiction so by those standards I think the Loch Ness Monster and the classic European Dragon could be classed as Kaiju. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kaiju are a specific type of "strange beast", like Godzilla. Ganon, however, is based on European demons.
 * And as for centenarian, no. He is killed too often to claim evidence of him living so long. A big part of "living over 100 years" is, well, being alive. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion here on the categories. Is he a shape-shifter? If so, why is he classified as a pig/boar? How are the characters Randall Flagg and Ganon classified as demons if they're really mutated humans? Furthermore, I would suggest removing all categories which are not accompanied by reliable sources in the text of the article. Anything else before I get rid of these ORish cats.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that these categories should be removed. It's more than sufficient to list him in The Legend of Zelda series characters, Super Smash Bros. fighters, and Video game bosses. "Fictional thieves" is supported strongly by the canon. The rest are neither obvious nor useful and I'd like to see them all removed. Dcoetzee 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * .......In the Japanese versions, he is almost always called "Maou", and even in the English FSA he is "Ancient Demon Reborn". For shape-shifting, C'MON! How is this not obvious? Have any of you played Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess? He shapeshifts between man and boar, that's how he's both. Deity is also said, many times throughout the series.
 * How is it that I've explained where these categories are from each time, and yet people still think it's fanon? If I absolutely must, I'll provide exact quotes from the text dumps, but that will take quite a while to find each occurence, and in my opinion, it's a waste of time - since each of these titles are major plot points of their games, and you really should remember them.


 * Ocarina of Time: "アタシたち　賢者は　六人そろえば　魔王ガノンドロフを　　封印することが　できるの. " (We six sages will be able to seal the Demon King Ganondorf)
 * "ヴァルバジア　魔王が復活させた炎の神殿の主よ" (Volvagia: Revived by the Demon King to be the god/master of the fire temple)
 * "大魔王　ガノンドロフ" (Great Demon King Ganondorf)
 * In general, its used everywhere "Evil King" is in the English.
 * "They say that Gerudos worship Ganondorf almost like a god."
 * The Wind Waker: "He is the very same Ganon...The emperor of the dark realm the ancient legends speak of..."
 * Four Swords Adventures: "おお…、俺は闇の魔王！！" (Graah! I am the Demon King of Darkness!)
 * "I'm off to the Temple of Darkness to worship Lord Ganon! Oopipi!"
 * "King of Darkness, ancient demon reborn. The wielder of the trident!!"
 * Twilight Princess: "大魔王 ガノンドロフ" (Great Demon King Ganondorf)
 * "魔獣ガノン" (Demon Beast Ganon)
 * "It was then, in the thrall of hatred and despair, that I turned my eyes to the heavens...and found a god.";"My god had only one wish..."

Similarly, while Ganondorf is a Maou (he has his own Makai and Mazoku, as well), Vaati and Bellum are Majin - Demon God/Devil.

And that's just from the games I was able to get the Japanese version of - I couldn't get ALttP, TWW, or OoX. He is quite clearly a demon, shape-shifter, boar/pig, emperor, and god. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For TWW "centenarian":
 * "So long as Ganondorf was not revived, Hyrule would remain below, never waking from its slumber."

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still looks like strong implications and mere hints, but not confirmed facts. As said, if you can cite it with reliable sources within the article context the categories will stay. Other than that, they will be removed momentarily per violating WP:NOR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WHO is the idiot who so rudely removed my comment. As I was saying, he lived for over one hundred years in Wind Waker KrytenKoro, that's what I just said you may remember. Also he is a shapeshifter because he can transform into a pig/boar. That's also why he is in the Fictional pigs category. And another thing. A demon is a malevolent supernatural creature. Both Ganon and Randall Flagg were humans who became demons. Furthermore since when do you need citations for categories? --Illustrious One (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Don't start name-calling now, Illustrious, we have civility rules to follow. For the third time, reliable sources should be placed within the context of the article to confirm these categories. For instance, his abilities section is blatantly unsourced. Why are there categories placed with barely anything verifying them for the page? This is what I mean. And we are not supposed to categorize the character based upon some vague translations, or else, it'd be fluffed. Categorize per the most practical feats, not also what he did in only one or two games. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One needs a citation for anything that can be legitimately challenged and it is being challenged now. I'm not aware of any citation that specifically says he lived for more than 100 years at a time, only OR inferences. I think we can drop the thing about demons and emperors since that's pretty established by now. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you agree with me as well Axem? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sessh is right on the money here. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, IO - there was an edit conflict, and I was in a hurry so I just pasted my long comment to the top box and saved.
 * To LS - I don't see how any of it is implications. He is outright said to be a demon in both versions, over and over, in nearly every appearance he has. He is outright said to be the emperor of the Dark Realm in TWW, and he is outright said to be a worshipped god in three different games, by three different groups. The shape-shifting is by definition shown in both OoT and TP, (and as a bat in ALttP), so I can't possibly see how that could be denied (unless the category is for someone with a certain number of transformations - that seems arbitrary, though). The boar form is his beast form - I believe he's actually called a pig in the OoX manual and cartoon? Maybe not, but its clear that he's porcine. If that's still considered OR, fine, remove it.
 * The only removed category that can't be cited, from the list I just gave, even, is the centenarian thing, because not only does he die over and over, but the only close game is TWW, and it indicates that he was recently revived, not unsealed (the unsealing happens when Link pulls the Master Sword). His legacy might be centuries old, and even his soul, but his body doesn't seem to last extraordinarily long.
 * I do agree that any category added needs to be explained and cited either in the article or the talk page, to prevent all these ridiculous "Characters associated with bats", "Fictional users of silverware" categories. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not on the talk page, every category needs to be supported by sourced content on the article. We have number consensus (Me, The Prince, Axem, Dcoetzee) so I'll be removing those unverified categories now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, are there any categories that I may have accidently removed that are cited on the article and/or are so obvious that they should be re-placed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ganon is a wizard, and a shapeshifter, those are for certain, they do not need to be removed, Ganon is constantly seen as a using powerful magic, and he changes he form to Ganondorf and Ganon in many games. The Clawed One (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can put those back, however, it'd be best if someone can reference this beforehand. Where does he perform wizardry or shapeshift? Put that in the article first (suggest style) then the cats. go in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He performs sorcery in almost every game, but if you insist: he uses magic in Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Adventure of Link, etc. He shapeshifts between human and Ganon forms in Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time. The Clawed One (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The important thing here is not whether Ganon technically qualifies for each of these categories - it's whether they describe fundamental defining features that were particularly emphasized. I might give in and also allow fictional demons, but the rest of these are - first of all - based on a particular and debatable interpretation of the game text - but more importantly, inessential to the nature of his character, and that's why they ought to be removed. Dcoetzee 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ....I'm really sorry, but wizard, emperor, demon, and god are fundamental to his character - so fundamental that that's the title NPC's use for him. Shapeshifting is also a huge part, as his transformation into Ganon is a major part of the story for him. Wizard, emperor and god are mentioned in the article, and if the problem is that they're not properly sourced - well, I typed, word for word, the sources here. As for claiming majority - Axem agreed on the demons and emperors bit, so why are you claiming he didn't?
 * His identity as a wizard is fundamental - in ALttP, he was able to claim the triforce due to his skill in the dark arts, in OoT he was constantly called a wizard, or shown using it as a crux to his plans. The same in OoT and TP - in fact, in TP, it was responsible for his revival.
 * "King" is also hugely essential to his character - he is always the King, whether of demons or thieves, whether great or reborn, whether of evil or darkness.
 * While I understand the love of consensus, I can't possibly understand how, after providing multiple sources from each of his appearances, nearly all of which were rooted in important plot scenes (and thus not easter eggs, at all) and hard to deny, it was still claimed that they were not properly sourced. These claims appear in the article, are explicitly essential to his character, and have sources. I respect you as an editor, LS, but I just can't see the logic behind this, and I think it's highly inappropriate to demand a moratorium on editing the section when so much evidence was presented in favor of what you removed. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On another note, just to reply to earlier claims - I don't know how much D&D you've been playing, but there's no such thing as a "natural-born demon". Even in mythology, it's something you become from falling into evil - this is true even in Japanese mythology, where there are "natural-born monsters". It's simply silly to claim that something must be "born a demon" to be in that group, since everything that group would be based on, didn't. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Calm down man. I'm trying to improve the article, as you are, and everyone else. I've re-added two categories according to The Clawed One's given references, see the new refs on Ganon. The others (king, emperor, demon, and god) can only be added so long as you provide the refs. Now, do you have sources that verify these or not? If you so choose, list them here and I'll add them to the page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ....I have. Many times. Ganon is the king, of the gerudo, of evil, of theives, of darkness. It is his title in every game. Furthermore, except for in OoX, to my knowledge, he is also always the "Demon King", and in TWW he is the "emperor of the dark realm". His existence as a worshipped god is explained in OoT, FSA, and TP - it must be remembered that both the Zelda pantheon, and the real-world pantheons it is based on, are extremely dynamic - beyond the creator goddesses, there is little in the way of dogmatic definitions of gods, and Ganon is frequently shown to not only be more powerful than most of the gods appearing in the series, but is given part of the power of the supreme gods themselves. There's little reason to doubt that he's not a "fictional god" - especially since the very nature of that title, like demon, is not a species - a god is a god if it is believed to be one. He has temples dedicated to him, he is worshipped, he is frequently called a god, and has more power than all but three of them - he's a fictional god. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For once I agree with you KrytenKoro. Centenarians and Kaiju I don't mind leaving out but demons, emperors, thieves, deities and wizards, gotta go in. --Illustrious One (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There we go. The notes you guys gave verify these categories. BTW, in which game(s) does Ganon teleport and fly? Just want to know for myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He hovers during the boss battle at the end of Ocarina of Time, and as Ganon he teleports in Twilight Princess. However, those truly are ancillary to his character, and as far as I know are only seen, no reason given, for a small period during each of these games. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing seems kind of pointless, what exactly is the harm of having many categories anyway? And most of these you just have to have common sense to know what categories Ganon belongs under. Unknown Dragon (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try WP:OVERCAT. We've discussed this already. And please stop making unconstructive edits without the community's approval. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Found:
 * "Though we're both thieves, I'm completely different from Ganondorf. With his followers, he stole from women and children, and he even killed people!" Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ganondorf is a mass murderer. Every game he's in states some huge war he started where he slaughters millions. There's evidence in the statment above of him killing people. Further, he wiped out the enitre Hyrulean army in both Ocarina and Four Swords Adventures as revealed in those games and various sites. He murdered the composer brothers in Ocarina, the king and others in A Link to the Past, he started another war before Wind Waker which took many lives and directlly killed two sages. Twilight had him killing a sage and then using Zant to conquer Hyrule, murdering almost the enitre Kakariko village populace and nearly the entire army. Also how does one situation not qualify; there's way more than just one, but even if there was, that doesn't change the fact that he killed numerous people. A Link to the past tells us he kills his own followers and then attacks the Castle where "many brave knights were lost." If you keep adding up all the deaths he caused over the hundreds of years, I think it's pretty safe to say it's up in the billions. He is a mass murderer and if don't think this is evidence enough, at least put him under fictional murderers. That's something you can't deny he is.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ganon is destructive, yes, but mass murder generally refers to people who murder large amounts of people at the same time or within a very short amount of time. From what I can remember, Ganondorf's killings are kinda spread out. I do think a murder category is right, I just wonder if there's a better one that fits. -- .: Alex  :.  08:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the games have stated that he has wiped out entire armies such as in Ocarina and Four Swords Adventures. That's easily thousands of people, not to mention all the residents of the kingdom who were killed during the wars. When he murdered his own followers to obtain the Triforce, there had to be a good amount. He killed them all with his bare hands in a matter of minutes. Mass Murderer-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you present that in format? On the article of course. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Brawl Designs
Why does someone insist on including the fact that Aunuma said he submitted designs for Brawl? That's no longer relevant since we all know Ganon is in. Does it really matter anymore? 75.152.155.200 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...yes, because it's development info. It's something keeping the article from being deleted for being in-universe - It's extremely relevant. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ALttP pic
There's a really good pic of the blue pig form in the Zelda Legends image gallery. It's official art from ALttP, and is both large and clean enough, and portrays all the details correctly.

