Video games Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:NESproj Template:Zeldaproj

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Wasn't there an admin decision to have no lead image, so shouldn't the image just contributed be deleted? I'm not totally sure, so I – or anyone else – won't delete it until confirmation. Ashnard _Talk 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the admin decision temporary or permanent? If it is temporary, is there a set deadline for when the decision expires, or do we have to get permission? Thanks. --Superneoking 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure, Zythe has been looking over the article longer than me – I wasn't really involved too much when this admin thing happened. Try asking him or the original admmin. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin's decision is not set in stone. It was just sort of a Solomon's decision to settle a heated dispute. Thankfully, everyone abided by that decision and the dispute was thus solved. Of course, in the mean time, a lot of time has passed. I you want to add an image again though, I'd suggest you first post it here on the talk page for discussion, so history doesn't repeat itself.--Atlan (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should have a lead image, but that's just me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ganon.jpg) (I'm a moron, i cant do it...>_>) Sangheilis and Darknuts are where its at.

I've noticed that some parts in the article, especially his standings in each Zelda game (Wind Waker is the one that stood out) have some pretty big spoiler points, but I see no warnings whatsoever. Could someone review the article and take the appropriate action? Thanks. 124.178.145.194 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings have now become redundant as some new Wiki policy has deemed them unsuitable. So they are no longer in use. Ashnard _Talk 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two references to the article. It is a start, but we still need more sources. Please make sure to include citations when adding information to the article. --Superneoking 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. It's time to get strict with content and turn this into a really decent article. You're right though, it needs a lot more sources. Ashnard _Talk 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superneoking has majorly altered the page – although I think that such edits warrant a suggestion on the talk page first. So, I was wondering what everybody thinks of this? Is this a good thing? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I guess I should have asked first. --Superneoking 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just remember to add these things for such major revisions. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response, does anybody actually view this talk page or am I being ignored? Well, I think this change is definitely for better and gives the article a much more presentable feel. So, that's a thumbs up from me. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this is no surprise, but I agree with the new format as well. :P The format is fine, and the references are certainly improving (though we do need more), so I think we should give our attention to the content. The article is about a fictional character, so it needs to be written in the past tense for the most part. I wish more people would participate in these talk pages. --Superneoking 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it annoys me to. I'll raise a suggestion about an article where many edit yet nobody will reply on a talk page. Out of interest, what sort of references do you planning on adding now for this article, as in where from? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt much more can really be referenced with zelda.com, so I am thinking Nintendo magazines, interviews, and guide books for games in the series. The only problem is that it has been hinted that Ganon won't be in Phantom Hourglass, so the likelihood of him being brought up in interviews for a while is slim (unless he is in SSBB). Then again, we can look through old interviews/news. --Superneoking 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably start helping you out with this after Wednesday – I need to revise for my exams until then. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I edit a wide range of articles and don't frequent all the respective talk pages that much. I checked the article's history and couldn't find anything more major than adding references and categories, going as far back as a couple of months. As far as I'm concerned, you can just go ahead and make those edits without consultation at the talk page.--Atlan (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new format of this page. I find it very confusing StupidFrog 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's less accessible to the untrained eye as some people don't know the timeline of some games. It does make it look more tidy though. Maybe there could be a timeline at the start of some sort. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"so it needs to be written in the past tense for the most part." - actually, the MOS says to write it in the present tense.

Also - for the ordering it's in, it doesn't make sense unless it's actually describing his development. As a character, organizing it by release date makes no sense - if you're describing his in-universe aspect, you need to organize it by work, not date.

...So, unless you're going to rework this to harp on development and design, it needs to be put back the way it was.KrytenKoro 11:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the peer review for Ganon, you would see that one of the bad things about his article was the format. I have seen many articles that are held back by format, and Ganon was one of them. Game-by-game breakdown will keep this article from GA and FA. Look at the article about Link if you need proof. The year/release style is used on that article, and it is Featured. The Ganon article, which previously used the game-by-game breakdown style, was not featured or good. A good format doesn't mean that the article will definitely be good, but a bad format does mean that the article isn't up to Wiki standards. If the current format makes no sense and is confusing, then I doubt the Link article would be good let alone featured.

