Talk:Ganon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ganon article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Ganon has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Copy-editing

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

[edit] Appearances in other media

This includes Ganon's appearances in both nintendo-sponsored cartoons. Shouldn't the appearances ins south park and robot chicken be in another section? One like appearances in popular culture? Since nintendo did not authorize neither appearance in southpark or robot chicken.--216.81.36.194 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

Wasn't there an admin decision to have no lead image, so shouldn't the image just contributed be deleted? I'm not totally sure, so I – or anyone else – won't delete it until confirmation. Ashnard Talk 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the admin decision temporary or permanent? If it is temporary, is there a set deadline for when the decision expires, or do we have to get permission? Thanks. --Superneoking 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure, Zythe has been looking over the article longer than me – I wasn't really involved too much when this admin thing happened. Try asking him or the original admmin. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The admin's decision is not set in stone. It was just sort of a Solomon's decision to settle a heated dispute. Thankfully, everyone abided by that decision and the dispute was thus solved. Of course, in the mean time, a lot of time has passed. I you want to add an image again though, I'd suggest you first post it here on the talk page for discussion, so history doesn't repeat itself.--Atlan (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I say we should have a lead image, but that's just me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ganon.jpg) (I'm a moron, i cant do it...>_>) Sangheilis and Darknuts are where its at.

[edit] Spoiler Warning?

I've noticed that some parts in the article, especially his standings in each Zelda game (Wind Waker is the one that stood out) have some pretty big spoiler points, but I see no warnings whatsoever. Could someone review the article and take the appropriate action? Thanks. 124.178.145.194 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings have now become redundant as some new Wiki policy has deemed them unsuitable. So they are no longer in use. Ashnard Talk 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
unless an offical Japaneses audio drama/Japaneses only game or something comes out explaining the life of ganon or the position in which each game goes I don't see it needed-Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have added two references to the article. It is a start, but we still need more sources. Please make sure to include citations when adding information to the article. --Superneoking 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. It's time to get strict with content and turn this into a really decent article. You're right though, it needs a lot more sources. Ashnard Talk 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major revamp!

Superneoking has majorly altered the page – although I think that such edits warrant a suggestion on the talk page first. So, I was wondering what everybody thinks of this? Is this a good thing? Ashnard Talk Contribs 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I should have asked first. --Superneoking 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just remember to add these things for such major revisions. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No response, does anybody actually view this talk page or am I being ignored? Well, I think this change is definitely for better and gives the article a much more presentable feel. So, that's a thumbs up from me. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure this is no surprise, but I agree with the new format as well. :P The format is fine, and the references are certainly improving (though we do need more), so I think we should give our attention to the content. The article is about a fictional character, so it needs to be written in the past tense for the most part. I wish more people would participate in these talk pages. --Superneoking 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it annoys me to. I'll raise a suggestion about an article where many edit yet nobody will reply on a talk page. Out of interest, what sort of references do you planning on adding now for this article, as in where from? Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt much more can really be referenced with zelda.com, so I am thinking Nintendo magazines, interviews, and guide books for games in the series. The only problem is that it has been hinted that Ganon won't be in Phantom Hourglass, so the likelihood of him being brought up in interviews for a while is slim (unless he is in SSBB). Then again, we can look through old interviews/news. --Superneoking 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably start helping you out with this after Wednesday – I need to revise for my exams until then. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I edit a wide range of articles and don't frequent all the respective talk pages that much. I checked the article's history and couldn't find anything more major than adding references and categories, going as far back as a couple of months. As far as I'm concerned, you can just go ahead and make those edits without consultation at the talk page.--Atlan (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new format of this page. I find it very confusing StupidFrog 17:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's less accessible to the untrained eye as some people don't know the timeline of some games. It does make it look more tidy though. Maybe there could be a timeline at the start of some sort. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"so it needs to be written in the past tense for the most part." - actually, the MOS says to write it in the present tense.
Also - for the ordering it's in, it doesn't make sense unless it's actually describing his development. As a character, organizing it by release date makes no sense - if you're describing his in-universe aspect, you need to organize it by work, not date.
...So, unless you're going to rework this to harp on development and design, it needs to be put back the way it was.KrytenKoro 11:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If you read the peer review for Ganon, you would see that one of the bad things about his article was the format. I have seen many articles that are held back by format, and Ganon was one of them. Game-by-game breakdown will keep this article from GA and FA. Look at the article about Link if you need proof. The year/release style is used on that article, and it is Featured. The Ganon article, which previously used the game-by-game breakdown style, was not featured or good. A good format doesn't mean that the article will definitely be good, but a bad format does mean that the article isn't up to Wiki standards. If the current format makes no sense and is confusing, then I doubt the Link article would be good let alone featured.