I gave the link to HaipaDragon earlier, but he wasn't sure how to get the fair-use explanation correctly. If anyone knows how to do those tags correctly, please upload the image so we have a non-crappy pic of the most-often appearing, blue pig form. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Weapons Neede To Kill Ganon
I think we should rephrase the sentence to not be Biggoron-sword specific and just say "although other weapons can cause superficial damage". Also, I'd like to point out you can't kill Ganon with the Biggoron sword in OoT - you can damage him, but once you retrieve the Master Sword you have to kill him with it. You can keep attacking him with the Biggoron sword, but he won't collapse for the final blow until you attack him with the Master Sword. Trust me, I've tried it. The Clawed One (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As originally specified in the sentence, you can kill him in the first battle - from everything I've seen and the script, I'm pretty sure he died that first time, and was revived with the Triforce, just like the Triforce revived him before TWW. It can also kill him in OoA/OoS, so it is definitely able to kill him in general. This is the point of the qualifier - that seemingly non-sacred weapons can kill him. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Ganon died once in OoT, you fight him, he gets weakened and this causes the flames to die down so you can get the Master Sword. Either way, if the point is that non-sacred weapons can kill him, why are we singling out the Biggoron sword in particular? Technically in OoA/OoS, I think the Wooden Sword can damage him too, if we want specifics. The Clawed One (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then add that too. Also, the section specifically mentions Ganondorf, so that form is not excluded - the Biggoron Sword is able to slay him, during the battle at the top of the tower. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the first battle, sorry, I was thinking you meant the second battle. The Clawed One (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Things
I'd like to remove the cleanup tag because it appears to be "clean" and what is really needed is the copyedit one. Inclusively, the word "impressive" (see Abilities, first line) looks quite POVish. What is a better, more encyclopedic word? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Formidable? --Illustrious One (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that could work. And of my other proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I think you're absolutely right, the article seems to be in more or less tip-top shape. --Illustrious One (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganondorf's race
The article claims that Ganondorf was human. However, I seem to recall that Ocarina of Time considers the Gerudos a distinct race from both Humans and Hylians. Shouldn't be Ganondorf be considered a Gerudo in the article? Then again, he was mentioned in the backstory of A Link to the Past, a game that predates Nintendo's creation of the Gerudo stuff... Thoughts? FightingStreet (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing about Ganondorf being human was retconned in favour of the "Gerudo stuff." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As Majora's Mask claims, Gerudo are a subrace of humans. Shiekah, Hylian are also included. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Since Gerudo is a subhuman race and Ganondorf was claimed to be Gerudo, it would be fitting to say he was human. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not subhuman, just human. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that Guerdo is simply a subrace. They are physically similar to Hylians and seem to resememble middle eastern people quite a bit. just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.104.92 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Current edit war
There is no specified "human" race, except that named races are sometimes generalized as "human". Throughout the series, this has applied to Hylia, Gerudo, the round-eared folk, the Wind Tribe, and possibly the Rito (as Cyclos is said to be angry at humans, and the Rito were in charge of his shrine - still OR, though). Sadly, the word "human" is not used in OoT, so we can't know if Sheikah are or aren't included, though they are said to be basically the same as the Hylia.

Specific line from FSA, proving that Gerudo are a race of humans: "Ganon... This beast was once of the Gerudo... Once human."

It specifically excludes the Deku, Skull Kids, the Dead Tribe, the Evil Tribe, the Goron, the Spirits, Korok, the Minish, the Twili, the Zora, the Animal Tribe, the Yeti, and the Cobble. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current revision should stay, as humans do indeed exist within The Legend of Zelda universe, and Gerudos are human. Thus it makes complete sense, that Ganondorf is human. Artichoker[talk] 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why does it say throughout TP, OoT, OoS/A that he's a gerudo? And using FSA is contradictory to your blatently wrong statment, it even calls him a gerudo. Play the games or get the fuck out.(Fossilgojira (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Did I not just say that Gerudos are human. Please read my comment. Also, it wouldn't hurt if you were a little more civil. Thank you. Artichoker[talk] 02:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is funny. MM specifically claims Gerudo are a type of human. FSA does as well. In every instance in which "human" is used to exclude something, Gerudo is never what is excluded. How about "Actually do research or GTFO?" It's incredibly easy to find and read the text dumps for every game. By the by, I've 100% beaten every game in the series except the first two, and I can guarantee that I found two of the treasures in TWW that you haven't. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someones having a temper tantrum. If you two idiots insist on calling him human, fine, but state that he is a member of the gerudo tribe, not to mention it's king, then whiney closet-dwelling losers like you should be happy then ;) (Fossilgojira (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Wow that was probably the most hypocritical comment I have heard in a long while. By the way, this constitutes a personal attack. Artichoker[talk] 02:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite ignoring the subject, why don't you read the LoZ races page? They mention humans, yet regar the others as their on spieces. Doesn't it make more sense to debate this there then on the page of the most important villan in the series?(Fossilgojira (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
 * I have read that page, and they mention humans, and that they are part of the Zelda universe. They also say that Gerudos are humans. And it would make more sense to debate this here, as this article is where the content dispute is located at. Artichoker[talk] 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this really that important to you? You can edit the page all you want, the sites (official and fan) still refer to him as the gerudo king. If you want to bicker about this be my guest, but your not worth my time(Fossilgojira (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Man you are too funny. This article does refer to him as the leader of Gerudos. How about reading the article before commenting please? Thank you. Artichoker[talk] 02:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are just too much, I was refering to the the official and fan pages, not the article here. And before you think you've found an answer, the official page DOES refre to him as human, but aslo states that he ENTERD the gerudo ranks rather than being born into it, as we know is fact. Seems NOA dosent have it's facts straight either, but this doesn't matter as you'll obviously watch this page like a hawk and kudos to your dedication, but I don't have time for you.(Fossilgojira (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Once again, please read the article; Ganondorf is known as the King of the Gerudo, by virtue of being the only male in the tribe born once every 100 years. explicitly states that he was born into it. Artichoker[talk] 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What the devil?
(*Should that be a capital "D"?) Happened to the image? It was a good image! And now it's gone, dammit! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody seems to want to remove the image on the grounds that it's "outdated". Whilst I can see that a fan site or a commercial site might only want to display the latest images of a character, this is an encyclopedia so the criteria for suitability are quite different.  There's no reason to exclude an image simply because it's old. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: The lead image dispute lives on
I absolutely do not agree with the current one (obviously). My basis for removing OoT Ganon from lead is as follow:

-It goes against the principle of the 'last' big consensus. Which was...nothing. It wasn't a universal agreement on leaving it with no image, but for months all the parties left (content perhaps?). -It's very outdated.