As for tense, you are right; it does need to be in present tense. I guess I made a mistake when I was typing earlier. What I meant was that we can't use first/second person pronouns (for some reason I wrote tense).

I changed the format of this article because I wanted to improve the article. While people do help this article, it wasn't worked on by many people. Very little was being done to fix the poor shape that the article was in due to the lack of help, and the peer review was ignored. The Ganon article had no references for a long long time, and while I can't confirm this, I assume the article has had no sources even before the peer review (which was a while ago). The peer review gave two suggestions: revamp the style and add references. When someone finally does so, people suddenly start to argue about many things in this article and reverts begin to happen over and over. If people are unhappy with the change, give suggestions for other ways to improve and fix the article. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people who rarely/never edited the article or tried to improve it prior to a change that argue over what was done; they fight for a revert, and when that is done or support for the change diminishes, they continue to do nothing. That doesn't fix an article. --Superneoking 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I wasn't trying to start a revert war. I'm just saying that the organization doesn't make sense, as the descriptions are about in-universe events - if the "1999-2001" thing was about the character's development in the real world, where they actually have those years, it would make sense. If you could tone down the plot regurgitation and make it more about how the design was developed, that would make sense, as that would be out-of-universe.

Hell, you could even put the plot summary stuff back on the character pages or something. I don't know. It just doesn't make sense.KrytenKoro 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Example! Why is there no mention of Ganon in the ALttP remake? By the current setup, there must be a mention of it in the 1997-2001 bit.KrytenKoro 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you started or were even a part of any revert war. I just said that right now lots of reverts are happening (mainly edits by unregistered members it seems). As for the remake, why would it be needed? It is the same plot in both versions, and Ganon plays the same role. To be honest, I could ask you the same thing: why was there no mention of Ganon in the ALttP remake when the format was game-by-game? --Superneoking 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the majority of the unregistered edits as they're just adding minutiae. I too cannot see the logic in the LttP thing although maybe a very brief mention of its existance wouldn't go amiss. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've patched up the Characteristics section a little to make it a tad more well written. At the time being it says as follows:

(exessively long copy/paste of the article removed)

I changed it a little so it said:

(same here)

Anon

First of all, please don't paste parts of the article here in the talk section. Everyone can see the changes you made by looking at the edit history (here). Secondly, your edits have been reverted, because they consisted only of extraneous details and some parts were just wrong. e.g. Like how you say his basic physical traits are always the same and then go on to describe in detail the OoT (and after) Ganondorf, even though we're describing Ganon in general.--Atlan (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Sorry. I was just trying to help.

Anon

That's alright. The effort was appreciated. Don't let it's revertion discourage you from making future edits.--Atlan (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never be discouraged from editing. Take the criticisms constructively and come back a better editor. Just remember the purpose of Wikipedia and what you're editing. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ashnard although I've probably been doing this for longer than you have despite the fact that I was blocked.

Anon

Are you saying you're evading a block by editing as an anon?--Atlan (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! Why is that not allowed? Just out of curiosity you understand?

Anon

Of course that's not allowed. What's the point of a block if you keep editing?--Atlan (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm so sorry, I didn't realise. I assumed that if one was blocked it just meant they were denied the privelages of a registered user. My mistake. This will be my last edit. Goodbye.