As for tense, you are right; it does need to be in present tense. I guess I made a mistake when I was typing earlier. What I meant was that we can't use first/second person pronouns (for some reason I wrote tense).

I changed the format of this article because I wanted to improve the article. While people do help this article, it wasn't worked on by many people. Very little was being done to fix the poor shape that the article was in due to the lack of help, and the peer review was ignored. The Ganon article had no references for a long long time, and while I can't confirm this, I assume the article has had no sources even before the peer review (which was a while ago). The peer review gave two suggestions: revamp the style and add references. When someone finally does so, people suddenly start to argue about many things in this article and reverts begin to happen over and over. If people are unhappy with the change, give suggestions for other ways to improve and fix the article. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people who rarely/never edited the article or tried to improve it prior to a change that argue over what was done; they fight for a revert, and when that is done or support for the change diminishes, they continue to do nothing. That doesn't fix an article. --Superneoking 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
...I wasn't trying to start a revert war. I'm just saying that the organization doesn't make sense, as the descriptions are about in-universe events - if the "1999-2001" thing was about the character's development in the real world, where they actually have those years, it would make sense. If you could tone down the plot regurgitation and make it more about how the design was developed, that would make sense, as that would be out-of-universe.
Hell, you could even put the plot summary stuff back on the character pages or something. I don't know. It just doesn't make sense.KrytenKoro 05:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For Example! Why is there no mention of Ganon in the ALttP remake? By the current setup, there must be a mention of it in the 1997-2001 bit.KrytenKoro 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you started or were even a part of any revert war. I just said that right now lots of reverts are happening (mainly edits by unregistered members it seems). As for the remake, why would it be needed? It is the same plot in both versions, and Ganon plays the same role. To be honest, I could ask you the same thing: why was there no mention of Ganon in the ALttP remake when the format was game-by-game? --Superneoking 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
When doing it by game, nothing would be needed - since ALttP and ALttP GBA are essentially the same game, it would be a copied paragraph. However, if doing it by realworld time, it seems just a little bit obvious that the point of view should also be real-world - and thus, mention of Ganon in the remake, possibly mentioning how he is no longer the "Final Boss", because that happened in the real world. If you want to make the page written from a completely in-universe point of view (alright, you did mention that his name has had different spellings, and that multiple voice actors have been used - big whoop), then the organization should be similarly in-universe. Its fine to do that, so long as you keep out of the traps of in-universe righting, which for the most part you do. However, if you organize it from a real-world perspective, the content should also be from a real-world perspective. Otherwise, you end up with the awkward setup we have now, where it's describing events as if Ganon first obtained the Triforce in 1997, several years after he already had it. I know you guys are trying to improve this article, but right now, it's just a step down from what it was, when it wasn't actually badly organized beforehand.KrytenKoro 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the majority of the unregistered edits as they're just adding minutiae. I too cannot see the logic in the LttP thing although maybe a very brief mention of its existance wouldn't go amiss. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I just noticed that you guys said it should be in past tense, and looking at the article, that you had done that. Wrong! The MoS asks for it to be in present tense, as that is how it is presented to the player. Flashbacks or tales of the past can be in past tense, but anything that happens in the present of the game needs to be in present tense.KrytenKoro 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing's stopping you from changing it yourself. I'm not a major contributor of this article — I just usuall revert the rubbish edits. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Few things

I've patched up the Characteristics section a little to make it a tad more well written. At the time being it says as follows:

(exessively long copy/paste of the article removed)

I changed it a little so it said:

(same here)

Anon

First of all, please don't paste parts of the article here in the talk section. Everyone can see the changes you made by looking at the edit history (here). Secondly, your edits have been reverted, because they consisted only of extraneous details and some parts were just wrong. e.g. Like how you say his basic physical traits are always the same and then go on to describe in detail the OoT (and after) Ganondorf, even though we're describing Ganon in general.--Atlan (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry. I was just trying to help.

