Yea..... Lots of theories, as stated by AuronKaizer. I think that we should include theories in the articles, but put them in a separate section. That way, they are not in the way of the main article, but they are not left out. But this method probably won't work, considering Hero of Time 87 just reverts everything that goes against his views and theories of the game series
I got news for you though, not every article has enough theoretical material to merit a whole different section for it. The wars are one thing, but a character with only one general theory summed up in one sentence...no. And I have news for you Murchadah, this isn't your own personal wiki either, and not everything you want is appropriate always either. So get over it and learn to negotiate a little bit.
Murchadah– And the Lord said, "Let there be idiocy." And so George W. Bush was created. But God was suddenly distracted, so he kept it (whether it was best for Earth or not...) TALK
Frankly, I am trying to negotiate. you're trying to merge theories with fact, and I think that I would be more organized to put all of the theories in a separate section, just so it doesn't confuse anyone. Wow, this is the War of the Bound Chest arguement all over again...
Oath to Order– The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK– 0_o
What's next, a theory section for rupees? You have to draw the line someplace for something like this, and to me, there's not enough material to merit one. Your idea is a good one when there's enough material to make a section that's big enough to merit it. The War of the Bound Chest was a major event with a lot of theories about it, and that's okay. But we don't need an OCD down to the smallest of articles.
Murchadah– When I had realized that it really was God standing on my doorstep, I apologized for getting him with my pepper-spray and decided to start packing for Hell. TALK
We're just putting what's not confirmed in the games in their own separate section. We aren't trying to completely change the wiki
I know that Murch, that's not the issue. It's great what you're doing and you have a good idea. But ask yourself "Is this really necessary simply because one sentence has the world "believe" in it?" I can see making a whole theory "section" when there's more than just one thing to it. It just doesn't seem necessary to me. It's going to create a lot of work if we're doing it for something as small as this. If we do it that way for something as miniscule as this, that means we have to do it for Deku Sticks, Rupees, Armor, etc. Any little place that seems unconfirmed we'd have to go through and do that for. And what for really? The major things are great, like the wars or characters of great signifigance whom we know little about like Ganondorf or Zelda. But does this mean we're gonna have to do it for the Poe Sisters too? And the Cubus Sisters? And Linebeck? And Eox? And Ramrock? And Gohdan? The list goes on. And that is your opinion AK, not everyone else's. And haven't you ever heard of an "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?"
That's the word though, "usually." This means we're gonna have to do it for every single little thing that may not be confirmed, and that's going to create a lot more work than we already have on our hands. We've got whole aticles that don't even have text yet that need to be written, and we're worrying about separating out the parts of the ones we already have, even if its a single sentence. If you want to do that, that's fine by me. But think about how much more work that is going to create for everyone here on top of the already big load of work we have to do. I would be more worried about the articles that don't have any text period. If you want my personal opinion, I think your idea is a great one, but I hate to see the door opened up to what could be a nightmare of editing that may or may not be really necessary, especially when several of us need help as it is on the articles that aren't yet complete.
That is fine Murch, but like I said just be aware of what other implications it could have in store. We don't want to create an obsessive precedent that could lead to a pandemonium of edit wars. I personally like the idea of having a theory section when the cicumstances support it. My only fear is the precedent it could have. You have my okay to copy and paste into a theory section if you like, but like I said just be careful when possibly setting precedents for future activity. And your help along with others would be greatly appreciated on the articles that don't have much or any text, as I said before.
Has anyone noticed his chest piece? It looks like an inverse of the fierce deity chest piece. it's red and gold with a moon on the left, while fierce deity's is blue and silver with the moon on the right.188.8.131.52
After you get the great spin from him when it is fading out he says farwell my child. Does that mean he could be link's father. Someone has to be. I know masters sometimes speak to their students as if they were related, but than they usually say my son. Any thought?
That might be true, but I like to think as the Hero's Shade as a previous Hero. But many masters say my child just as much as my son, or someone old would say my child to someone as young as Link as well.