I am against a lead image due to how Ganon is portrayed differently in each game (human or monster) and once AFTER we fully agree on either human or monster, then it's which variation to pick (Wind Waker? Twilight Princess?).

I'm very happy that an Admin stepped in and locked the article. I've voiced my thoughts. I'm not pushing for any images, and if we have to pick one, it most certainly won't be an image of Ganon from a decade ago. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're outnumbered, see above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as not even a day has passed, I don't follow. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to say is that if you can't come up with a better arguement other than "no consensus was reached", then a lead image will be placed. Believe it or not, consensus can change, and right now the first representation of Ganon appears to be the best choice. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So instead of using the more recent, much bigger, and sourced (as of now, I don't see a source for OoT beast Ganondorf), Twilight Princess Ganon? If a main image is to be used, like most articles that I'm aware of (Sonic, Link, Mario), they use the latest installment. And TP is the last appearance of Ganon as of recent. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's what you feel, then voice your thoughts here. It just seems like you're ignoring everyone, that's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've called an RfC on this. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: This is a classic case of the point of consensus. The matter is entirely too subjective to really make a ruling on.  Hopefully some kind of peaceful consensus can be reached.  I suggest taking another vote, setting a, say, 14-day deadline to vote, and notifying all major editors to this article as well as the participants at the Video Wikiproject.  Hope some kind of agreement can be reached that way.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You suggest we take a what? :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We had a previous attempt at a vote, but you already knew that from just by looking at this page. Get more people to be aware of this new vote on which Ganon to use, set a deadline for the poll, and that's that. Whichever the community firmly believes is the best for the page then so be it. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I didn't know. Now I know why we have no image on the page--the wrong process was used to select one. Wikipedia works by discussion with the aim of producing consensus.  Try to short-circuit that discussion phase by making a vote (which forces people to choose one option exclusing all others) and what you do is polarise the discussion, which is the opposite of what is needed to establish consensus.  I therefore suggest politely that, since we're seeking consensus, all calls for vote be very firmly resisted.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead Image Vote (March 2008)
Since it's been suggested we do this, I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

Remember, the issue at hand is to provide a lead image that everyone (or a sizable majority) can agree on. We have two forms (human and beast) and a number of games (including from the Zelda and Smash Bros. series) to choose from. To keep this from being a stale vote, please state reasons for your pick. And I'll start with mine:


 * Human (Twilight Princess). Reason:  The human Ganondorf has become the new "face" of the character.  Although beast Ganon has appeared in more games and is arguably the more well-known, ever since Ocarina of Time, the human Ganondorf has been used more often than not.  Whether it be the Zelda games, Spaceworld, Smash Bros., or whatever else, THIS is the Ganon that Nintendo has chosen to represent Link's archenemy.  And, the Twilight Princess version is, of course, the most recent version of the character.  King Zeal (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Beast (Twilight Princess). Reason: The human Ganondorf has made three total appearances, canon-wise, and has only appeared without the beast form in TWW (in which many commentators claimed Puppet Ganon was a reference). Beast form by itself has appeared as recently as Four Swords Adventures, and in Brawl, both forms are present. The Beast form is the form of how which the character has been introduced, and how he still continues to appear as an "ultimate" form, excluding the one instance in TWW. Spaceworld was a demo for a game that would never exist, and the only other appearances of "Ganondorf as the main form" are in South Park, where he appears for a fraction of a second within the hordes of evil. While I would not reject his TLoZ or ALttP artwork, TP or SSBB form is acceptable as "most recent". Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing I noticed in your previous argument was that you used the term "canon" and then immediately cited Four Swords Adventures and Brawl as appearances for beast Ganon. I say this because it makes the point you're making a bit unclear.  Are "canon" appearances the only things we're considering here, or are games like FSA and SSBB being considered?  It can't be both ways. King Zeal (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...how is FSA not canon? Fine then, Ganondorf has made three canon appearances, and two non-canon appearances with Nintendo approval, and only twice has he appeared without beast form. The rest of my reasoning stands.
 * (Completely OR, I guess, but I would also add that in TWW, Gerudo Ganondorf is presented with a host of similarities to Agahnim's situation, and the whole turn-to-stone thing indicates, at least to me, that it's just a golem or something.)128.211.164.141 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see where all this "canon/noncanon" stuff matters. Canon/noncanon is OR, especially in the Zelda series, where individual theories run rampant.  The only thing that should be considered, in my view, are Ganon's appearances in published material.  Since 1998, he's only appeared in beast form as the final form (or near-final form) of the main antagonist, and as a special attack in Brawl (excluding FSA and the Oracle games).  This is how the character is represented now.  Not to say that the past doesn't matter, but things DO change.  It is for this reason that the lead image of the Batman article doesn't show the character's older costumes with a yellow circle--even though that's the form he's taken for nearly 30 years. King Zeal (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Nintendo has specifically defined which games are "canon", and Miyamoto and Aonuma frequently agree with this list. It's not OR, it's been explicitly set out by Nintendo itself. "Since 1998" - FSA. OoS and OoA. No human form at all in those games. FSA isn't even clear how long ago the human Ganondorf sought out the trident - after all, he's given the same trident to Phantom Ganon in OoT, maybe FSA is right after OoT.
 * My argument is that things haven't changed - pig form is only slightly less frequently used, and has only been left out of TWW so far (in which it still arguably appears, as a frequent symbol used by Ganondorf, and the design of Puppet Ganon). Human form still does not outnumber the pig form, no matter how recently you put the cutoff - at best, you can only get a 50-50 split.
 * The numbers are clear - pig form continues to be used just as often as human form, and is his traditional form - it was for that reason that they had it in OoT, as a call-back to previous games. The same deal exists in OoX - they originally started out as remakes of the first two games, and Ganon was meant as a call-back to them. If anything, it's OR to try to ignore these numbers, and make claims based on not much else about how Nintendo intends to portray him. This is how they have and do portray him - barring some statement from Miyamato along the lines of "We picture Gerudo-form Ganondorf as the definitive image of Ganon", there's not really much to debate with. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize you're citing the Oracle games which are a what, 7 years old? Miyamoto once said the timeline started with OoT, what Miyamoto thought 7 years ago has no baring on the now. Especially since the Oracles weren't created by one of Nintendo's own studios. I'm aware that Miyamoto still oversaw production, but it wasn't Nintendo directly involved with the project. Flagship wasn't outsourced, they just made their own Zelda games. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine then. Start at FSA - 2 canon pig, 2 canon gerudo, 1 noncanon pig, 1 noncanon gerudo. As I said before, no matter where you put the cutoff, 50-50's the best you can get, completely disproving this whole "They've changed it over to Ganondorf as the main face of the character." idea. I have no idea why you're bringing up OoT's place in the timeline, could you please explain? Also, whether or not Nintendo itself did all the work for OoX, it is still considered part of the canon series of games according to the Nintendo websites and listings. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I decline to vote, but would observe that perhaps we might like to seek consensus that an image representing Ganon would be preferable to no such image. Voting won't find consensus where none exists, and if there is a chance of reaching consensus, holding a vote too early may make it harder by forcing people to make a decision rather than consider the issues. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'd rather there not be a vote, either, but I at least want to see where everyone's opinions stand.  King Zeal (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Human (Twilight Princess). Reason: The main antagonist of the series has been presented in recent years in his human form. I like to think his beast form is on par with other enemies in different franchises that mutate their appearance as the 'final battle' (Dracula comes to mind, yet his own article uses human art). His Gerudo form has become his most prominent and popular form (Melee & Brawl are guest appearances where he's human). While I normally don't want him to have a lead image, this is the only one that should be put on (we already have this image in the article, just a matter of making it the lead) due to the nature of the character in recent years and it being his last canonical appearance. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to do this again, but here:
 * Canon
 * TLoZ: Wizardpig
 * TAoL: Wizardpig
 * LA: Wizardpig
 * ALttP: Wizardpig, with Agahnim
 * OoT: Gerudo and Beastpig
 * OoA & OoS: Wizardpig
 * TWW: Gerudo
 * FSA: Wizardpig
 * TP: Gerudo and Beastpig
 * Non-canon
 * Cartoon: Wizardpig
 * CD-i: Wizardpig
 * Melee: Gerudo
 * Brawl: Gerudo and Beastpig
 * Five total appearances in the major entries, out of 13. Two of these are non-canon appearances, and the wizardpig's appearances are as recent as FSA. Even if we rule out all the games before OoT, Pig still appears just as often as Gerudo. The human form is simply an additional new form, like Zelda's sheik - it has in no way replaced the pig as the usual form, and rarely even appears without it. The pig as "final form" only occurs in these games - in others, wizardpig is his normal, and according to ALttP, true form.128.211.164.141 (Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a solid argument. Sheik was not a replacement form for Zelda.  It was not meant to represent Zelda as a character.  As a comparison, no one is saying Agahnim should be Ganon's lead image.  King Zeal (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really correct about his beast form on some of those games. In FSA he has the same backstory, he was born as a Gerudo. Though he did not appear as a human, his human form was still mentioned ala Agahanim. It's not a matter of which form has appeared the most in all his years, it's which form Nintendo has been using to portray the character Ganon. It's not like in Zelda I where he was always a pig from the start, in TWW and TP he was a human 99% of the time. That's the point I'm trying to convey, he's become the leading representation of the timeless evil that is Ganon. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And he has the wizardpig form in FSA, which in ALttP is indicated to be his "true form". And again, even starting from as far back as OoT, there's still an even split for Pig to human.
 * I didn't say that Sheik was meant to be a replacement for Zelda - just like I don't think Ganondorf is meant to be a replacement for Ganon. They're additional forms, and used as such.