Anon

That's alright. The effort was appreciated. Don't let it's revertion discourage you from making future edits.--Atlan (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Never be discouraged from editing. Take the criticisms constructively and come back a better editor. Just remember the purpose of Wikipedia and what you're editing. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ashnard although I've probably been doing this for longer than you have despite the fact that I was blocked.

Anon

Are you saying you're evading a block by editing as an anon?--Atlan (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No! Why is that not allowed? Just out of curiosity you understand?

Anon

Of course that's not allowed. What's the point of a block if you keep editing?--Atlan (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm so sorry, I didn't realise. I assumed that if one was blocked it just meant they were denied the privelages of a registered user. My mistake. This will be my last edit. Goodbye.

Anon

[edit] Dictator

Please stop adding the fictional dictator category to this page. He does not fit in that category. It is going to be removed each time it is added, so adding it again and again is pointless. --Superneoking 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I go I'd just like to say don't be silly, of course Ganon is a dictator. He ruled both Hyrule and the Sacred Realm for a while and the handbook for Link's Awakening actually refers to him as "the dictator, Ganon" if I remember correctly. How could he be any more a dictator? Anon

But... Ganon wasn't IN Link's Awakening... (Fryguy64 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes I know he wasn't but he was mentioned. Link was reminiscing about his battle with "the dictator, Ganon" and worrying what terrible force would rise from said dictator's ashes when Zelda appeared before him and told him he had to go on a quest to find the Wind Fish. Anon

That is not what the manual says at all. For one, it calls him a "tyrant", not a dictator. Everything else you said was very confused. Zelda didn't appear before him, he mistook Marin's voice for Zelda. And it was the owl who told him to search for the Wind Fish. It really isn't that hard to check these things, you know. Google is your friend and mine. (Fryguy64 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
Well, that's entirely different then. The problem here is that people these days think tyrant and dictator are exactly the same thing.--Atlan (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he was still the ruler of Hyrule and indeed the Sacred Realm for a time. If Vicki the Babysitter can be in the fictional dictators category for ruling the world for a while then so can Ganon.

Because the list is full of names that don't belong there, we might as well add Ganon. Yeah, good point.--Atlan (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, Vicki was called a dictator in the television movie. She was called a dictator several times, and there was proof that she was a dictator. Heck, the plot of the movie was to stop her from reaching the Dictator channel thing. Unlike Vicky, it has not been confirmed that Ganon is a dictator. He might act like a dictator, but unless it is confirmed by the creators, it is just an opinion, not a fact. Oh, and you really should sign your comments.
Off topic, but I thought you said you left. Do you honestly think that using a different IP address will hide the fact that you were banned? You said you were banned, but you kept on editing with the 81.145.240.114 IP address. Now, after you say you didn't know you couldn't edit after being banned, you switch your IP address to 81.157.172.208 and then continue editing (on the exact same talk page of all things). I am sure you have had other IP addresses used for editing in addition to those two. If you were banned, you were banned for a reason. Your edits are consistently being reverted and your talk page says you have been in trouble for vandalizing several times before. If you truly want to help the article, that is fine, but if you want to vandalize the article, have edit wars over the dictator category, and make us revert things over and over again, then please leave. I want this article to make GA and maybe even FA status, but that can't happen when a person who edits is hurting the article. I am sorry if I sounded mean and cruel, but your reputation and your previous edits just make me worry. --Superneoking 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry. I wasn't trying to conceal my IP address, I was just editing in two different places. I live in two seperate houses and have a computer in both. I was trying to help the article but maybe not in a creative sort of way. If you want to leave him out of the dictator category then do so. I just thought he should be in it. I was just about to leave but then the dictator business came to my attention and I began to pursue the matter further. My apologies. I'm leaving for real this time. Goobye. Anon - over and out.