I think there might be at least a slim chance that the Hero's Shade is related to Link; after all, he does say that some of the Hidden Skills (if I remember correctly, before teaching you the Mortal Draw he says this about the remaining Hidden Skills) "do not leave our bloodline." Just speculation, but it implies that the Hero's Shade is part of Link's ancestory. Diachronos (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm or disprove that last sentence in the theory section? The last time I played TP was a couple of months ago (not much to do after you can complete the game in <16 hours), so I don't remeber much about the Hero's Shade...but I don't think he had the Sheikah symbol on his shield. Maybe it was just something I didn't notice. Until someone confirms/disproves it, I just fixed up the sentence. If it's gonna be there, it might as well look good...
He might not be a stalfo, he could be just be a ghost. He looks similar to the ghosts in Hyrule Castle near the end of the game.
Xykeb Zraliv– 2. And on the eight-and-twentieth day of the seventh month of the year that would come to be known as the Year of the Arrogant Man, the King was allowed his yearly vision of the land of Technology, and he saw the Arrogant Man in turn gazing upon him, saying TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
The term is "Stalfos". That's singular and plural. The "s" at the end doesn't necessarily make the singular term the word without the "s". But to the point, that's exactly why it's stated that he looks similar to a Stalfos and might be one, instead of outright saying that he's "probably" a Stalfos.
Honestly, I don't really like the Infobox Image. It's to fakey and stiff.-- C2 / CC 17:56, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
The image to the right of the screen.-- C2 / CC 20:39, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
I know what image you mean, you n00b. Still though, it's probably just taken from a model viewer or whatever. It's pretty hard to animate the models to anything but stiff default poses. Anyways, I'll likely be replacing it as soon as we figure out this damn image resize problem. --AuronKaizer! 21:56, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
O yeah. Hows it going on that? I deleted that Sue-Belle image, not to long ago. It was very blurry, and a speedy delete canindate.-- C2 / CC 21:58, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't really be discussing this here but it appears there's a problem with Wikia somehow. Whenever somebody uploads a PNG since like last week or whatever, resizing the image actually makes it a lot worse. If you were to check out the Sue-Belle pic in full resolution, it'd look just fine indeed, but whenever they're resized now, they just look crap. And it's not just happening to me, check out the thumbnails of the manga pics Oni uploaded. --AuronKaizer! 22:00, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
You should never discuss anything, so here is just as good as there. Yeah, that's why I never upload images!-- C2 / CC 22:06, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as this has been nominated I think it is time that this section get's some serious revising. After reading it, it is just a bunch of theorizing and conjecture that should be on a forum not a mainspace article. I think that roughly half of it can go, thoughts?-- C2 / CC 16:50, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
This guy is never refered to as the Hero's Shade in game. I know he probably is officaly named as such in a game guide or offical statement since thats the only thing I've seen him refered to but I still need to ask where is he called the Hero's Shade? OniDark Link 16:46, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Golden Wolf and Knights of Hylure
I find it amazing that years after the launch of the game, no one bothered to seek an explanation for the alternative form of "Hero's Shade". There was not even the curiosity to note a possible connection between him and the legend of the sacred beast.
Not only that, there is no mention of the Knights of Hylure, who have knowledge of secret sword techniques and of which "Link" has blood relation in some of his incarnations.
Moreover, theories about items and songs are too forced, as these came from several different sources that often have no connection at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Versiani (talk • contribs)
"White Wolf" Redirect
At the risk of asking a dumb question, why does "white wolf" redirect here when this guy's wolf form is decidedly gold, not white? Knives182 (talk) 22:40, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
Joe's original edit summary here. I guess guide book writers are colour-blind. In a semi-related matter, maybe the page calls for a link to White Wolfos since that is the most likely thing people will be searching for under that name. --AuronKaizer! 22:49, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
I recommend a disambig since the term has some semi-official-ish reason to point to both things. If we don't want to do that though I recommend making it redirect to White Wolfos since someone would actually search that, whereas anyone with this strategy guide should already know the name Hero's Shade, and anyone without it would not call it white.--FierceDeku 23:54, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
I think a disambig would work. We already have one for "wolf" that includes Wolfos, White Wolfos, the Hero's Shade, & Wolf Link, so this would align nicely w/ that. If we want to stick w/ a redirect, I personally would prefer it redirect to White Wolfos, as they're...well, actually white, at least. Knives182 (talk) 00:57, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to change the redirect page into a disambig listing White Wolfos & the Hero's Shade. Objections? Knives182 (talk) 16:35, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the theory about Link becoming a Stalfos should be included in the main article since it's extremely unlikely. For one thing, children who become lost in the Lost Woods don't become Stalfos, they become Skull Kids. Lost adults become Stalfos and Link left Termina as a kid. For another, Link clearly knew where he was going in the Woods, as he didn't turn into a Skull Kid, even without the aid of Navi. For him to become a Stalfos, he would have had to wander the Woods for seven years, by which time someone probably would have found him and helped him back. `Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