How about making a compromise: we show both the Ganon form and the Ganondorf form in the lead, like in the Wario article, where both his overalls appearance and his WarioWare appearance have been included. The Prince (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with The Prince. Will this satisfy all parties involved? The boar form from Twilight Princess and the human Gerudo from Twilight Princess for lead?--HeaveTheClay (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the very compromise I suggested from the beginning. I'm in full agreement.King Zeal (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Beast Twilight Princess" -- ZeWrestler  Talk 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm personally okay with it, but it's probably going to get one of the fair use editors in a twist. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go for a joint pic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a joint picture of Ganon and Ganondorf from Twilight Princess. Does everyone agree with this decision? The Prince (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 's best compromise we're going to get, so yeah. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact.
 * Well, fair use is certainly an issue on this article, what with all the different Ganon(dorf) pics in it. I doubt this is something we can get away with as far as fair use policy is concerned. I'll look into it. For now, I'm just happy we've reached some sort of consensus on this issue at last.--Atlan (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, at last. My only concern is that the images are just a little bit too small, and considering they are very dark images it makes them difficult to look at when at such a small size. Would anyone be opposed to resizing the images to make them slightly larger? -- .: Alex  :.  16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can view the images perfectly fine. I think they should remain the same size, you never want to make non-free images too big. Artichoker[talk] 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would actually make them a smidge bigger - even on my screen's brightest setting, Ganondorf's face looks black and featureless to me. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't see his eyes and such? Artichoker[talk] 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so they are a bit bigger now, I guess that doesn't do any harm. In any case, I can see it all perfectly now. Artichoker[talk] 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We could just use the SSBB picture (it would count as both games use the same model and textures). In it, Ganondorf has his head lifted higher and there is much more light on his face making it easier to see. Not to mention it actually faces the text... -- .: Alex  :.  12:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Go ahead and use it, and we'll see how it looks. Artichoker [ talk ]  13:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll overwrite the existing picture, so we can simply revert it if we are not happy with it. Forget it. The image types are not the same. I've uploaded a new one instead. What do you think? I personally like how it's better proportioned to beast Ganon, but I'd rather know everyone else's opinion. -- .: Alex  :.  18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks really good. Artichoker [ talk ]  23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Template change request
editprotected I was wondering if someone could replace the current navigational template with Template:The Legend of Zelda which more completely covers the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to change it, but since this article is about a character, the character template is appropriate.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Ganon is included in the other nav template, I'll add it, but not replace the existing one, since he's in that one too, and as Espirit pointed out, it's a little more relevant. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have a Gerudo Ganon uploaded on this article, as for the beast form
I can't find anything that Nintendo released. The only other 'possibility' is the beast Ganon from Brawl.

Here's what I have in mind: http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/images/hidden09/hidden09_080318p.jpg

Just shows him. If everyone's ok with it then a request should go to an admin to unblock the article so we can add it. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not the TP Ganon? It's a lot less ugly of a picture, and is the same design.
 * Also, can we replace the ALttP Sprite with this? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that work (Twilight Beast Ganon) at TSA's website. That works a lot better than the Brawl one. And the tiny sprite from ALTTP desperately needs to be replaced with something bigger which as shown by another editor works fine. We have the most up to date Ganondorfs (beast and gerudo), as well as the Faces of Evil, and the classic Ganon as a moblin (or whatever you want to call it) which hopefully should be OK by everyone.

It doesn't bother me at all whether this goes through or not, but the CDI Ganon reminds me of the Ganon from the animated TV series. It's mostly opinionated, but perhaps the cartoon one would fit better for the role of Other Appearances given that it's more canon and we'd probably fine a better picture than the goofy looking one we have. --71.2.37.29 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appearances in other media
This includes Ganon's appearances in both nintendo-sponsored cartoons. Shouldn't the appearances ins south park and robot chicken be in another section? One like appearances in popular culture? Since nintendo did not authorize neither appearance in southpark or robot chicken.--216.81.36.194 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification of titles
In my version of Twilight Princess, he's called "Dark Lord Ganondorf" and "Dark Beast Ganon", not "Great Demon King Ganondorf" or "Demon Beast Ganon", so can we get some verification as to which title is correct, or if the Japanese name could possable translate into both names, and make suitable adjustments to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.67.43 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, those are the english names of the character, not the Japanese or its translation. That ref is specifically talking about the japanese name. And no, the Japanese names do not actually translate to the English ones, its just that Nintendo has a certain aversion, at least with its main series, to religious-sounding titles and names. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we could put the English titles in alongside the Japanese translations to avoid confusing people like myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But the refs are specifically referencing the Japanese games for verification that he is a demon emperor - the passage isn't talking about his titles, merely what he is. I mean, we could add it in, but it wouldn't fit well, and I don't really see how we can make it any more obvious that it's from the Japanese version. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ganon vs. Ganondorf
According to this article, Ganon specifically refers ONLY to the beast form, and Ganondorf refers ONLY to the Gerudo form. But that's just not true. In The Wind Waker, Ganon is used regularly to refer to Ganondorf, even though he's in his human form. In A Link to the Past's manual, which is where the name Ganondorf was first used, it's said that Ganon is his common name or nickname or something, not a name for another form. So I'm pretty sure this article should be changed to reflect the fact that the name Ganon is interchangeable. I believe that only his human form is called Ganondorf, but after he's obtained the Triforce or Trident and become the Evil King/King of Darkness, the name Ganon can be used for either form. So for his human form, Ganon and Ganondorf are interchangeable. --Impossible (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ....no, that's not what the article says. "Ganon, also known as Ganondorf in his human form" - it's saying that Ganondorf is a SECOND name that can be used for him while in human form, along Ganon. If you want to make it more clear, go ahead, but try not to make it confusing. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I made that comment, the article certainly did specify Ganon and Ganondorf. The images at the top were labeled "Ganon form" and "Ganondorf form". It was definitely a problem, it's just been fixed now. You're right, but that doesn't mean the article was. However, I'd say that Ganon is the "second" name, not Ganondorf. Ganondorf is his real name, after all. The name Ganon wasn't used in OoT until the end. --Impossible (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Demon Emperor
I'd like to suggest that we change that single line from "dark demon emperor" to "evil king" or "king of darkness". The reasons I suggest this are as follows:


 * These are the titles an English audience knows (Ganon is the King of Evil in OoA/OoS and OoT, and the King of Darkness in LttP). We could and possibly should note he is a Demon in the original games, but in the english game this is translated as Evil/Dark King, and this is the English Wikipedia after all.
 * It's less specific and more general a term than Demon Emperor, which implies Ganon is a ruler of a demonic army, which is true but he's in general an evil ruler.
 * It wouldn't need 6 sources, which look awkward and strange, having six citations for a single phrase when plenty of other, agreeable alternatives exist.

Just a thought. The Clawed One (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather we make clear on what the Japanese and English adaptations use. I see no compelling reason to remove the references though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ....Huh? Yeah, the English translations don't use the term Demon Emperor, so we should use the English term and note the Japanese term elsewhere, in brackets or in a footnote. The Clawed One (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But that would cause confusion. Just use the original dialogue, then mention what the English version said. Simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about demonic emperor? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That a translation from the Japanese? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I just thought it described Ganon well. After all he is demonic and he is an emperor. Sounds better than "demon emperor" which sounds like an actual title. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Think we should be consistent here guys. Creating a title seems like WP:OR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a major point in the Japanese versions of the games that he is a demonic emperor. This is often translated to dark or evil in the american version, to avoid the religious connotations, but it is even touched on in the English FSA. The entire point of the references given is that editors kept on denying that demons even existed in the series, much less that Ganon was one. If you must, edit the references to say that it is from the Japanese games (except for FSA, which is English). But he is clearly called the "Demon Emperor". Not Demonic, not Dark, not Evil (though he is called those at other times) - the Japanese versions specifically call him a Demon Emperor at these times. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the English Wikipedia, the English translation should take priority. The Clawed One (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And he's also called "ancient demon emperor" in FSA, so the English translation is consistent with the Japanese. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sesshomaru, we're not creating a title, we're trying to think of an adequate term to describe Ganon. I think dark demon emperor describes him well but people might assume he is an emperor over demons rather than an emperor who is a demon. That's why I suggested demonic. After all, he is dark (dark as in sinister, not dark as in dark-skinned), he is demonic and he is indeed an emperor. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he does rule over demons, so its more than just being a ruler who happens to be a demon. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Splendid. Demon Emperor it is then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, demon emperor fits nicely. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sesshomaru, I'm glad you agree, m'lord. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never even seen "demon emperor" before. The Japanese titles given to Ganondorf would be translated as "Demon King", "King of Darkness", or even "Demon King of Darkness", depending on the game. I would go with Demon King. The footnotes used to reference the use of "demon emperor" tend to say this, too, so I think it should be kept consistent with what the actual source says - "demon king" being the most common. --Impossible (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Impossible, I had to partially revert you there. It was agreed that Ganon is a ruler of demons, a warlord if you will, so "emperor" fit better than "king" in that instance. Aside from that, we're using Japanese terminology (appears he is initially titled "demon emperor"). So if you want consensus to change, you're going to have to discuss first. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's ever actually called "demon emperor" - however, he is variously described as a demon, an emperor, a dark demon, a king of darkness, an emperor of darkness, and a demon king - so we combined those into "dark, demon emperor". Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And besides, we're not inventing a title for him, we're just thinking of an accurate way to describe him in the opening paragraph. He is dark, he is a demon and he is indeed an emperor so therefore "dark demon emperor" suits him perfectly. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But he's officially called a king, not an emperor. In what way is emperor more appropriate, when it's completely unofficial? King fits perfectly fine and fits with the description the games use. I really don't understand where emperor come from. The Japanese terminology DOES use Demon King, not emperor. --Impossible (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ....no, it's not at all unofficial. He's called emperor several times, such as in the english version of The Wind Waker. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