Wikipedia's own definition of Dictator is (I've stuck out the unnecessary bit):
Dictator is originally the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the state in times of emergency. In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch; see also Oliver Cromwell). Like Tyrant, originally a respectable Ancient title, and to a lesser degree Autocrat, it came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.
As you can see, Dictator is a sole political ruler which Ganon is not. Tyrant would be more appropriate but such a category does not yet exist. - .:Alex:. 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info to integrate

Just moved this all from the TWW page, as it should be here instead of there. Thanks!KrytenKoro 04:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganondorf is the main villain in most The Legend of Zelda games, and is so in The Wind Waker as well. As told in the opening and again by the King of Hyrule, Ganondorf escaped from the Sacred Realm after being sealed away in Ocarina of Time. He attempted to take over once again, but was stopped by the Goddesses and got sealed away underwater along with a frozen Hyrule, with the Master Sword being used as a key to unfreeze the kingdom. Ganondorf has obtained refuge in the Forsaken Fortress, which is a monster-infested and heavily guarded island. Link sets off on a quest to defeat him, leading to a final confrontation on top of his tower in Hyrule, where Link battles him, and, eventually, stabs the Master Sword into his forehead, turning him into stone. Ganondorf is subsequently drowned along with Hyrule and the king in the depths of the ocean.

Gannondorf apparently is not the last Gerudo alive, as shown in screenshots of Phatom Hourglass, the Gerudo being a race of tall, slender beings of Gerudo Valley from Ocarina of Time. He is frustrated about his failures from earlier Zelda games, mentioning that the Triforce effectively has bound their souls together for so long that he is almost resigned to the fact that Link ('The Hero') would appear to oppose him.

Also:

His initial goal in life is to locate and retrieve the Triforce from the Sacred Realm found within The Temple of Time; his ultimate ambition is to take over Hyrule entirely and rule with an iron fist. Link, Princess Zelda, and Navi plan to stop him vowing that he shall never lay his hands upon the sacred triangles. After his seven-year slumber, Link conquers five major temples and awakens six Sages. After the long-awaited meeting with Grown Princess Zelda, Link finally meets with Ganondorf on the top of Ganon's Castle for a final showdown. After Ganondorf is supposedly defeated, he morphs into a monster called Ganon, looking more monster-like than humaniod in appearance. Armed with the Master Sword, and guided by Princess Zelda, Navi, and the six sages, Link banishes Ganondorf into the Evil Realm, an imprisoning stasis held within the Sacred Realm. Ganondorf may have been dethroned, but he still held the Triforce of Power. He proclaimed that Zelda and Link's descendants will suffer when someday the seal of his imprisonment is broken and his freedom exists.
I've reverted it as the information on the respective game-character list is describing their specific role in that game. Some of the information may already be there but the character lists are their to portray the characters' roles in the specific game. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion was made on the other page, but basically - the character lists are for putting extra information for a subject, and are not supposed to be a repository of all information if we can help it - the whole Wikipedia is not thing. Since Ganondorf has a character article, here, the info is best here, and should not be spread across wikipedia, especially since having the info here helps see the development of the character's persona throughout the series.KrytenKoro 11:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So what are you doing with the information above then? The WW section on this page is pretty decent so addition of that information isn't totally necessary. If you do add the information above, make sure you take the "last Gerudo" part out please for the reasons you stated on the other talk page. Thanks. Cheers for adding the proper links in too. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I'm asking the people who have spent more time on this page and know how they want it set up to strip any useful information from the excerpt. I don't want to do it myself, because I don't want five different people calling for my blood.KrytenKoro 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty redundant as everything required is already included, so I can't see any good reason to include anything there. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Remember of course that all information that implies a side in the "continuity vs. non-continuity of the LoZ series" debate is completely original research, and should be omitted until official word is given. -- Digital Watches! 09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WW image.

You may have realised that the WW image has been moved for not having a source. I think that this image is a valuble one and should be returned. Who knows anything about image sourcing here? Does anybody know who the original contributor of the image was? Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I have more time.--Atlan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks — I'm useless with this image business. Ashnard Talk Contribs 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Atlan (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Atlan ;-). Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