Anon

Please stop adding the fictional dictator category to this page. He does not fit in that category. It is going to be removed each time it is added, so adding it again and again is pointless. --Superneoking 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go I'd just like to say don't be silly, of course Ganon is a dictator. He ruled both Hyrule and the Sacred Realm for a while and the handbook for Link's Awakening actually refers to him as "the dictator, Ganon" if I remember correctly. How could he be any more a dictator? Anon

But... Ganon wasn't IN Link's Awakening... (Fryguy64 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes I know he wasn't but he was mentioned. Link was reminiscing about his battle with "the dictator, Ganon" and worrying what terrible force would rise from said dictator's ashes when Zelda appeared before him and told him he had to go on a quest to find the Wind Fish. Anon

That is not what the manual says at all. For one, it calls him a "tyrant", not a dictator. Everything else you said was very confused. Zelda didn't appear before him, he mistook Marin's voice for Zelda. And it was the owl who told him to search for the Wind Fish. It really isn't that hard to check these things, you know. Google is your friend and mine. (Fryguy64 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, that's entirely different then. The problem here is that people these days think tyrant and dictator are exactly the same thing.--Atlan (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he was still the ruler of Hyrule and indeed the Sacred Realm for a time. If Vicki the Babysitter can be in the fictional dictators category for ruling the world for a while then so can Ganon.

Because the list is full of names that don't belong there, we might as well add Ganon. Yeah, good point.--Atlan (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Vicki was called a dictator in the television movie. She was called a dictator several times, and there was proof that she was a dictator. Heck, the plot of the movie was to stop her from reaching the Dictator channel thing. Unlike Vicky, it has not been confirmed that Ganon is a dictator. He might act like a dictator, but unless it is confirmed by the creators, it is just an opinion, not a fact. Oh, and you really should sign your comments.

Off topic, but I thought you said you left. Do you honestly think that using a different IP address will hide the fact that you were banned? You said you were banned, but you kept on editing with the 81.145.240.114 IP address. Now, after you say you didn't know you couldn't edit after being banned, you switch your IP address to 81.157.172.208 and then continue editing (on the exact same talk page of all things). I am sure you have had other IP addresses used for editing in addition to those two. If you were banned, you were banned for a reason. Your edits are consistently being reverted and your talk page says you have been in trouble for vandalizing several times before. If you truly want to help the article, that is fine, but if you want to vandalize the article, have edit wars over the dictator category, and make us revert things over and over again, then please leave. I want this article to make GA and maybe even FA status, but that can't happen when a person who edits is hurting the article. I am sorry if I sounded mean and cruel, but your reputation and your previous edits just make me worry. --Superneoking 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Sorry. I wasn't trying to conceal my IP address, I was just editing in two different places. I live in two seperate houses and have a computer in both. I was trying to help the article but maybe not in a creative sort of way. If you want to leave him out of the dictator category then do so. I just thought he should be in it. I was just about to leave but then the dictator business came to my attention and I began to pursue the matter further. My apologies. I'm leaving for real this time. Goobye. Anon - over and out.

Wikipedia's own definition of Dictator is (I've stuck out the unnecessary bit):

Dictator is originally the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the state in times of emergency. In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch; see also Oliver Cromwell). Like Tyrant, originally a respectable Ancient title, and to a lesser degree Autocrat, it came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.

As you can see, Dictator is a sole political ruler which Ganon is not. Tyrant would be more appropriate but such a category does not yet exist. - .:Alex:. 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved this all from the TWW page, as it should be here instead of there. Thanks!KrytenKoro 04:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganondorf is the main villain in most The Legend of Zelda games, and is so in The Wind Waker as well. As told in the opening and again by the King of Hyrule, Ganondorf escaped from the Sacred Realm after being sealed away in Ocarina of Time. He attempted to take over once again, but was stopped by the Goddesses and got sealed away underwater along with a frozen Hyrule, with the Master Sword being used as a key to unfreeze the kingdom. Ganondorf has obtained refuge in the Forsaken Fortress, which is a monster-infested and heavily guarded island. Link sets off on a quest to defeat him, leading to a final confrontation on top of his tower in Hyrule, where Link battles him, and, eventually, stabs the Master Sword into his forehead, turning him into stone. Ganondorf is subsequently drowned along with Hyrule and the king in the depths of the ocean.