It's mostly in there because it is an extremely popular theory. As a site dedicated to accurate Zelda information, it's important for us to debunk these kinds of things, as well as clarify what little supporting evidence there is and why it can be interpreted differently. All the things you mentioned that make it unlikely are totally true, and are explained in the theory section (mostly at the end). Because it is contradicted so much I wouldn't mind stating at the beginning of the paragraph "Some fans theorize that the Shade is the Hero of Time, but there are also many contradictions to this theory", or something like that. I think it's good to open with that since a lot of the refuting evidence doesn't come up till late in the already long section. That seems a little bit opinionated though, so I want to hear from other people first.--FierceDeku 06:48, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Auron, i read that and, although i agree with you completely, there is some evidence pointing to that Link is the Hero's Shade. While it is unlikely, it's possible Link became an adult before he turned into a Stalfos. 2, Link was always able to talk, as he was able to tell other people information in the games, only you couldn't see what he said. When he becomes an adult, he gets taller so naturally he'd be a lot taller. Plus, at the most adult link is only about 20 right? He could have grown a bit more since then. As I said, I don't think he's the Hero's Shade. Rather, I think it's more of a spiritual embodiment of the Hero. `Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
Hero's Shade Identity Confirmed.
The Shade's identity has been confirmed in the Hyrule Historia...
facepalm. Destroying this book has been added to my things to do if I get a time machine. OniDark Link 19:10, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. What kills me about this is that everybody in the comments section of that page seems pleased with all this nonsense. Well, I guess this needs to be integrated somehow. (And by "somehow", I mean "not the way the IP did it".) XykebYvolixZraliv 20:17, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
I hate this book more than any other video game related thing I've ever known. Anyway, I put a paragraph at the end of the intro saying that Hyrule Hysteria says what it does. In a quick fix hack, I left the exact theory section in, but with a note at the beginning that the books says it's true. Given that games are always the number one source of canon, I think the in-game information which contradicts the theory/Historia needs to be left in. Maybe we should remove that theory section and instead put the conflicting info in the main text right after the bit about the Historia.--FierceDeku 23:59, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see what's so deplorable about confirming a relatively obvious theory. Nobody was this upset when the Kokiri->Korok and Zora->Rito theories were confirmed. It seems the only reasons you all are upset are that it was confirmed by a book that already has a bad reputation or, put bluntly, you were wrong. I apologize for the bluntness, but I can't think of a good way to sugarcoat that without missing the point. The "evidence" against this theory was never as coherent as the relevant evidence in favor of it (that is, not the Gilded Sword/Mirror Shield and Stalfos arguments), anyway. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:21, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about other people, but yes, I am annoyed mostly because it was confirmed by this book. The problem for me is not so much this theory in and of itself (I never cared that much about whether or not it was the Hero of Time), but rather that with all the stuff we've heard so far about this book, they'll probably be revealing more inane answers about the series, making this the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The Korok/Rito things were more just random things that were confirmed at a random time, whereas this is bound to lead to more unnecessary truths about the series. XykebYvolixZraliv 01:49, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
That book does worry me, though this particular revelation isn't bothersome to me at all since I always thought the theory made a certain amount of sense (despite how some of the other users who have commented here have vehemently argued against the theory in the past). I won't be too annoyed until something as inane and/or unwanted as that timeline gets revealed. In any case, regarding the article itself, I think the theory section itself ought to be removed, with only a sentence or two in the biography explaining that the Hero's Shade was the Hero of Time (and perhaps a citation to a trustworthy news source needs to be added since this is confirmation from outside the games). Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:47, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's purely opinion based whether someone thought this theory was good or bad, but I don't think anyone's distaste for it or its confirmation is caused by the Historia's other failings. I've heard lots of people state very negative opinions of it in the past. Regardless of the plausibility of the theory, a lot of people disliked it because it would do things with Link that are never "supposed" to be shown. A Link we left as a child is shown as a grown up, dead (does that mean our beloved Link is doomed to not properly pass on or something?), knight thing, looking nothing like we've ever seen him. Then, to top off this strange vision of our Hero's future, he TALKS. Not WW "Come On!" talks, but he actually drones on for a really long time. I can't condone that happening in a canon game. We were supposed to play Link, be Link, not see him this way.