So may I ask what the admin's decision was and why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead image is discussed all over the place in the second archive of this talk page, but most prominently under the header Mediation.--Atlan (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict):In a nutshell though: No one could agree on any one image of Ganon(dorf), mainly because he has so many different looks. The decision was made to have no lead image and to have seperate images for each of Ganon's incarnations to stop the endless bickering and make everyone happy to some extend. There were also some instances of fair use violations, with people putting multiple images in the lead, as a compromise. It was a mess, really. Let's avoid that this time.--Atlan (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see hardly ANY reason to not use human Ganondorf. It is by far the most common usage nowadays. Ganon used to be his primary form, but it is not treated as a transformation, and rightly so: it is a transformation. OoT, TWW, and TP all treat it as such. And if anyone calls me biased, remember who put up the pig Ganon image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, usage nowadays. Is the "most recent is best" an actual policy? Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, but tell me - which is better for the readers, art from an SNES game, or art from a Wii game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say the latter (mainly because the LttP art doesn't look nearly as good), but not at the cost of removing the image from the article, which fair use dictates.--Atlan (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason that having the image in the lead would get it removed. In fact, we only NEED one image of Ganondorf, and one image of Ganon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are suggesting have a two pictures in the lead that will not work due to the fact that would violate fair use guidlines. --67.71.79.232 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Just have human form Ganon's promo art for the main image and animal form Ganon's promo art where his human form's TP promo art currently is. Takuthehedgehog 07:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me why human Ganon takes priority over pig Ganon.--ChibiMrBubbles 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Because ever since Ocarina of Time, Ganon has been primarily seen in his human form. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm personally indifferent to which form should be taken. But the "most recent" thing seems to be the only logic that we can go from. So... whatever's logical really. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It all doesn't matter in the end. There are too many people with different thoughts. The fact is that while Ganondorf is more recent, his beast form, Ganon, is seen in more games. A lead picture is bad because it won't represent the character well because he appears as the pig in many games and is only in that form for the whole game while he's a human in others. His character appearances are too dynamic. People won't get a clear interpentation by a lead picture. The most logical, but almost impossible by wiki standards, is to put both forms in one window. That is also complicated as Ganon, the pig form, looks different in the games such as Ocarina and Twilight in comparison to A Link to the Past and Four Swrods Adventure.-Darknessofhearts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2007 04:15

I had suggested not too long ago that this image should be considered [1]. It sort of incorporates all three elements of Ganon (Pig, Humanoid and Horseback). This is good thing because we cannot decide which exact form to display in the lead, so lets just show all of them. BTW I have a bigger picture of this somewhere if everyone agrees to use it. I feel it's quite a menacing picture of Ganon and represents him best. .:Alex:. 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

...Horseback is only in TP, and that picture is Phantom Ganon, not Ganon. Phantom Ganon is one of his servants. Also, where are you getting "pig" out of that picture?KrytenKoro 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As for which images to use - the "blue pig" is by far the most common representation of Ganon - the green boar-dog only appears in OoT and TP. Ganondorf as a human is mentioned in LoZ, ALttP, and FSA, and shown in OoT, TWW, and TP. Only OoT and TP treat "Ganon" as a transformation - the rest use the logic of the Dark World, where it is his "true form unmasked".
Let's look at it this way - for one, the article is Ganon, not Ganondorf. For two:
  • LoZ: Ganon (blue pig), Ganondorf mention
  • AoL: silhouette of Ganon (blue pig)
  • ALttP: Ganon (blue pig), Ganondorf mention
  • LA: silhouette of Ganon (blue pig)
  • OoT: Ganondorf and Ganon (green boar)
  • MM: nothing
  • OoA/OoS: Ganon (blue pig)
  • TWW: Ganondorf and allusion to Ganon (blue pig) with Puppet Ganon
  • FS: nothing
  • FSA: Ganon (blue pig), Ganondorf mention
  • TMC: nothing
  • TP: Ganondorf
So that's:
  • Ganon (blue pig): VI with one allusion (plus the cartoon, but we all hate that)
  • Ganondorf: III with three mentions
  • Ganon (green boar): II
NOTE: As you can see, the "human version" is not the most commonly used version in recent games - it is tied with blue pig, which also has prior history. That makes it kind of odd that the blue pig version, the most-used and well-known version, has only one small sprite that's about to be deleted.KrytenKoro 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If we must have a picture for each version, I would say the blue pig should be the primary pic, with Ganondorf and Ganon (green boar) being in the article as "other forms", since the blue pig is always treated as his "true form". I would say that the Oracle official art of Ganon is the best pic we could have - clearest and most illustrative. For Ganondorf, I would think the Ocarina one would be best, as TWW was quite clear that that Ganondorf wasn't actually the "real" one, and TP's explanation for Ganon was all kinds of screwed up. Plus, OoT is the game that really made Ganondorf "notable" - TWW's Ganondorf was an admitted reference to the OoT one, and TP seemed to throw him in just because he was popular - OoT "made" him. For "green boar" - I would again say OoT, because its presence was actually explained, in comparison to TP, where it just appeared for really no reason - though I don't think any good screenshot or artwork exists for that Ganon, so I guess we have to use TP green boar. Then again, both green boars aren't really given any explanation in the games - both are treated as indirect references to the blue Ganon, probably as service to prior fans of the series.

