818 replies to this topic

[Person]

I love how this guy thinks that a Zuna used the trident.

Wait, is that really such an outlandish theory? I mean, I wouldn't go around calling it canon, or use it as a basis for further theorising, but on it's own it seems reasonable to me.

I agree. That one's not so kooky. The Zuna built the pyramids, and the Trident was in the Pyramid. It's not a humungous leap to assume that a Zuna used it before Ganon got ahold of it.

[ganonlord6000]

I love how this guy thinks that a Zuna used the trident.

Wait, is that really such an outlandish theory? I mean, I wouldn't go around calling it canon, or use it as a basis for further theorising, but on it's own it seems reasonable to me.

I agree. That one's not so kooky. The Zuna built the pyramids, and the Trident was in the Pyramid. It's not a humungous leap to assume that a Zuna used it before Ganon got ahold of it.

I was refering to Ermigard's theory that the trident was created in the Oracles (not that I was ever innocent in saying that the trident has been used on screen before) and ignores the proof that it was in LOZ. I think he ignored our ZI arguement. I wasn't refering to the theory itself. I was just pointing out that this guy uses Ganon's TITLE to place the games and that Cukeman thinks that the first Ganon was a Zuna when we know he was a Gerudo.

^Zemen wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't an asshole and didn't comment on every damn thread.

I know. He even asked me why I keep making timeline videos when I brought my latest timeline video there (if you can, check out the first timeline that I ever put there(which is also the first timeline that I put online)). Isn't it obvious why I make the videos (mostly to argue with idiots on Youtube)? And I agree about what you say about Cukeman too.

[ganonlord6000]

I love how this guy thinks that a Zuna used the trident.

Wait, is that really such an outlandish theory? I mean, I wouldn't go around calling it canon, or use it as a basis for further theorising, but on it's own it seems reasonable to me.

I agree. That one's not so kooky. The Zuna built the pyramids, and the Trident was in the Pyramid. It's not a humungous leap to assume that a Zuna used it before Ganon got ahold of it.

I was refering to Ermigard's theory that the trident was created in the Oracles (not that I was ever innocent in saying that the trident has been used on screen before) and ignores the proof that it was in LOZ. I think he ignored our ZI arguement. I wasn't refering to the theory itself. I was just pointing out that this guy uses Ganon's TITLE to place the games and that Cukeman thinks that the first Ganon was a Zuna when we know he was a Gerudo.

^Zemen wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't an asshole and didn't comment on every damn thread.

I know. He even asked me why I keep making timeline videos when I brought my latest timeline video there (if you can, check out the first timeline that I ever put there(which is also the first timeline that I put online). It isn't a video, but it is worth taking a look)). Isn't it obvious why I make the videos (mostly to argue with idiots on Youtube)? And I agree about what you say about Cukeman too.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 02 October 2009 - 04:45 PM.

[Person]

I'm running into the guy who keeps trying to use the Prima Games guides as canon sources on Zelda Wiki. He's such a pain.

[ganonlord6000]

I'm running into the guy who keeps trying to use the Prima Games guides as canon sources on Zelda Wiki. He's such a pain.

OMG. How can anyone think that non-nintendo guides are even canon? Any relation with whoever removed Zeldawiki's non-canon label from the comics? honestly. When it comes to canon, the comics don't have a prayer. And some idiot on youtube just told me that he thinks that the Japanese text only applies to Japan and has no effect on the American timeline. Honestly. How stupid is that? I think I will stay away from youtube until ST comes out.

[Person]

I'm running into the guy who keeps trying to use the Prima Games guides as canon sources on Zelda Wiki. He's such a pain.

OMG. How can anyone think that non-nintendo guides are even canon? Any relation with whoever removed Zeldawiki's non-canon label from the comics? honestly. When it comes to canon, the comics don't have a prayer. And some idiot on youtube just told me that he thinks that the Japanese text only applies to Japan and has no effect on the American timeline. Honestly. How stupid is that? I think I will stay away from youtube until ST comes out.

The removal of the noncanon label from the comics was more nuanced than that. Nobody thinks that they're canon, but they don't go out and contradict the games like the manga do. The new label is "ambiguously canon." But yes, taking the Prima Games guide as canon is retarded. The guy went and started and edit war because I kept removing one of the references in an article that stated something that Prima Games had just made up and wasn't even mentioned in the game. His reasoning was that since Nintendo allowed the guide to be published, then it's canon, even if Nintendo didn't have anything to do with writing it or publishing it. Of course, then the CD-i games would have to be canon under that reasoning. Several admins have told him that it's not a good idea to do that, but he essentially ignores them. The most insane thing is a freakish double standard he applies. I uploaded a rather nice Nintendo of Europe image of the Lost Woods, and he kept replacing it for being "unofficial." His reasoning was that since Prima was an American company, it counted more than official art from Nintendo of Europe. He even said that he thinks he's a better arbiter of what's canon than Nintendo is. He got banned for his attitude problems, but now that the ban expired he's back at it. I managed to get a mod to lock the disputed page to end the edit war.

