Talk:Ganon

Removal of categories

User:Jc37 has been removing all superpower categories from "divine" characters for some time now (see his contributions). I totally understand what he is trying to accomplish. He made me realize that these types of things are best suited for non-magical and non-godly beings. Therefore, we really shouldn't put Ganon in every category possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Mew (Pokémon)#Categories. Again, this argument that "[Insert character here] is omnipotent, therefore categorizing every single power and ability is WP:OCAT" doesn't make much sense. If you were arguing that "the fact that Ganon appears to teleport during the next to last battle in most Zelda games is not a defining characteristic and therefore is WP:OCAT"... that I'll buy (even understand).--Nohansen (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I said as much before in the previous discussion about this. Whether "all powerful" or not, Ganon's abilities change in each game to fit the challenges of the game world, with little-to-no effort given to explain the limits of his abilities. For example, Ganon is not known for his ability to fly (like Superman or Peter Pan), and thus should not be categorized in the respect. King Zeal (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would slightly agree with this interpretation - the most definition of his power limit is that he has enhanced dark magic, which can be stretched any which way. My previous problem with the removal was that Ganon is in no way omnipotent, and that's not even what divine means.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

But aren't these categories incidental to the character? Think about it. He doesn't teleport all the time like Nightcrawler, hence, he shouldn't be categorized as such. Same with shapeshifting, he doesn't usually take the appearance of something else, like Shang Tsung does. Now that I think about it, we can put him in Category:Fictional characters who use magic. Don't really see a reason not to do so. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I could see removing the others, but shapeshifting is a huge part of his character, and should remain.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In re-reading the article, other associated articles, and the sources thereof, it would appear that:

The character uses magic to preform all their feats.

The Triforce of Power is an artifact, which seems to have a directly divine source and/or essence. (It's the use of this artifact which would seem to make this character "omnipotent". - And per long convention, we don't categorise based upon the usage of an object or artifact.)

Therefore, the only ability cat which would seem to be appropriate here is Category:Fictional characters who use magic.

And apparently deity and demon are inappropriate. If they become appropriate in the future, or if the sources have been unclear and the character is one or the other, then the magic cat should be removed, and the appropriate "divine" (deity or demon) cat placed to replace it. - jc37 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

About this edit, the article indeed sources his status as a demon and deity. Why exactly did you remove them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments directly above.

That said, if I missed something, sources are welcome. - jc37 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But your reasons don't make complete sense jc37. The sources are right there. What makes you think otherwise? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If it seems obvious to you, but not as obvious to me, then perhaps I'm missing something, please illustrate. - jc37 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think we should be relying solely on Jc37 to judge what categories belong or don't belong. I find your logic of "fictional demons and deities can potentially perform any superhuman/paranormal/supernatural ability" to be faulty and unless there are reliable sources backing that statement (I believe) you're falling into a sort of backwards WP:OR: interpreting and synthesizing in order to remove information. After all, there are comic book demons with no magic powers like Hellboy.

Of course, there's always the radical solution: Send the powers and abilities categories to WP:CFD, starting with the most trivial. May I suggest Category:Fictional characters who can duplicate themselves?--Nohansen (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we can come to an agreement before that becomes necessary. King Zeal (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's leave a cfd for another time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nohansen: No we're not relying on anyone to "judge" anything. We're relying on sources.

Right now, the question is whether the character is a "deity" (or demon, for that matter). So far his claims to being a "deity" involved having the triforce of power. And if that's the case (as it seems to be), we don't categorise characters by some object or artifact that they have, based on long consensus.

And I'm not seeing any source for "demon". but perhaps I overlooked it?

So, so far, the only "inherent" ability that the character seems to have is the ability to use magic. And through that ability, the character has duplicated other inherent abilities. (Not surprising, as "magic" can do anything that the author(s) may deem it able to do. Magic itself is a form of "omnipotence". And I have links/references if anyone doubts this.)

So, unless the sources indicate otherwise, the character should be in Category:Fictional characters who use magic, and none of the otehrs based upon sources.

And again, if you feel I'm missing something, please illustrate with sources. - jc37 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much answered my doubts. The demon reference is in the lead, see the first sentence of paragraph two. For deity, read #Personality and #2002—present. Shall we reinsert the two categories now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In looking at where you're pointing, I only see assertions by Wikipedia editors. What sources am I missing? - jc37 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that we shouldn't be using the video games as reliable sources? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are used as primary sources, then there are some very specific rules in which they may be used. (See WP:OR)

"To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. "

And I don't see that clearly noted in any of the assertions. For all we know, the "references" could be making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source, in their assertions. Clarity would be a boon here. - jc37 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ganon is quite clearly said to be worshipped in several games, and is directly claimed to be a deity in at least one game. He qualifies. Furthermore, in most of these instances he did not have (or have an active) Triforce of Power, so it has nothing to do with that. He is also clearly explained to be a demon in many of the games, and fits all the qualifications for a "Maou" - a servile mazoku (Demon race), a makai (demon world), and god-like power.

Jc37 is greatly misinterpreting what the Triforce of Power does. It does not provide him with any ability or power he does not already have. All it does is amplify his own power. Just as the ToW merely amplifies Zelda's natural wisdom, and the ToC Link's natural courage.

Furthermore, in this series, being a demon or deity does not imply the kind of magical skill that Ganon has - his is specifically a wizard-type of skill. He is a wizard who became a demon through his evil - he could have become one without adept magical skill, as shown with Bellum or the Moblins. He became a god through his intense power - much closer to use of magic, but also through physical power, and the magic came first. Each of these three is essentially independent of the others.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean sorcerer? His mystical powers are inbred. He doesn't need to recite anything. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, sorcerer, magician, and wizard have the same meaning. In literarute, for example, wizards often have innate talent (and may use incantations to enhance it), while sorcerers harness the labor of the occult. Of course, the definitions are all over the place, and the wikipedia article does nothing to help that. Do we have a concrete line from the games that uses a certain type of magus-term?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: When does it state that Ganon's powers are only magnified by the Triforce of Power? As I recall, it also granted him a number of abilities he did not have previously, such as his immortality. King Zeal (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Been wanting to know myself. I thought the Triforce of Power gave him superpowers. Didn't think it amplified anything he already knew. Is there something I'm missing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that he qualifies as a deity/demon, that shapeshifting is important enough, and fictional immortals should apply, because he does show that he is ageless and can live for a very long time (potentially forever), and in many instances, he can only be killed by a magical weapon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Or TP at the end when the triforce left him :D--Jakezing (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of consistency stems from the fact that almost every game in the Legend of Zelda series is not necessarily "canon" or sequential, and this is sometimes done intentionally and designed specifically to break a particular definition of the series. Ganon, or Ganondorf exists in an almost completely different incarnation in every game, as are Zelda, Link, the Sages and any other number of characters that have become series staples. Sometimes the characters show up not as characters at all, but as names of streets, towns or small references to items. I had seemed to remember that the article itself had addressed this issue, but after taking another look at it, it seems to very loosely touch base with it and almost forces a consistent image of Ganondorf from the series. So perhaps the general perspective in regards to the entire article needs some re-evaluation before this matter can be resolved? Garonyldas (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)