But that's all my own thought - what we have for sure is three versions, with the Oracle Ganon being the best looking, the OoT Ganondorf being the most notable version, and the TP Ganon being the only one we can get without some kind of graphics hacking.KrytenKoro 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the Oracle image of him is the worst. He looks too comical, and I believe there was debate when someone kept adding it to the article, and many users opposed it. .:Alex:. 08:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comical? How is it any more comical than the picture we have now of him yelping? As far as I can tell from the archive, the main objection was that it "wasn't Ganon" - but it was, it was just his mind was missing, and I don't see how that would change whether or not that is, indeed, a picture of Ganon - especially since it's quite hard to have a picture of someone's mind.
As for "the worst image" - right now we have a crappy looking sprite. Our other options are an 8-bit Ganon from LoZ, a silhouette that is even less "Ganon" from LA, or the fuzzy sprite from FSA - all much worse choices. The Oracle version is the only actual "art" we have of him, and it was made to be used to illustrate the character.KrytenKoro 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we just do what the Link and Zelda articles do and use the latest image of Ganon as the lead image? .:Alex:. 10:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, because it's only one of the three forms, and it's the non-representative one. But, it might become the new representative one, so go ahead. So long as there is the "blue pig" form depicted in the article by a good picture, not the tiny sprite we have now. And we have too many Ganondorf pictures, as they seem to indicate that it is his predominant form (which everyone knows is false). KrytenKoro 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the image I had in mind was the Twilight Princess Beast Ganon one, as opposed to one of his humanoid form. .:Alex:. 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I understood you. Go ahead and insert that one - we just need to make sure that the different images are either equally or representatively depicted - in any case, green boar and Gerudo show up much less than the blue boar form, so they shouldn't be dominating the article like they are (I'm talking about the body of the article, not the lead picture here - green boar is fine for the lead picture, as a compromise).KrytenKoro 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was a little confused before but I understand now. The image has been added as a lead picture. But yes, I see we need to locate a proper picture of his blue form as opposed to the tiny sprite, seeing as it's his main form and considering how the humanoid images dominate the article and outnumber the beast images. .:Alex:. 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I tried to remove the Twilight version of Ganon picture, but the person put it back and told me to voice my opinion here. Well here it is; You say that you and others have reached an agreement about the picture. There are only two people, including you, who find this picture suitable as the lead picture for the article. How is that an agreement at all with the rest of the users? There are many more who hate it as the lead one, me being one of them. This is a horrible depiction of Ganon. I'll admit that the picture looks cool, but Ganon has only appeared for 5% of one game in this form. It doesn't represent him at and looks vastly different than the other Ganon incarnations. Is your defense that it's the most recent depiction of Ganon? That still isn't a good enough reason. By that logic, then we should put in the picture of Ganon in the opeing scenes of Phantom Hourglass. Ganondorf is too dynamic of a character to have one picture contain all his appearances. This one is the worst yet as he has appeared only once in that form which looks more like a lion than a pig and is tailored ONLY to Twilight. A lead picture is to show the form he is more reconized in and this one is only reconized in one game. The oracle one is better. I still hate it, but in comparison to this one, it's much better because he has appeared in that form in the original one, a link to the past, the oracle series, four swords, and slightly in Adventure of Link and Link's awakening. But no picture is good for a lead one as the appearances of Ganon are too dynamic as I have said before. Just remove it before we have another war over this shit.-Darknessofhearts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.34.186 (talk)

