Xykeb Zraliv– 4. And the Arrogant Man said, “I wanted only to please you, my King. I know you scheme to replace me. If I betrayed you, it was only to remain your Prince.” TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
This has been brought up a couple of times in the past but I was reminded of it by this discussion. Basically, the question is whether or not to mention popular theories that hold no water — not to support them in any way, but rather to acknowledge that they are things that a large portion of the Zelda fanbase believe, while at the same time noting why they probably are not true. A good example is the theory that the City in the Sky is Skyloft, which has been added to both pages several times by different people; clearly something widely believed, but easily disproven by the two locations' differing origin stories.
As I said in the Skype group, this seems like a good idea. The only true problem I have with it is the fact that ZW has fanbased things which I find weird. As long as we implement it in a presentable way that isn't like "DA FANBASS SAIDS DIS" I'm good.
Definitely not as theories, but in there as something. Perhaps a sub-section to the theories. Perhaps we could throw in a "The following section has information that the Zelda fanbase agrees upon" or something like that.
Yeah, I'm alright with this. I'd agree that they should be in other sections, perhaps just below theory sections, titled something like Popular Belief or something similar but less retarded. I guess we'd also need to decide what's worthy enough of these sections and what isn't, but that's not as much an issue.
I'm liking the idea of Popular Belief, it's not stupid and it's clean and works. The only problem I see is people who would add in information that they find to be popular belief when it's truly not. I know we don't do this but if we were to reference where the information came from with links and the like, it'd work out better. It would also allow users to validate it and make sure it's not pulled out of no where.
Though I'm new here I'm definitely not new to Zeldapedia. I agree with the sub section thing, but I wanted to also point out that I have seen the "It could be this but its unlikely because of this" thing going on in multiple places. With the City in they Sky thing, I definitely believe it should be noted on the Oocca and City in the Sky pages, just wether or not as a theory is right question to discus. As for my personal opinion, I believe so, for it is technically a "theory" User: NaviSlayer (still got no clue how to properly sign my name)
I'd assume it'd be the next level. Assuming Theory would be a Level 2, Popular Belief would be a Level 3. And the sections would have at least one highly supported theory. They're not just going to be weak theories where nothing amounts to anything.
Xykeb Zraliv– 3. The Prince was rightly pleased. “The Cunning Thief now sees our message, and will guide the Bridgekeeper to the first of the three Constructions. Henceforth the Cunning Thief shall be the Guide.” TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
To clarify, NaviSlayer, we've always pointed out the counterevidence to theories, but I don't believe we've consistently acknowledged theories that we actually know to be false. As for whether Popular Belief should be its own section or part of Theories, I think either one is doable but I would personally opt for the latter, as my impression is that the basic distinction between the two is "possible theories" and "debunked theories".
I think making a sub section that is still under theories makes the most sense, because no matter how you put it it is still a theory. Making a new section like "theories that fail" just kinda makes it like "well why is even worth mentioning". --NaviSlayer (talk) 22:46, July 9, 2012 (UTC)NaviSlayer (oh and thanks for the signing tip )
It's not so much "theories that fail" it's "Theories that the Zelda fanbase believes in, but are wrong.
See thats the thing, going back to the original controversy, I read the discussion Green Rupee linked to on the last discussion and all the counter arguments that were logical but I also found a way around most of them (please don't make me find them again). So I don't think that theory has been dissproven. I think it calls for a paragraph as long as the counters are listed. As of Right now we are all just hatting on it --NaviSlayer (talk) 23:11, July 9, 2012 (UTC)NaviSlayer
We aren't hating on it we are just stating the facts.
If you want, you can give some things that disprove it, I can probably give a counter counter argument, (if you do, you may want a new forum for we r getting off topic) --NaviSlayer (talk) 23:44, July 9, 2012 (UTC)NaviSlayer
We can talk about it here under the comments section.
Xykeb Zraliv– 7. And the Prince said “Now I grant you one-third of the power that is mine so that, whatever is to come, your Body shall dwell forever in this house, and your Mind shall forever be this house, and so shall this house be your Mind. All is in readiness now for the Bridge.” TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
I don't think you understand. This is not about the differences between the two locations and how they can be explained away. The two locations have different origin stories. Unless there is a clear indication that Shad is wrong about the Oocca origin story, there is literally no way that the two stories can possibly match up. The residents of Skyloft did not make Skyloft and according to Shad the residents of the City in the Sky did make the City in the Sky. You need to give me a reason he may be wrong that is not "Shad is basing his story on legends and may possibly not be right", because basically everything he says is later confirmed to be true, making it pointless from a development, storytelling, audience, and overall aesthetic standpoint to eventually say he was wrong about one tiny little thing. This is not real life; we shouldn't treat it as such. We can't just take any unconfirmed statement and make a theory out of it. For all we know all the residents of Hyrule are wrong or lying about something or other, but we assume they are correct because there is no reason not to.