[ganonlord6000]

I'm running into the guy who keeps trying to use the Prima Games guides as canon sources on Zelda Wiki. He's such a pain.

OMG. How can anyone think that non-nintendo guides are even canon? Any relation with whoever removed Zeldawiki's non-canon label from the comics? honestly. When it comes to canon, the comics don't have a prayer. And some idiot on youtube just told me that he thinks that the Japanese text only applies to Japan and has no effect on the American timeline. Honestly. How stupid is that? I think I will stay away from youtube until ST comes out.

The removal of the noncanon label from the comics was more nuanced than that. Nobody thinks that they're canon, but they don't go out and contradict the games like the manga do. The new label is "ambiguously canon." But yes, taking the Prima Games guide as canon is retarded. The guy went and started and edit war because I kept removing one of the references in an article that stated something that Prima Games had just made up and wasn't even mentioned in the game. His reasoning was that since Nintendo allowed the guide to be published, then it's canon, even if Nintendo didn't have anything to do with writing it or publishing it. Of course, then the CD-i games would have to be canon under that reasoning. Several admins have told him that it's not a good idea to do that, but he essentially ignores them. The most insane thing is a freakish double standard he applies. I uploaded a rather nice Nintendo of Europe image of the Lost Woods, and he kept replacing it for being "unofficial." His reasoning was that since Prima was an American company, it counted more than official art from Nintendo of Europe. He even said that he thinks he's a better arbiter of what's canon than Nintendo is. He got banned for his attitude problems, but now that the ban expired he's back at it. I managed to get a mod to lock the disputed page to end the edit war.

What the hell? Hold on. If the comics are under "ambiguously canon" , then wouldn't the cartoon also fit under that category. Oh don't the comics contradict the games just by Ganon being alive (that and Zelda's an idiot in the comics)?

[Person]

I'm running into the guy who keeps trying to use the Prima Games guides as canon sources on Zelda Wiki. He's such a pain.

OMG. How can anyone think that non-nintendo guides are even canon? Any relation with whoever removed Zeldawiki's non-canon label from the comics? honestly. When it comes to canon, the comics don't have a prayer. And some idiot on youtube just told me that he thinks that the Japanese text only applies to Japan and has no effect on the American timeline. Honestly. How stupid is that? I think I will stay away from youtube until ST comes out.

The removal of the noncanon label from the comics was more nuanced than that. Nobody thinks that they're canon, but they don't go out and contradict the games like the manga do. The new label is "ambiguously canon." But yes, taking the Prima Games guide as canon is retarded. The guy went and started and edit war because I kept removing one of the references in an article that stated something that Prima Games had just made up and wasn't even mentioned in the game. His reasoning was that since Nintendo allowed the guide to be published, then it's canon, even if Nintendo didn't have anything to do with writing it or publishing it. Of course, then the CD-i games would have to be canon under that reasoning. Several admins have told him that it's not a good idea to do that, but he essentially ignores them. The most insane thing is a freakish double standard he applies. I uploaded a rather nice Nintendo of Europe image of the Lost Woods, and he kept replacing it for being "unofficial." His reasoning was that since Prima was an American company, it counted more than official art from Nintendo of Europe. He even said that he thinks he's a better arbiter of what's canon than Nintendo is. He got banned for his attitude problems, but now that the ban expired he's back at it. I managed to get a mod to lock the disputed page to end the edit war.

What the hell? Hold on. If the comics are under "ambiguously canon" , then wouldn't the cartoon also fit under that category. Oh don't the comics contradict the games just by Ganon being alive (that and Zelda's an idiot in the comics)?

The comics explain that Ganon had come back to life somehow. The cartoon also has more blatant canon discrepancies than the comic does, such as only having two Triforces and crossing over with Captain N. Again, nobody takes the comics as canon, but they're not as contradictory as the manga or the cartoon. Other stuff under "ambiguous" is the German OoT comic that shows how Link's parents died. That one ties into the game directly and contradicts nothing. But it's certainly not canon on the same level that the games are. The closest parallel would be "S-canon" in Star Wars. That's something that hasn't been contradicted, but doesn't have the same level of canon as everything else.