There's also the idea that it's better to leave certain things open to interpretation. That leads to lots of debate and creative thought on the subject, and ends up letting everyone choose to believe what they like most. The Hyrule Historia could have contained my exact timeline theory, and I'd still never have forgiven it for robbing everyone else of their favorite ideas about Zelda. If you forget the clumsily thrown together timeline and the events that defy causality, the Historia is still bad because it leaves nothing for the fans to work with.
Also, I don't think anyone who's theory was broken by the Historia was "wrong". Theories were made based on what information was available at the time, and what someone knew pre-Historia may have pointed very strongly in a certain direction (making them at least partially "correct" in thinking that), and later been made non-canon by new information, including totally-out-of-left-field-ridiculous information.--FierceDeku 03:44, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
About the actual article: As much as I hate to admit it, skimming back over the theory section, I found nothing which particularly contradicts what the Historia says. All the points of evidence supporting the theory had other perfectly plausible explanations, and new things would have had to happen for it to be true (Link gets crazy tall, gets armor/helmet/sword/shield unlike anything we've seen, learns fancy techniques we've never seen, becomes more talkative). That's all extremely valid refuting evidence for a theory, but if you assume based on word of god that it is true, there are no actual holes to point out. Link is still kind of tall, but I guess there are secondary growth spurts, side effects of undeath, etc.. Nothing glaring like with the timeline.--FierceDeku 03:44, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
All the evidence against the theory has reasonable explanations as well (which existed on my userpage before they were removed once I saw the theory had been confirmed--though I suppose they might be on AK's page attacking the theory since I commented there some time ago). Considering that "Word of God" does not contradict the in-game evidence, as you said, I don't think there's a serious problem taking the theory as fact and writing the article as such. It seems you agree with that last point, though. Jedimasterlink (talk) 04:12, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I really should have ended my last post by saying this outright: yeah, the theory section should go, and I retract my earlier statement that the contradictions be left in the main section. While I still personally reject it on the principle of what it does with Link, I can't think of an encyclopedic reason to leave up the ins and outs of this now official theory. Note that this does not apply to my thoughts on the timeline, since there are other influences on why non-Hystoria based discussion is important there. If there are no objections I'll remove the Link=Shade theory section soon without adding any complaints evidence against is to the main article. As for the Sheikah theory section, well, aside from the shade's eye color it's really only about the Howling Stones (an by extension, their songs) anyway, so I'll remove that also. Better yet, someone come in before my arbitrary objection waiting time is up and remove it to spare me the pain of admitting it's not a theory anymore.--FierceDeku 05:26, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
This might be a little early for removing them since we haven't discussed this for too long, but I figured since I'm one of the few who would remove those sections willingly and the edit can easily be undone if someone objects, I went ahead and did it. Jedimasterlink (talk) 06:00, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record the Zora Rito thing does and always has bothered me. OniDark Link 14:01, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
This new format for the page was created by an IP and was not discussed, then was expanded upon. Should it be removed? I don't know how to revert multiple edits to a page. —CeilingMaster 22:22, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, that. I went ahead and reverted it, because like you said it wasn't discussed, and other things like the Hyrule Historia/Player's Guide statements being in an infobox, where they don't belong. There are two ways to revert multiple edits. One is to become a rollbacker by requesting rollback rights and having the community vote in support; this would give you a rollback button which reverts all the consecutive edits made by a single person. The other way is to go into the history and select the revision you want the page to go back to, then hit edit (this will bring up the old version of the page in edit view), and copy the entire page. Then go back to the current article, hit edit, and paste the old version of the page. I ended up doing the second one because multiple people had edited since the version I wanted to go back to.--FierceDeku 00:28, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
I find it much easier to make an edit to the old revision, that will automatically override any changes made after that revision. OniDark Link 00:57, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, awesome, I'd never tried that.--FierceDeku 01:25, January 29, 2012 (UTC)