unnecessary exaggerations?
"His abilities, both physical and magical, are augmented to god-like proportions by the artifact, such as invulnerability, immense physical strength, and nigh-omnipotent magical powers."

"In addition to Ganon's magical abilities, he is also a master swordsman, as shown in his final conflict with Link in The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess."

Maybe it's just me, but how do his WW and TP sword fights make him a "master swordsman", and where has he displayed nigh-omnipotent magical powers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.71.230 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is able to curse several of the deities in several games. Plus, it's part of the given definition of what the ToP does. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Given what he's able to do to the Great Deku Tree and Jabu-Jabu, both gods, as well as a bunch of stuff in game I've never played, Ganon's powers easily surpass or at least equal those of the patron deities of many of the races of Hyrule. He's not Three Goddess powerful, but still. The Clawed One (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ganon's always been known as more of a sorcerer than a swordsman, so I would be reluctant to refer to him as a master. Perhaps a skilled swordsman instead.Garonyldas (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He simultaneously held his own against Link, Zelda and King Daphnes Hyrule (or whatever his name is), all of whom are exeptionally talented swordfighters in Wind Waker. I think that qualifies him as a master. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably just wise to state it as "skilled," if people are causing such a controversy about this miniscule subject. ♣  Klptyzm   Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 05:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aggreed. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo's
I don't think this is worth fighting over, but I simply don't see how it is necessary. However, the guidelines on linking say that my manner, simply adding text outside of the link:
 * "Preferred style is to use this instead of a piped link, if possible."
 * As the guidelines ask for it, I will revert it to Nintendo's, unless someone can explain why the other method is necessary or preferred. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which guideline exactly are you citing? (Yours links to a portal.) I found Piped link, though it doesn't give an example with an apostrophe. Response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is the correct link. The piped link page does cover it, though, with:

"Given the option to pipe a link or to "blend" an affix, preferred style is to use a blended affix. Write simply Public transportation instead of complicated Public transportation. Both display identically as Public transportation."

Affix's include "'s". Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Personification" vs. "Embodiment"
While I've heard some theories that Ganondorf is only invoking a true "Satan" when he becomes Ganon, and not just revealing his true self, this is pure speculation and not to be entertained on this page until sources for it are gound.

Personification is the attribution of a personal nature or character to inanimate objects or abstract notions, esp. as a rhetorical figure. Thus, Morpheus from The Sandman would be a personification of Dreaming (I think, I'm not too familiar with that series).

Embodiment is a person, being, or thing embodying a spirit, principle, abstraction, etc; incarnation. As I understand it, this means something which becomes the sumbol of a concept.

Thus the difference seems to be that in one, the concept comes first and becomes the person, while in the other, the person becomes the concept.

Clearly, Ganondorf became Ganon, and all sources describe this as him merely revealing his heart's true face to the world. Thus, if anything, he is an embodiment - he is not some nebulous, primal evil made flesh, he is instead a human being who allowed himself to go to the very limits of depravity.

Another way to look at it - while Ganon is evil in the adjectival sense, he is not evil in the noun sense. There are other Majin's - Dethl, Vaati, Majora, Bellum - and Ganon seems only to differ from them in that his target is also the most common setting of the series.

I hope this clears the problem up, Jupiter - while the two words are quite close in meaning, there are some concrete differences which create real differences in what they communicate. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you KrytenKoro but I think we're getting into technicalities here. I personally would prefer personification, it sounds more glamorous. I would also argue that he is a personification of evil as he appears to be the source of more or less all the evil in Hyrule. While you might argue that in Wind Waker he isn't quite as ruthless as he was in previous games, he is still pure evil. If I may, Ganon reminds me of Lucifer from John Milton's Paradise Lost. Milton's portrayal of Lucifer, like Ganon whilst being evil incarnate did have some redeeming traits and indeed something akin to a code of honour. After all, he did take quite good care of his henchmen unlike most villain characters. Also if you think back to the Hyrulian "religious" stories about the Three Goddesses and the creation of the world and all that jazz, there was no mention of a Satan-figure which would imply that Ganon is the closest thing Hyrule has to a satanic character. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, The Minish Cap posits that evil originated not with one anti-goddess, but with the plague of monsters, and with the evil in normal people's hearts. If there was a "personification of evil" in the series, it would more likely be Vaati, who "became entranced by the evil in men's hearts" and allowed himself to represent it. Ganon, on the other hand, is not evil for the sake of evil, like Vaati is. While he is undeniably evil, and quite deeply so, it is always selfish in nature, and not with the pseudo-religious fervor that Vaati has for it. Or Bellum, who was early on said to manifest from the remnants of Ganon's evil, and was by its nature "anti-life". Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But what is evil but extreme selfishness? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Today's revert
Worshiped is the accepted American English spelling. Worshipped is acceptable in British English, but the manual of style asks for American English to be used.

Medical diagnosis, such as psychotic, are by nature OR, and unacceptable in such a character article. If you can find a published article by a professional psychiatrist that diagnoses him as such, or official material that unambiguously describes him as such (thus, it must be "Word of God" stuff, not quotes from other characters), than we can change it to "psychotic", but in the absence of that, it is out of bounds.

There is little comparison available to describe his strength as "superhuman" - for one, Link seems to be capable of much of the same feats, and Link is assuredly a regular human for many of the games in the series.

Near-omnipotent is usually considered poor writing - while technically acceptable, it just sounds bad.

As discussed above, there are no sources for him being a mass murderer.

There is no source to claim him as a master swordsman - while apparentely skilled, it is ridiculous for any of us to claim expertise in analysing swordsmanship.

Daimonic is incorrect - Ganon is not at all above good and evil, and is not a force of nature.