[ganonlord6000]

I'm running into the guy who keeps trying to use the Prima Games guides as canon sources on Zelda Wiki. He's such a pain.

OMG. How can anyone think that non-nintendo guides are even canon? Any relation with whoever removed Zeldawiki's non-canon label from the comics? honestly. When it comes to canon, the comics don't have a prayer. And some idiot on youtube just told me that he thinks that the Japanese text only applies to Japan and has no effect on the American timeline. Honestly. How stupid is that? I think I will stay away from youtube until ST comes out.

The removal of the noncanon label from the comics was more nuanced than that. Nobody thinks that they're canon, but they don't go out and contradict the games like the manga do. The new label is "ambiguously canon." But yes, taking the Prima Games guide as canon is retarded. The guy went and started and edit war because I kept removing one of the references in an article that stated something that Prima Games had just made up and wasn't even mentioned in the game. His reasoning was that since Nintendo allowed the guide to be published, then it's canon, even if Nintendo didn't have anything to do with writing it or publishing it. Of course, then the CD-i games would have to be canon under that reasoning. Several admins have told him that it's not a good idea to do that, but he essentially ignores them. The most insane thing is a freakish double standard he applies. I uploaded a rather nice Nintendo of Europe image of the Lost Woods, and he kept replacing it for being "unofficial." His reasoning was that since Prima was an American company, it counted more than official art from Nintendo of Europe. He even said that he thinks he's a better arbiter of what's canon than Nintendo is. He got banned for his attitude problems, but now that the ban expired he's back at it. I managed to get a mod to lock the disputed page to end the edit war.

What the hell? Hold on. If the comics are under "ambiguously canon" , then wouldn't the cartoon also fit under that category. Oh don't the comics contradict the games just by Ganon being alive (that and Zelda's an idiot in the comics)?

The comics explain that Ganon had come back to life somehow. The cartoon also has more blatant canon discrepancies than the comic does, such as only having two Triforces and crossing over with Captain N. Again, nobody takes the comics as canon, but they're not as contradictory as the manga or the cartoon. Other stuff under "ambiguous" is the German OoT comic that shows how Link's parents died. That one ties into the game directly and contradicts nothing. But it's certainly not canon on the same level that the games are. The closest parallel would be "S-canon" in Star Wars. That's something that hasn't been contradicted, but doesn't have the same level of canon as everything else.

Please don't talk Star Wars canon with me. Everything in the Star Wars universe, unless otherwise stated, is canon, but they do not replace the movies (I'm a big time Star Wars geek).
Anyways, Captain N would actually explain how Ganon came back in the comics because he was resurrected in one of the episodes. Some say that he died in the fight, but since the Silver Arrows wern't used there he had to survive (this isn't like the oracles when he wasn't completely revived). I do have a timeline in my signature that shows how the spin-off material might fit in (the older stuff fits better than the newer stuff). Also, I think that the reason there were only two triforce pieces in the cartoon was because the Triforce of Courage wasn't rediscovered until AOL (I think that the cartoon fits best before LOZ).

[Person]

Here's the Wookieepedia summary of S-canon in Star Wars:

S-canon is Secondary Canon; the materials are available to be used or ignored as needed by current authors. This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity; it also contains certain elements of a few otherwise N-canon stories, and other things that "may not fit just right." Many formerly S-canon elements have been elevated to C-canon through their inclusion in more recent works by continuity-minded authors, while many other older works (such as The Han Solo Adventures) were accounted for in continuity from the start despite their age, and thus were always C-canon.

That's sort of like what ZW considers the comics and stuff that don't directly contradict the games but are otherwise ignored to be.

[SOAP]

Also, I think that the reason there were only two triforce pieces in the cartoon was because the Triforce of Courage wasn't rediscovered until AOL (I think that the cartoon fits best before LOZ).

Nitpick: The cartoon doesn't even fit between LoZ and AoL because at the end of LoZ, Link gets the ToP back from the slain Ganon. If you HAD to fitt the cartoon in the timeline you'd have to take the very beginning of LoZ, where Ganon first steals the ToP and then squeeze the entire cartoon series between that instance and the next one where Ganon attempts to steal the ToW but Zelda shatters it and scatters the pieces throughout Hyrule. I guess it could work that way.

[Person]

Also, I think that the reason there were only two triforce pieces in the cartoon was because the Triforce of Courage wasn't rediscovered until AOL (I think that the cartoon fits best before LOZ).

