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)

I'm...not sure what you mean. The game developers have continuously stressed that there is a canon, and continuity, since at least the third game in. At best, there are two timelines.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'two timelines' thing Eiji Aonuma mentioned simply refers to the time period after Wind Waker's flood and the time period before, though a lot of people seem to blow this quote out of proportion and assume Zelda has some unspoken Lost-style 'flash sideways' thing going on. I wouldn't put too much stock in 'canon' or continuity when talking about this series- they really make it up as they go along, and I mean that in a good way. It's never really clear whether Ganon is a pig-like deity who can turn into a man or if Ganondorf a man who can turn into a pig-like deity - different entries in the series contradict each other. The series really has a loosey-goosey approach to continuity, but that's fine. Ganon's identity is as fluid from game to game as the geography of Hyrule. The article should perhaps be made to reflect this. 92.24.246.82 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Super Smash Brothers Fighters Category

A small dispute has arisen concerning the addition of the Category, Super Smash Bros. fighters. One user wants to put the category on the Ganondorf page which redirects to Ganon rather on the Ganon page. I believe this is nonsensical. Ganondorf is simply a longer name for Ganon- they are the same character, when considering that Ganondorf redirects here it should make even more sense to include Ganon in the category- where it belongs. Gavin (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting up helpful categories to redirects is not unheard of. Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters is an example of this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering it is the topic of the debate you can't really use it as an example...what other categories use it?Gavin (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost every Digimon-related, and every Pokemon related redirect uses this, for example. I don't know how many of them are still on wikipedia. Also, as the "SSB fighters" is the topic, the precedent it already uses is, well, specifically what should be used as an example.

However, Ganon is also playable in SSB, as a powered attack. As a compromise, could we just have the category on both pages?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically - Lucario, Captain Falcon, Captain Olimar, Falco, Ice Climbers, Meta Knight, and so on place the category on a redirect. As an example of aliases which link to equivalent articles (and not just lists), Young Link, Toon Link, Zero Suit Samus, and Sheik also use this setup.

Most pertinent is that Sheik is given the category, despite being a variant form of Zelda - like "Ganon" is of the fighter Ganondorf. That should be acceptable precedent to have the category on both Ganon and Ganondorf's articles.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Manbearpig

Did anyone else notice the similarity?^^ I doubt that Trey Parker or Matt Stone was inspired by Legend of Zelda's most common antagonist, though. — mode.ry talk 02:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting similarity, but I don't think noteworthy for the article. (Pure OR) Gavin (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Stupid Question

Any particular reason why Ganondorf redirects to Ganon and not the other way around? Ganondorf is the more commonly used name Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We've touched base on this before. Take a look back here. I don't recall seeing any other discussion though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And I note in that one an editor agrees with me that Ganondorf is the better and more used name. Take as proof that in most media, including the two SSBs and the Wikipedia article on Link, he is referred to as Ganondorf.

Infobox image

Why are there two? It looks cluttered that way. I say Ganondorf should remain in the infobox and the beast form moved to the main of the article (or simply removed). -sesuPRIME 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is beacause the character has two main forms, a human and a beast form. In the past there was edit waring regadring wich form to use.--76.71.211.148 (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ganon in Spirit Tracks

Apparently it's been revealed Ganon will be in Spirit Tracks with his spirit in a train but unsure whether in Link's train or another train. --Victory93 (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

I believe that the Ganondorf image should be replaced with the Ocarina Ganondorf image. The image used currently is dark, making it difficult to identify his facial features. The OoT Ganondorf shows much more of the character's appearance, and isn't in some awkward pose like the current one is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, per the last consensus. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Make better edit summaries please. "..." = condescending.