Other than that, Artichoker, most of the edits the anon made were correct. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I'm no Ganon expert, but I noticed that the anon added some controversial information in his edit (i.e. the mass murderer category) so I reverted it. Artichoker [ talk ]  00:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, the weasel and POV words definitely need to go. But um, daimonic can be synonymous with demon or god. In fact, he is very much more a daemon than an actual god (he seduces/possess Zant and is demigod-like). Anyway, I personally don't like this particular attitude towards this article KK, it's very WP:OWN. -- .: Alex  :.  19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ....what? Artichoker had done a full revert on an anon who had made some controversial edits, but also several helpful edits. I was simply explaining why I partially reverted the change of an editor I trust, so that he didn't take it as criticism, as well as explaining to the anon why some of his edits had been reversed.
 * As for the other - I refer you to Daimonic, which describes it primarily as a god-like entity above good and evil. Ganon is not above those - not even the Goddesses are, according to canon. Neither is he a source of inspiration, creativity, and fascination. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Manual of Style does not call for American spelling over British. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It used to (It's incredibly stupid to have a manual of style that changes on editor's whims, and is never constant or usable), but it still has this:
 * It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from British to American spelling unless the article concerns an American topic. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.[1] Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead image.
Just curious, but why aren't we using an image from The Legend of Zelda to depict Ganondorf? We don't third party images in Link (The Legend of Zelda), a featured article, so why in this one? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says every single article has to follow the exact same image layout? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure featured articles are described as "examples of what an article should be". That argument only works with "this Start article does this, so we should do it!". And since you can't revert me, where is the consensus to use Brawl image over Twilight Princess image? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I participated in the discussion, it was decided that a joint image of Ganon and Ganondorf from TP would work as a compromise. I was fine with that and don't see how a picture of Ganon from TP and Ganondorf from Brawl is any better. The original consensus was to have Ganon and Ganondorf from TP, and I still think it should be that way. The Prince (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? It's not an image from The Legend of Zelda series. Just like that we use Link from Phantom Hourglass for Link's lead image, we should use Ganondorf from Twilight Princess for Ganon's lead image along with Ganon from Twilight Princess. We should not use an image created by a third party developer. We wouldn't use an image of Luke Skywalker from the Extended Universe of books, so why should we use Ganondorf from a different series made by a different artist? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with ALttP here, I think Ganon's lead image needs to be from the most recent, canon game; Twilight Princess. Artichoker [ talk ]  21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One picture then? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially since these are copyrighted images. Artichoker [ talk ]  00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters. Copyright issues only matter to including an image in an article - if both TP versions of Ganon and Ganondorf are in the article in the first place, there's really no fair use issues with putting them in a certain part of the article.
 * Speaking of images, we should include the cel-shaded Ganondorf. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the current picture doesn't work. "Third party" or not, the SSBB image of Ganon is his latest incarnation.  Can you explain it to me again, because I don't see the problem. In fact, I'd say that your final suggestion, using cel-shaded Ganondorf (Wind Waker version) is even less representative of the character. King Zeal (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Using both images in the lead was a compromise to a long, annoying dispute, and I'd rather not shake it up again. Since we're going to have one of each image somewhere in the article anyway, there's not much of a "fair use" issue over where to put them. As for using TWW Ganondorf - no. We already have an image of Ganondorf, and just because he's popular with some editors doesn't mean we need to turn this page into a photo gallery for him. We could, perhaps, have an image of Puppet Ganon, as his visual resemblance to Ganon is an important part of his information and purpose.
 * As for using SSBB Ganondorf, I think the rationale was that it was much clearer, and was reasonably close enough to the TP version that it would be acceptable. If it's too far, then there should be no problem putting the TP version back. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. I also don't see the problem with having those two images. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the third party image isn't created by anyone involved in The Legend of Zelda series? If they're so similar that it doesn't matter which one goes up, why not settle for an image from The Legend of Zelda series? That'd be like if a Marvel vs. Capcom game came out tomorrow, should we use images from that instead of Street Fighter IV? No, because it's a different franchise.
 * My final suggestion? I don't see how "include TWW Ganondorf" is "put TWW Ganondorf in lead".
 * We have TWO images of Ganondorf, and three images of Ganon. TWW Zeldas and all games based on it are separate and distinct styles of Zelda, unlike any other Zelda game in the series. It can't be compared to "an evolution in design for the character", it's "a completely different style and take on the character". If Ganon gets three images, Ganondorf getting three images is fine too. If it's not fine for Ganondorf, then it shouldn't be fine for Ganon, especially when one of the Ganon images is almost a joke image - were the CD-i Zeldas so significant that an image of Ganon from them has to be include amongst the ranks of ALttP's, OoT's, and TP's? TWW's depiction of Ganondorf is, by a matter of fact, more important and more distinct than TP Ganondorf's - TP Ganondorf's pretty much just a touching up of OoT's Ganondorf, while TWW's Ganondorf is a separate design in what many believe to be a separate series - where they make TWW-like games and OoT-like games. Basically, an image of Ganondorf from TWW is more important than the TP Ganondorf or the CD-i Ganon. We can't drop the TP Ganondorf for obvious reasons, but what reason do we need to show a screenshot from what is considered one of the worst video games ever made? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because it's meant to illustrate his four main forms the blue/green pig wizard, the green boar monster, and the green human. If you absolutely want, we can get rid of the CDi image, though it is vastly different from other iterations of the character in design and detail. TWW, however, is really just OoT Ganondorf in a cloak.
 * Also, bringing up an equity argument for images doesn't really work, since Ganon has appeared way more times than Ganondorf. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you even seen TWW Ganondorf? I'm just curious how TWW Ganondorf isn't unique-looking, and but TP Ganondorf is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To add, Ganondorf in TWW has the visual style, a beard, the different outfit, and a different figure. TP Ganondorf is pretty much a carbon copy of OoT - same figure, same imposing power, wears armor somewhat similar to OoT Ganondorf. Five images is clearly acceptable, as shown by five images used at this point. Like has been stated, TWW Ganondorf is plenty different from OoT Ganondorf, just like TWW Link is different from OoT Young Link, and thus, is used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why we don't have an OoT image of Ganondorf - if it's been added, it needs to be removed. There only needs to be 3 or 4 images in this article, unless we want the south park image. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an image of OoT Ganondorf. If you want to drop it, fine, but in replacement, TWW Ganondorf should go up because it's a unique depiction in what is considered a "separate series of Zelda". - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, here are some ideas of images to use:
 * OoT Ganondorf - First iteration of human Ganon.
 * TWW Ganondorf - Being that cel-shaded Zeldas are almost co-developed with realistic games, it's often considered an equal partner, while most other Zeldas are grouped together as realistic or semi-realistic, which is why we include the cel-shaded versions of the characters because it's a different depiction of the characters.
 * LoZ Ganon - First appearance of Ganon, like how Bowser has a screenshot of a King Koopa battle.
 * Phantom Ganon - A common minion of Ganon.
 * Puppet Ganon - Not a strong reason to include.
 * Ganondorf (OoT) figurine - An example of Ganon merchandise.
 * Ganon (TV version) - An example of a semi-well-known version of the character outside of video games.
 * Just some suggestions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replacing the OoT image with a TWW image seems acceptable, but it's still more than one Ganondorf, which might not pass the fair-use patrol. Puppet Ganon would illustrate the visual style of TWW, and it's resemblance to Ganon is an important enough part of its purpose that it would probably be the best-rationalized image we could put on this page. The Ganondorf figurine is a good idea as well. The FSA Ganon is an unclear, bad-quality image, and identical to the ALttP art anyway. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we could value from the inclusion of the following images - LoZ Ganon, Ganondorf figurine, and TWW Ganon. Six images I don't think is too much. The LoZ depiction shows the origin of Ganon, the TWW image shows a "current, alternate version to the other Ganondorf design", and the Ganondorf figurine shows merchandising for the character and shows the first version of Ganondorf. So basically, I think we can all agree on the figurine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found an image that might be good - . It's a distinctive art style, and shows Ganon fighting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the SSBB image? We changed it because the TP is simply too dark. Artwork with background wouln't make a very good lead image. -- .: Alex  :.  12:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The SSBB image is a non-primary, third party-made, non-Zelda series image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's still made by Nintendo. The character design was by Nintendo, and it still technically constitutes part of the series. A more spin-off-style form, yes, but there's nothing that says we can't use that. Exceptions can be made; not everything has to be the same. The TP image is still problematic as you cannot make out the features on his face. Plus it has a white background, which is noticably hideous against the light gray of the infobox (on this computer at least). The other image was transparent. -- .: Alex  :.  20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've limited the number of images on the list to seven. What of those seven should go? I'm thinking that the figurine and/or the TV Ganon should stay, though I'm leaning towards only one of them. Ganondorf from TWW I think should be in the article, for the same reason Link appears in that form in his article. So I suppose we'd get two images from that list, making it a total of five. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing categories or not?
I've been wanting to discuss this for a while, so let's settle the matter once and for all. Does he fall under any of the following categories:


 * Category:Fictional characters who can fly
 * Category:Fictional characters who can teleport
 * Category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength
 * Category:Fictional swordsmen


 * If so, there needs to be some sourcing. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fictional swordsmen I think should definitely be in. Superhuman strength I think is original research. He does certainly possess immense physical strength, probably on a par with a professional wrestler but we don't know that it's superhuman. I can't recall him teleporting or flying however. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He teleports in ALttP for one, and he flies in the OoT boss battle as Ganondorf. And for superhuman strength, he certainly seems powerful. If we count Ganon, he's very powerful - in OoS/A, he can stomp and cause tremors that cause Link to collapse from the force of the stomp (that is, when he's not even near), or if you don't count that form, he is still pretty physically powerful, being able to make use of very powerful punches (like in OoT). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But is that superhuman strength? For all we know, Hyrule has much lower gravity, and anyone can do it - Link does stuff like that with Iron Boots, after all. Unless it is explicitly said that he has superhuman strength, we shouldn't be putting stuff like that in.
 * As for fictional swordsmen - I'm not sure what the criteria on that page is, but "swordsman" is not Ganon's profession, and we don't really have any proof he's a particularly good one - the only time he's good at blocking is in TWW. He's able to use swords, but that's about all we know for sure.
 * The other two are explicitly shown, so they should be fine. He flies in ALttP and OoT, and he teleports in TP and ALttP. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He does prove to be quite a remarkable swordfighter in battle with Link in TWW though. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think ALTTP went too far with the categories. For instance, his sword skills seem to be a tangent feat (not enough for categorization IMHO, but that's just me). I shall remove the ones recently inserted. Until there are actual sources present, then some of these can be re-included. And for the record, he teleports and flies in the Zelda TV series, but don't take my word for it just yet. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As for his invisibility, wasn't that a one-time event? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, when was he invisible at all? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Article says it here. The category shouldn't belong. It's as vague as him being a mass murderer, don't you agree? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ganon can turn invisible in ALttP. It's not a vague feature of his, it was a significant sequence of the boss battle with him. It's no different from the fact that he fights with swords. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't overdo it. Categorize the notable details, not something he did once or twice. Make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ALTTP, please stop re-adding those categories without writing in sources. It's not so hard to understand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And may I ask why these are the only categories on Wikipedia that need sources? I guess the fact that you already know that the category placement is as accurate and true as humanly possible isn't good enough. If you already know, then removing the categories is literally nothing more than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Just because you don't like those categories doesn't mean that the concept of sourcing categories magically came into existence. Why only these two categories? How about for Category:Fictional kings? If you remove the categories again for being unsourced without removing ALL categories, I will remove all other categories. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All you're doing is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Discussion hasn't even finished and references haven't been placed, yet you keep re-adding those categories. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the two of us. There's no CONTEXT to source invisibility, teleportation, or flight, but the ability to find characters who can do this is useful. The techniques are not trivial - Hell, Ganon spent the entire battle in the first battle teleporting and being invisible. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, it would probably be a good idea to give examples, in comments, for each category. While most pages don't have problems with this, it's because most fictional characters aren't so prone to being cherrypicked.