Nitpick: The cartoon doesn't even fit between LoZ and AoL because at the end of LoZ, Link gets the ToP back from the slain Ganon. If you HAD to fitt the cartoon in the timeline you'd have to take the very beginning of LoZ, where Ganon first steals the ToP and then squeeze the entire cartoon series between that instance and the next one where Ganon attempts to steal the ToW but Zelda shatters it and scatters the pieces throughout Hyrule. I guess it could work that way.

They also seem to act like there are only two Triforces. Even Ganon, who should know better, thinks he'll have ultimate power when he has two. The third one just shows up in the Captain N crossover episodes with no explanation. Making Captain N canon would open up a whole other can of worms, especially since that show was rife with They Just Didn't Care.

[ganonlord6000]

Also, I think that the reason there were only two triforce pieces in the cartoon was because the Triforce of Courage wasn't rediscovered until AOL (I think that the cartoon fits best before LOZ).

Nitpick: The cartoon doesn't even fit between LoZ and AoL because at the end of LoZ, Link gets the ToP back from the slain Ganon. If you HAD to fitt the cartoon in the timeline you'd have to take the very beginning of LoZ, where Ganon first steals the ToP and then squeeze the entire cartoon series between that instance and the next one where Ganon attempts to steal the ToW but Zelda shatters it and scatters the pieces throughout Hyrule. I guess it could work that way.

They also seem to act like there are only two Triforces. Even Ganon, who should know better, thinks he'll have ultimate power when he has two. The third one just shows up in the Captain N crossover episodes with no explanation. Making Captain N canon would open up a whole other can of worms, especially since that show was rife with They Just Didn't Care.

Maybe the second Ganon didn't know much about the triforce or LOZ's Ganon didn't at least. Oh. That cartoon was made before we knew Ganon was once human so we can't expect them to know much.

OMG. Any of you guys remember the guy who places TMC last? I just got in another arguement with him and he can't seem to accept that TMC is a confirmed prequel to FS and FSA and that the Japanese text is far more reliable (and has a better canon value) than the US text. How can anybody even believe that TMC can go there anyways when the rest of us view it as a prequel? I heard that he is not the only one who places TMC anywhere besides pre-FS. I'll be looking for theories like those. I think that theory (and the person who made it) earns the award of kookiest ever. Can any of you find a kooky theory that tops that?

Oh. How many people here have seen recent timelines that do not include TWW and/or TP (or any post MM games)? Those theories belong here.

I just googled Zelda timelines and it seems that people have already decided where Zelda Wii goes. Any idea why? Placing ST I can see, but a game that isn't soming out for at least a year? Never google timelines and expect good results.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 12 October 2009 - 06:16 PM.

[Person]

I did see one theory about how Zelda Wii was going to be set between OoT and TP. This was all based on Link's hairstyle. I am serious.

[ganonlord6000]

I did see one theory about how Zelda Wii was going to be set between OoT and TP. This was all based on Link's hairstyle. I am serious.

That's mostly ign and ZU and both of them suck. It is more than likely to go some time after TP, but I am not entirely certain and the ones who think they are shouldn't. It might even fill the biggest gap in he timeline. We sure know how to find weird stuff on the net.

[Average Gamer]

http://www.zeldauniv...4-aol-line.html

The first page of this thread is relatively reasonable, but the second and third pages consist of the typical ZU idiocy. A particularly bad part is when River Zora tries to convolute things in an attempt to deny that the Great King wrote the scroll in AoL. River Zora even admits that his reasoning clashes with Occam's Razor. Lex also makes an appearance and says his utterly baseless "Great King was merely blessed" BS.

Edited by Average Gamer, 14 October 2009 - 05:14 AM.

[Person]

http://www.zeldauniv...4-aol-line.html

The first page of this thread is relatively reasonable, but the second and third pages consist of the typical ZU idiocy. A particularly bad part is when River Zora tries to convolute things in an attempt to deny that the Great King wrote the scroll in AoL. River Zora even admits that his reasoning clashes with Occam's Razor. Lex also makes an appearance and says his utterly baseless "Great King was merely blessed" BS.

That's something that's been debated for more than ten years. Simple fact of the matter is that the Sacred Realm hadn't been thought of yet, and the simple "The Zelda of ALttP was the Sleeping Zelda" explanation is best. The whole "King used the Triforce by not using it" conflicts everything about the manual story.

[Jarsh]

The whole "King used the Triforce by not using it" conflicts everything about the manual story.

To this day, I still do not know how that even works.