Anyway, the last consensus was a year ago, and "consensus can change". Why does the TP Ganondorf better convey the character? It doesn't show any important elements that the OoT image doesn't show, and the OoT image shows every major aspect of the character in a clearer lighting. The only reason it's used is recentism, which was dismissed on all of the Street Fighter articles which states that being most recent is absolutely unimportant, far less so than the actual quality of the image. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if you should use the Gannon image for the infobox, then show the two Gannondorf images to show his human form's appearance. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

>.> Why are you calling him Gannon/dorf? Anyway, perhaps we could use the beast form as his main image, but the last thing we need is two images of Ganondorf that really depict the same thing. I again assert that since TP Ganondorf does everything OoT Ganondorf does, but worse, it should be replaced. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll try to reinvigorate the discussion - like I've said, the Ganondorf from OoT is a clearer image, while theone in TP is too dark and obscures his face. The only reason TP Ganondorf is used is because it's the most recent. However, the designs are similar enough that using the OoT image, which is superior in every way, will not cause confusion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off will you?! Reinvigorate the discussion, sure, but don't dare try to make amendments without consulting others. Why not ask the folks at WP:VG to opine as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you say "per previous discussion" which didn't even consider image quality, and completely ignore the discussion. But yeah, I have a feeling that my argument stands pretty darn well when you've made absolutely no effort to argue otherwise. Quality > Recentism. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I half agree with what you are saying. But I think the Ganon image should be used in the infobox, with the OoT Ganondorf image in the article. If you merge the TP Ganon's style and OoT Ganondorf's image in your mind, you can come up with the TP Ganondorf image. So it isn't really needed. He does have some minor alterations to his design, but it isn't enough to say they are completely different. Although in Pokemon articles we dont use Pokemon Red and Blue artwork. We use the updated FireRed and LeafGreen images. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think you would be able to find a better image for his TP appearance though. I mean the current image is a jpg! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I could agree with Ganon in lead and Ganondorf in body. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, that could be arranged, but I don't see the need to replace any of the images at this point. More thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I've said, the OoT Ganondorf is both more iconic of an appearance, being the first appearance of his humanoid form, as well as being a cleaner image. TP Ganondorf is only used because of an outdated ideal of keeping images up to date, which was attempted in Street Fighter but resisted due to the lowered quality of the new images. The point of using the OoT image would be to give the reader a higher quality version of his appearance. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ganon's voice actor in animated series

Can we have added Ganon's voice actor in the animated series please? --Victory93 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Murderer

Does anyone think that Ganondorf should at least be put into the fictional murderers category? It's been stated by various characters and even seen on screen (Twilight Princess) that he has killed quite a few people. I personally think he would fit into the mass murderer category, but a lot of people find that debatable for certain reasons. I think that it's no mystery though that he has killed people and that should be put into the article. I would add the category myself, but it would most likely get removed because of a lack of citations. I'm not might sure how to cite information pertaining to a video game, where most of the sources to cite come from the game itself and not a website or literature.-darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.136.39 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job

This article's looking pretty damn good. The lead-image is decent, the article itself is descriptive and well-written and all the right categories are there. Looks like this place can function without me after all. --86.133.207.254 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ganon/Ganondorf

I don't see why Ganon and Ganondorf are presented as just two names for a single entity.

In my opinion, totally confusing both is a big mistake. Ganon is the root of evil, the incarnation of Demise's hatred fused by the Triforce of Power's... power. Ganon is just a host to that feeling, but still a person, born and raised somewhere, who's had a life of his own.

To me, it's the same mistake one would make if they blended Zelda and Hylia as the same person, or even Link with the notion of Courage, for that matter.

In other words, this description crually lacks shades... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.248.220.125 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason being is that Nintendo started to use the names inchangeabally. In the past Ganon was used for the beast form and Ganondorf was used for him humanoid form but starting with Wind Waker Ganon was used for the human form meaning that Nintendo were no longer using the two names for the different forms. So do you have a source that Ganon and Ganondorf are different people since Nintendo has appeared to say otherwise for almost nine years (Wind Waker was released in North America in Feb.2003).--70.24.207.225 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)