 * Category:Executed Fictional characters - while they attempted to execute him in Twilight Princess, Ganon has never died in a true execution - he has only ever died in battle.
 * Category:Fictional characters who can fly - Ganon/dorf displays this in A Link to the Past (somewhat as a plot point), Ocarina of Time (as an irrelevant detail), and through possession, Twilight Princess (as another irrelevant detail). However, it is not a defining factor of his character, and from what I can see in the category, it is meant for those whose flying is a major part of their character. Ganondorf, unlike Keese and like Link, has more incidental flying than defining flying. However, I might be misinterpreting the category.
 * Category:Fictional characters who can teleport - I would actually assume Ganon's "invisibility" is just this, or, as it is in ALttP, the room being dark. This is a major ability of his, which he exercises frequently as a plot-point.
 * Category:Fictional characters who can turn invisible - as said above, his use of this in ALttP seems to be teleportation or the room being dark, not invisibility.
 * Category:Fictional deities - A major plot point of Ocarina of Time, Four Swords Adventures, Twilight Princess, and somewhat of Phantom Hourglass.
 * Category:Fictional demons - again, a major plot point of all appearances
 * Category:Fictional emperors and empresses - same
 * Category:Fictional kings - same
 * Category:Fictional princes - when is Ganondorf called a "prince"?
 * Category:Fictional shapeshifters - major plot point of all appearances, barring TWW.
 * Category:Fictional thieves - while he rules a tribe of desert brigands, has he ever really stolen something? He wasn't able to obtain the Spiritual Stones, and the Triforce was fair to take for anybody. Kidnapper, maybe, but thief?
 * Category:Fictional warlords - possibly, but is there really any evidence that he needed anyone else to take the castle? Could we possibly get a quote from a game?
 * Category:Fictional wizards - a major plot point of ALttP, OoT, and TWW.
 * Fictional swordsmen/trident? - while he uses swords in TWW and TP, he's only really able to parry, and it's never his "profession". His wielding of the Trident of Power, however, is much more central to his character, and is a major plot point in FSA. Would it be acceptable to replace it with Category:Fictional characters who wield tridents, or whatever the cat is? However, looking at the category, it does seem to pretty much be anyone who's picked up a sword and not immediately dropped it. So, it might be acceptable. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of getting into an edit war and getting off topic - can one or both of you just take the higher road, and trust in the consensus and discussion system to get the page to an acceptable state? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very trivial. He makes use of his flight in multiple games, and it's no secret that he has this ability.
 * In LoZ, he doesn't appear to be hidden by darkness or teleporting to make himself appear invisible - he moves seamlessly without reappearing to the player's eyes.
 * He's been called the Prince of Darkness.
 * He was the King of Thieves before he was the King of Darkness, so while he doesn't steal visibly, it's to be assumed that the title means he had clout in the thief community, and logically, because of his thieving ability. You just don't see him as a thief because he never appeared as a thief in-game, but rather pre-game.
 * I think a trident category should be there as well as the swordsman category. Being able to capably dual-wield two swords is an impressive technique, and even with a trident, skills you learn from that can be carried over to swordsmanship. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In LoZ, we were playing an NES game. I think it's fair to say that, since the battle pattern was replicated in later games and was shown as teleportation, it can be assumed that that was the intended movement.
 * He is also only named "Prince of Darkness" in LoZ, as far as I can tell, and even then it's, well...incredibly obvious that it means this in the metaphorical sense, as opposed to his literal role as king or emperor.
 * It is explained several times throughout the series that his role as their king was do to his gender, not any particular skill, and even explained in the adult portion of OoT led to the Gerudo committing more murders, not thefts.
 * He uses two swords twice - once as a rampaging boar (no skill shown or needed), and once in TWW, in which he is impaled through the skull by a 10-year old boy with little to no prior experience with the blade, and slashes wildly throughout the battle. He does seem to show skill in TP, though, since he is much more powerful than a Link who grew up professionally training with the sword.
 * I really think that a category like this, something that admittedly, we have no ability to be judging, should have some kind of sourcing. Since the category is also claimed in the article text, that would be a good place to put a ref. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in ALttP. In ALttP, he's called the King of Thieves, and the concept of Gerudos didn't exist at the time. On top of that, thieves were a common character type throughout ALttP.
 * Then maybe the category should be "Fictional characters who wield swords"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Kryten said, just because you lead thieves doesn't mean you are one yourself.
 * Far too general. We might as well throw Zelda in there, for all that category would mean. King Zeal (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What can we decide? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was strongly implied. Gerudos didn't exist in ALttP.
 * That's basically what the category is right now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I meant let's reach a conclusion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to include him in the teleportation cat. However, what becomes of the invisibility one? First, I'd like to see a reference that clears this up (like someone did for flight above). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ganon also possesses the power to teleport himself and others through various methods. In Ocarina of Time, he is able to enclose Princess Zelda in a pink crystal and teleport her to his castle, and in Twilight Princess, while in his beastial form, he opens up portals to exit and reenter the arena. It is not clear whether this teleportation consists of folding space, or merely moving back and forth between different planes.

Those are the only two rock-solid examples I can remember. The ALttP and TLoZ boss fight bits could also count as teleportation, but it's not clear, so I'd rather we not claim whether they were teleportation or invisibility.

Was there anything in TWW, or was that just illusions? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't played the game in so long, but I do know he teleports in the TV series also. I shall now upload the reference to the article. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * TV series wasn't canon... --Jakezing (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, and you need a source to back that up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * common asence is a lovely source, that and the fact all the other crappy shows were not canon, therfor, why would the zelda be... and 3rd, if it was, then all those timelines we've made are useless, and then we gotta go with the fact no game ever mentions anything from the show.--Jakezing (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...what timelines? And why does it matter that the TV show is uncanon or not? It's the same character, licensed to Nintendo. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

request for protection declined
Sesshomaru requested full protection for this article, which I have declined because the dispute over categories is being discussed here. Sesshomaru and A Link to the Past are both one revert away from violating 3RR, so keep talking and stop reverting. Krakatoa Katie  06:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me...?
Or has anyone else noticed that the "Creation and Conception" doesn't really say anything about Ganon's actual process of creation or conception? All it contains is tidbits of information about the usage of his name. Isn't it appropriate for that that information to be placed under a more appropriate title, and for actual information about Ganon's design process to be inserted? King Zeal (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... the fact is, do we know? Nope.--Jakezing (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? Do we know what? King Zeal (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Theres a reason there isnt much there... called no sources --Jakezing (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. My point is that what is there has nothing to do with "Creation and Conception", which is what the section is called.  How does the specifics about the character's name count as information about his creation?  King Zeal (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cracked as part of the reception section

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Did you even look at the website Haipa Doragon ? Please take a glimpse at it: http://www.cracked.com/

So what exactly makes it:

A- Notable B- A useful source for a video game character C- Legitimate criticism

No, I don't give a flying fuck if you personally didn't like him in Twilight Princess. You're claiming that this holds water, and letting aside the lack of notability/usefulness of the website, who else can vouch for this other than 'fans'? Which by the way is in way no way can be used for or against him in the end of the game. If it was IGN or GameSpot then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with. Enlighten me since you were oh so quick to revert me.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cracked articles are reviewed by editors, therefore making it a reliable source. Also, stop reverting, keep the discussion here until we can reach a consensus. Next time you revert, I'm reporting you for 3rr violation. Artichoker [ talk ]  15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the fact is that they are not reliable for a video game character's reception page. Especially if they go around saying things like LOL GOTH, GANON MAKES ME SAD :(. So a couple of things you failed to address:

How that one source, which isn't from a video game publication, is the general consensus for the character's appearance in TP. And how it is a legitimate criticism and not a biased editor pushing his thoughts into the article. And please stop wasting my time, and your time, by reminding editors, established editors, of the 3 reverts rule. You're not winning any points from anyone here for sucking up to god knows who, so please stop.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. First of all, it is not the general consensus for the character's appearance, but rather some critical coverage on Ganon. It is legitimate because it is from a reliable source. The way to identify a reliable source is if the articles are reviewed by editors (which excludes forum posts, blogs, YouTube, etc.) I have left a response on your talk about about the last part of your accusation. Also, please remember to remain CIVIL. And no, you are not an established editor. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, and no. The source comes from a website that makes a living off jokes and it's criticism are used. It isn't reliable. Hence my remark about Yahtzee who has video game reviews in his 'style' being allowed here on Wikipedia. The problem stems from a non-video game website giving once again I have to repeat myself, criticism in a joke-like manner about Ganondorf in TP.