Like you've said, that's off-topic and not really the point, though. This discussion is not just about Skyloft and the City in the Sky. It is a broad, wiki-wide discussion about what to do with theories that we can be reasonably sure are not true. If you like, we'll use a different theory as an example, one that has been officially debunked by the developers, which we know for an absolute fact is false: the existence of the Tetraforce. Is this still a theory, despite being confirmed to be false? I would conjecture that no, it is not a theory, as theories must be based on facts and have a basis in reality — but yes, it once was a theory, before we knew it was without a doubt not true, and therefore, it is reasonable to put it in a subsection under theories to acknowledge that it has been believed in the past but we know it to be false.
Which reminds me, I don't even know what point you're arguing. We all think we should put this Popular Belief section within Theories, yes? So what's the problem?
Truly no problem in it at all. Just have to figure out how we'll format it and how we'll do references if we do them. Which I think would be beneficial.
I guess I was trying to get at that the popular belief thing is great, but when we put in the Oocca theory I want to make sure we don't label it as disproven, if anything just unlikely. Real quick, as an AP English Student, when Shad says they created the City, when it comes to lore and legend, create can mean re-create, develop, or establish it as the capital. Plus SS was after TP so it may not have been the developers intentions but it certainly may be what they determine as a result. The games have often contradicted themselves slightly (please don't make find an example). --NaviSlayer (talk) 02:16, July 10, 2012 (UTC)NaviSlayer
I actually did find one, "During The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Princess Zelda states that the Master Sword was crafted by the wisdom of the Ancient Sages. However, no sages are shown having a role in the sword's creation during Skyward Sword." --NaviSlayer (talk) 02:24, July 10, 2012 (UTC)NaviSlayer
Xykeb Zraliv– 7. And the Prince was much displeased, for the Prideful Acolyte would in his arrogance interfere with the destiny of the Guide, and the Prideful Acolyte became the Puppet, and knew the name of the King. TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
You're reading too much into this. If he meant one of those things he should have been clear about it. Take things at face value unless you're given a reason not to — Shad made a clear, factual statement. No followup, no clear hesitance, no reason to doubt that he meant exactly what normal people would assume when they first it. If there's a more complex meaning to something you say, a normal human being clarifies. Most importantly, the developers cannot expect their audience to infer something from a seemingly clear statement that they have given no hints to support. For all intents and purposes the theory holds no water and we can, as rational human beings, assume that Nintendo meant what they seemed to have said and act on that.
As for the Master Sword thing, that's a different case entirely. Two official statements contradict each other, and we are pointing out that Nintendo changed their backstory on something. We cannot change it for them, and retroactively say that it may just be a contradiction.
If it makes you feel any better, we most likely won't go so far as to say that the theory is 'completely disproven' — more likely we'd say that it is extremely unlikely or something of that sort. It's definitely not going down as a normal theory, though.
Basically neither of us can prove if it is wrong or right, thats up to the creators. There is is enough stuff so they could say it's true, and there is enough to so won't. We just need to get it up to the public in an unbiased way that states both sides. I was thinking a sub section that says something like "Possible Skyward Sword Connection" and we just go down the list of proof and counter arguments. --NaviSlayer (talk) 12:51, July 10, 2012 (UTC)NaviSlayer
Xykeb Zraliv– 3. “O King, I beseech you, for this land has become corrupt without your benevolent hand, and darkness seeks to envelope us all. I demand of you to cross the border between our lands and make things right, for my power is great, and I have it in my power to control one even as great as you.” TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
If they said it was true it would be a major violation of common sense, even if we do assume that Shad meant that they established the City in the Sky (which I am still strongly opposed to doing, for the record). I think most people here can agree that there are far more things opposing the theory than supporting it. We're not going to say it's completely disproven, but it is most definitely going under Popular Belief. Yes, we will list whatever may support the idea for the sake of being unbiased, but there's enough counter-evidence that I think we can at least acknowledge that the theory is unlikely and wouldn't make sense if it was true.
Back on topic, I agree that we should at least mention popular but almost certainly untrue theories. We already mention some such theories (the Tetraforce comes to mind). As for organization, the "Popular Belief" level 3 heading sounds good.