[Person]

The whole "King used the Triforce by not using it" conflicts everything about the manual story.

To this day, I still do not know how that even works.

Because Lex's theory would have the Triforce in the Sacred Realm during the AoL backstory, instead of being used by the king, his explanation of how the king "used" it was that he didn't use it and kept it locked in the Sacred Realm. How his children got pieces of it when he died if it was undisturbed in the SR is unexplained. Or why he would lock Courage up in the Great Palace if the whole thing was already locked in the Sacred Realm.

It still doesn't beat his "The Mirror of Twilight was teleported to Arbiter's Grounds" theory.

[Average Gamer]

What's worse about Lex's "used by not using" theory is that he still sticks to it even when Japanese translations have shot down his only possible evidence. The Triforce doesn't provide providence or blessings; it simply maintains the metaphysical reasons of the world. That's why it made Link get involved in OoX; Onox and Veran were throwing the seasons and time, both of which are metaphysical reasons, out of order, so the Triforce selected a person who would restore things. It had nothing to do with helping Hyrule or making it prosper.

Edited by Average Gamer, 15 October 2009 - 12:47 AM.

[Average Gamer]

http://www.zeldauniv...ng-to-hell.html

This thread contains two kooky theories; the first being that Termina is the afterlife, and the second being that the Twilight Realm is the afterlife.

What the hell.

[Arturo]

I'm splitting the thread now.

Edited by Arturo, 28 October 2009 - 05:01 AM.

[ganonlord6000]

Does anybody remember NOA's timeline response? that was pretty kooky due to TWW obviously being a sequel to OOT.

Oh. take a look at this:


That guy made a whole video about his MC placement and even says that it can be a prequel and still be last. WHAT THE HECK?!!! I had to make a few comments on that video and mentioned the translations here (you'll see why) This guy is at the top of my list of kooky theorizers. Honestly. Why go all this way to prove that TMC can be last instead of being like the rest of us who view it as a prequel? Everyone is getting on his case for his MC placement. Hopefully, my next timeline will end this once and for all.

[Person]

Does anybody remember NOA's timeline response? that was pretty kooky due to TWW obviously being a sequel to OOT.

Oh. take a look at this:


That guy made a whole video about his MC placement and even says that it can be a prequel and still be last. WHAT THE HECK?!!! I had to make a few comments on that video and mentioned the translations here (you'll see why) This guy is at the top of my list of kooky theorizers. Honestly. Why go all this way to prove that TMC can be last instead of being like the rest of us who view it as a prequel? Everyone is getting on his case for his MC placement. Hopefully, my next timeline will end this once and for all.

LOL THARZ NO TYMELYN SO I'M RIGHT!

[ganonlord6000]

Does anybody remember NOA's timeline response? that was pretty kooky due to TWW obviously being a sequel to OOT.

Oh. take a look at this:


That guy made a whole video about his MC placement and even says that it can be a prequel and still be last. WHAT THE HECK?!!! I had to make a few comments on that video and mentioned the translations here (you'll see why) This guy is at the top of my list of kooky theorizers. Honestly. Why go all this way to prove that TMC can be last instead of being like the rest of us who view it as a prequel? Everyone is getting on his case for his MC placement. Hopefully, my next timeline will end this once and for all.

LOL THARZ NO TYMELYN SO I'M RIGHT!

That's pretty much what I told him. He even said that there is evidence that there was no timleine before TWW. Wasn't that when the timeline actually made sense. Will anything convince that guy that TMC is a prequel?

[Person]

That's pretty much what I told him. He even said that there is evidence that there was no timleine before TWW. Wasn't that when the timeline actually made sense. Will anything convince that guy that TMC is a prequel?

Tell him that if you have to make stuff up to support your theory, it's not a good theory. I can say that every game except OoT was a dream if I wanted to, but it wouldn't make it true.

And speaking of TMC,
"War of the Bound Chest"

[Fin]

And speaking of TMC,
"War of the Bound Chest"

This is why Zelda fans shouldn't be allowed near wikis.

[Person]

"The Truth About the Timeline"

Yes, people are still believing the "There is no timeline" bullcrap from earlier this year, even though NoJ has said numerous times that there is a timeline.

[Sign of Justice]

^Wow I can't believe ZI of all places would have an article THAT bad and stupid.

[Person]

^Wow I can't believe ZI of all places would have an article THAT bad and stupid.

I have no idea why a form letter from NoA that dates back to 2003 is suddenly being used for the "There is no timeline" debacle. They saw it on Destructoid, so it must be true!