And this isn't my only/first account, mind blowing concept. I know. You really can't go on claiming if someone isn't an established user based off little knowledge. Thanks again for assuming.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the site makes jokes or not. It is reviewed by editors, and that's what makes it reliable. Please try to address this point. Also, judging by your edits, I see nothing but disruption, and virtually no article improvement besides edit warring. Also, an established editor would know how to indent his comments to follow the generally accepted talk page discussion format. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed it. It's like Maxim giving criticism about Zelda's character. It's like Yahtzee's reviews being used on Wikipedia. Not even going to apologize for misinterpreting and acting like a troll? Alrighty then, looks like only you can call the shots here for disruptive behavior. Going into someone's talk page and accusing them of violating the 3reverts by claiming 4. But ok, it's ok when you do it. You're special. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said: the articles on that site are reviewed by editors. Therefore, the site is reliable for the purposes of this article. It's as simple as that. You are making all of these irrelevant comparisons, and avoiding addressing my main statement. Also, quit the sarcasm, its hard to communicate if you are making personal attacks left and right. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we're still on our high horse. Claiming personal attacks blah blah to cover up your troll on my page, because attacking someone for making 4 reverts on a subject that's been debated is irrelevant. Sure. The moment you stop saying personal attacks is the moment I drop it.

On the meat of this debate. You're not getting my point and yours is basically "Well they have their stuff proof-read, so it's a legitimate claim from a non-serious website". I'm going to stop now assuming you will too, and get a mediator or wait for more editors to input their thoughts in the matter. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop the ad hominem attacks, and also, the information is verified by the editors, making the site reliable. That's all that's needed. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop preaching about attacks when you attacked me first and every time I mention it you swiftly say "PERSONAL ATTACK DETECTED". The person isn't reliable for reasons I've said. Your point is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on the content of their criticism. The point flew over your head and whether or not you're ignoring them on purpose is something I can't even say for sure. And despite my suggestion to wait for more input, you feel the need to say "WELL IT'S PUBLISHED, EDITORS, BLAH BLAH", way to miss the point. How many times now? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I've said: Stop the ad hominem attacks. And honestly I don't know what you're saying anymore. The information is verified by the editors, making the site reliable. That's all that's needed. Your argument is that the site is not reliable; that is therefore false. Since this discussion is going nowhere, I am done talking and hearing those abusive comments. I have said all that has needed to be said, and if you choose to ignore it, then nothing can be done. I guess we shall wait for the 3rd opinion that you say you have called. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be cleared, despite you attacking me on my talk page for something I haven't done, you are still inclined to believe you are justified in claiming that you are being abused here? Alright, just something for future editors to take notice when they look through this. You claimed I violated the 3 reverts rule because you foolishly thought that since my name appeared 4 times on the history page, I clearly did so. And when I mentioned that, I got a nice message about personal attacks. Just so everyone knows why I been acting as such here. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving warnings for rules you have potentially violated is not an attack. Also I miscounted, you indeed only reverted 3 times, however that still warrants a 3rr warning. Also, you got a warning for personal attacks because you explicitly called me an "ass". Now that that's cleared up, we can wait for another opinion. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but claiming false information and threatening in the matter in which you spoke, is. I don't want to paste your response from the talk page to keep things simple here but it wasn't just a little 'oops' as you play it off as. Oh and you were called an ass for assuming. Keywords when I replied, perhaps you've never heard of it. "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me".--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain how "ass" is an appropriate way to refer to editors on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how 'trolling' is an appropriate way to deal with editors on Wikipedia. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I fail to see how Haipa Doragon was ever trolling. However I do see repeated incivility and disruption from you. This is evidence by you referring to me as an "ass" which is never ok on Wikipedia. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, you sure love going out of your way to assume things to fit your troll agenda? He asked why it was okay for me to say ass to an editor. I replied with "Why is it okay for an editor to troll another" in direct reference to your troll by threatening action for something I haven't done. Yes, that. Claiming I violated a rule. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So the fact I accused you of violating a rule is threatening action on my part? Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting it. I said that there's a difference between notifying an editor about a rule that could be broken and then claiming I have done so. He said the latter, that I had reverted in this article 4 times and could had gone to an administrator for something I haven't broken. That is the crux. He then immediately replied here and said I was calling you Hapia, a troll. I didn't remove the material from the article more then 3 times, I have tried other methods to seek a resolution other than mindlessly edit warring like our friend here paints me to be. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The warning states that you have potentially violated the 3rr rule, and it is advisable that you use the warning when the editor has made 3 reverts on the article. Therefore my warning of you was still correct. Artichoker [ talk ]  17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. That was when you messaged me about that rule. I removed it, I'm tired of people going out of their way to remind others of rules without even thinking about for a second, perhaps they aren't dumb enough to revert more than 3 times? To which you replied commenting on how you weren't insulting my intelligence and how I did revert more than 3 times, 4 in total, and how you could had gone to an administrator. Perhaps you left that tiny little detail out of the story for a reason? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having the same problem with this guy over at Ocarina of Time. Instead of discussing, he prefers to be disruptive and revert with the following statement: "GTA IV does it this way!" Anyway, I'm assuming this user is only on Wikipedia to wreak havoc. What's final is that Cracked is definitely reliable, and the fact that it isn't a video game website doesn't matter. Reviews outside of the VG world is perfectly acceptable as long as it's from a reliable source. And BTW, Heave, reverting three times warrants a 3RR tag. The Prince (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting me in this article out of spite because another editor didn't revert me on the Ocarina of Time doesn't make you a better person. More like a stalker. But that's not important, what's important right now is that you understand the difference between 3reverts and falsely accusing someone of making 4 reverts. Moving on, the ocarina of time article had that in the lead for a very long time until 3 months ago. You claim it has poor wording...oh wait, you're the same person who says I'm disruptive and causing havoc, despite you doing the same by going into this article to revert me out of spite. Constructive editing you're doing, far better than myself. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "stalker" is a personal attack, in case you didn't realise. And the difference between 3 and 4 reverts is trivial, it's the disruptiveness which matters. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heave: I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was stalking you, because I'm not. Both OoT and Ganon are on my watchlists, although several other editors make sure the articles are vandalism-free. The Prince (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly Heave, all I have seen out of your thus far is bitter sarcasm, accusations of trolling, and disruption. This discussion is obviously going nowhere. And I think the content dispute about this article is about over. You have failed to address the claims of Prince, Haipa, and I that "Cracked is definitely reliable, and the fact that it isn't a video game website doesn't matter. Reviews outside of the VG world is perfectly acceptable as long as it's from a reliable source." Instead you ignore this and continue to pursue personal attacks. Artichoker [ talk ]  17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between 3 and 4 isn't trivial. One isn't grounds for addressing to the administrators, the other is a warning that will lead to going to said admins. Please, if you're going to defend him for trolling me never say trivial difference. Go revert 4 times on one article and let me know how that works out for you, it's clearly 'trivial' difference. You totally won't get in trouble. /Sarcasm

And Prince, in the edit history you pointed out the fallacy of saying "This article does it too, so it's ok". One of the comments they make is that this can't be used to rule out completely a good edit. I will start a discussion on the Ocarina of Time article at another time.

All I seen from you is someone who trolls on talk pages with false accusations and then continues making painting themselves as a saint. You assumed I reverted more than 4 times. You assumed I called Hapia a troll. You keep assuming and assuming and what else am I suppose to think? That you're just not making the same mistakes out of honest mistakes? Please. The only mistake from my part was unwillingly calling the prince a stalker, but I corrected myself and I was at fault for assuming that. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point on 3RR is incorrect, see WP:3RR. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Haipa said. Even if I saw that you had only reverted 3 times, I would have still given you the warning. Three reverts still warrants the tag. Artichoker [ talk ]  17:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heave: When exactly did you correct yourself for calling me a stalker? I can't see it mentioned here. The Prince (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hapia, you don't get it. The rule specifically addresses reverting more than 3 times on an article a day. I never said it was an entitlement, stop putting words my mouth to prove your point. This is basically a strawman. A notoriously bad one at it. What I have argued, which should be clear to you by now, is that he said I reverted 4 times on my talk page. Which if you recall, would mean I can be blocked from editing. That is the crux. So please Hapia, no more strawman. No more "3 or 4 doesn't matter". It's the plain truth. And Prince, we had an edit conflict and somehow it didn't get through when I tried to resolve that issue when you clarified on Ganon being on your watch list. I'm also addressing the Ocarina of Time argument on that talk page, it should be done in a few seconds. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the page states any disruptive reverting can warrant a block, not specifically, but including, instances where an edit is reverted more than four times; fundamentally, it is a subjective matter. Where are you getting these false rules from? And I have no idea what you imply by "strawman", please elaborate. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The strawman is you claiming I have said 3 reverts is an entitlement. And have linked me there directly. All I said was that I don't like being reminded of 3 reverts and that he accused me of doing 4 reverts on this page. I have argued there is a difference, especially when such rule states 3 is enough for a day, where as 4 is in clear violation. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is even relevant to the subject at hand anymore. All you are debating now is the violation of 3RR, not whether the information should be included (and there is more or less a consensus that it should). Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If all parties are satisfied then I suggest removing the irrelevant discussion. And since we have reached a consensus, there's nothing more to discuss. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave it how it is, it will be disruptive and confusing otherwise. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 18:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since consensus has been reached, I have archived this discussion, which seems better than outright removing it. Artichoker [ talk ]  18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)