Gannondorf apparently is not the last Gerudo alive, as shown in screenshots of Phatom Hourglass, the Gerudo being a race of tall, slender beings of Gerudo Valley from Ocarina of Time. He is frustrated about his failures from earlier Zelda games, mentioning that the Triforce effectively has bound their souls together for so long that he is almost resigned to the fact that Link ('The Hero') would appear to oppose him.

Also:

His initial goal in life is to locate and retrieve the Triforce from the Sacred Realm found within The Temple of Time; his ultimate ambition is to take over Hyrule entirely and rule with an iron fist. Link, Princess Zelda, and Navi plan to stop him vowing that he shall never lay his hands upon the sacred triangles. After his seven-year slumber, Link conquers five major temples and awakens six Sages. After the long-awaited meeting with Grown Princess Zelda, Link finally meets with Ganondorf on the top of Ganon's Castle for a final showdown. After Ganondorf is supposedly defeated, he morphs into a monster called Ganon, looking more monster-like than humaniod in appearance. Armed with the Master Sword, and guided by Princess Zelda, Navi, and the six sages, Link banishes Ganondorf into the Evil Realm, an imprisoning stasis held within the Sacred Realm. Ganondorf may have been dethroned, but he still held the Triforce of Power. He proclaimed that Zelda and Link's descendants will suffer when someday the seal of his imprisonment is broken and his freedom exists.

I've reverted it as the information on the respective game-character list is describing their specific role in that game. Some of the information may already be there but the character lists are their to portray the characters' roles in the specific game. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was made on the other page, but basically - the character lists are for putting extra information for a subject, and are not supposed to be a repository of all information if we can help it - the whole Wikipedia is not thing. Since Ganondorf has a character article, here, the info is best here, and should not be spread across wikipedia, especially since having the info here helps see the development of the character's persona throughout the series.KrytenKoro 11:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you doing with the information above then? The WW section on this page is pretty decent so addition of that information isn't totally necessary. If you do add the information above, make sure you take the "last Gerudo" part out please for the reasons you stated on the other talk page. Thanks. Cheers for adding the proper links in too. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'm asking the people who have spent more time on this page and know how they want it set up to strip any useful information from the excerpt. I don't want to do it myself, because I don't want five different people calling for my blood.KrytenKoro 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty redundant as everything required is already included, so I can't see any good reason to include anything there. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember of course that all information that implies a side in the "continuity vs. non-continuity of the LoZ series" debate is completely original research, and should be omitted until official word is given. -- Digital Watches! 09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have realised that the WW image has been moved for not having a source. I think that this image is a valuble one and should be returned. Who knows anything about image sourcing here? Does anybody know who the original contributor of the image was? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it when I have more time.--Atlan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — I'm useless with this image business. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Atlan (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atlan ;-). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So may I ask what the admin's decision was and why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image is discussed all over the place in the second archive of this talk page, but most prominently under the header Mediation.--Atlan (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):In a nutshell though: No one could agree on any one image of Ganon(dorf), mainly because he has so many different looks. The decision was made to have no lead image and to have seperate images for each of Ganon's incarnations to stop the endless bickering and make everyone happy to some extend. There were also some instances of fair use violations, with people putting multiple images in the lead, as a compromise. It was a mess, really. Let's avoid that this time.--Atlan (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see hardly ANY reason to not use human Ganondorf. It is by far the most common usage nowadays. Ganon used to be his primary form, but it is not treated as a transformation, and rightly so: it is a transformation. OoT, TWW, and TP all treat it as such. And if anyone calls me biased, remember who put up the pig Ganon image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usage nowadays. Is the "most recent is best" an actual policy? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but tell me - which is better for the readers, art from an SNES game, or art from a Wii game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the latter (mainly because the LttP art doesn't look nearly as good), but not at the cost of removing the image from the article, which fair use dictates.--Atlan (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that having the image in the lead would get it removed. In fact, we only NEED one image of Ganondorf, and one image of Ganon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]