Ganon does not appear, even in cameo, in Phantom Hourglass. Ganondorf might, but Ganondorf is not Ganon himself. As for why the most recent picture is acceptable - because authors have the right to retcon their material - this is the most recent face of Ganon, the one the want to represent him now, and so that shall be respected, within reason. As for two people making consensus - the range of opposition to the reasoning was "I don't like that picture" - we went over, tallied how he appeared throughout the games, and agreed that since the Oracle one would be universally rejected (Except by me), that the TP was the next best one. As for "dynamic" - not really, much less so than Zelda and Link - Ganon is at least the same person in each game - Link and Zelda have changed appearance and form more than he.
If the most recent depiction is unacceptable, what method do you suppose we use to determine the lead picture on articles like this? How about Zelda and Link - how do we pick their picture? This method is least open to OR except in special cases (like Ganon, where blue pig is very static and common), and as more readers will recognize the OoT and TP Ganons, as they are, regrettably, not actual veterans of the series, this is the best picture for right now.
  • Yes, I realize I just defended against my own arguments.KrytenKoro 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even asking for an image, I'm asking for no image. It doesn't matter if the picture is from Twilight, Oracle, or whatever game. The point in that none of the pictures can give good depictions. Also, you can't even compare this to Link and Zelda. True that Ganon is the same person in each game, but Link and Zelda have kept their physical appearance pretty much the same. Link is always in a green outfit with an elf like hat. His hair is blond and his facial features are the same; his expressions are the only thing that really changes. Zelda always has some type of dress on, blond hair etc. And there are always HUMAN. Link and Zelda always have similar features with the exception of Wind Waker where they are shorter than usual. Point is that picking recent pictures is good, but only if the physical features are the same as past incarnations.

Ganondorf on the other hand, is sometimes a human or beast that alone makes his appearances dynamic. When he is Ganon, he sometimes looks like a pig or sometimes a lion. His skin color differs in each game and so does his size. He goes to giant to regular size. He is the same entity, but always changes in physical characteristics. So what if we don't have a lead picture, we have a picture for each game as he appears in each section of the article. Also, I understand that Ganon does not appear even as a cameo in Phantom Hourglass. As you have said, it was Ganondorf. But what if it was Ganon; would you replace the image with a cameo shot if it were the most recent? Also, don't forget that the name Ganon doesn't seem so tailored to his beast form as everyone here thinks. He is called Ganon almost 100% in Wind Waker in which he is a human the whole time. Other games also use the name "Ganon" even when he's not in his beast form. Recent really can't be seen as accurate, especially in this case. I don't know why people are so hell bent to have a lead picture. No matter what picture it is, none of them give a good depiction. –Darknessofheart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 02:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

...Link has at least eight forms, three of which are animals, thus beating out Ganon by a long shot (bunny, wolf, monkey, and he can also turn into a Like Like, Moblin, something that I forget, and a Subrosian). In ALttP, he had pink hair, and originally his hari was brown. In TMC, he did not have the elf-like hat until after the game was over.
Zelda has three forms, so far, though all seem to be human (Zelda, Shiek, Tetra). She also changes drastically between games, though since OoT she has kept the same basic dress, even if her facial structure, hair, and, and most actual physical features change (besides her being female).
In The Wind Waker, he is only called Ganon when referring to the legend - the same legend in which he is depicted as ornate art of the blue pig form. Nearly every time he is talked about after he is revealed as the Gerudo, he is called Ganondorf - and his figurine further makes it clear - Ganon is the beast, Ganondorf, the Gerudo. For TP Ganon - I really don't see how that is a lion - it is a boar with some qualities of Ganondorf, and that is all. Lions are not the only things with manes.
Basically, Ganondorf is only as dynamic as Zelda is, and almost less so, since the Green Boar is just a variant/allusion to the Blue Pig - all the others' various forms are not variations of each other.KrytenKoro 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole Link turning into other beings is a weak argument. All right, I'll humor this for a minute. Link becomes a Like Like, okay. Would that work as a lead picture, no? Why? Because it's an optional form, is not recent, and is not Link. You said it yourself Link becomes a "Like Like". The picture would be a Like Like and not Link. Those forms appear one per game (wolf=twilight, etc) whereas Ganon is a form seen in almost every game but is significantly different in terms of Physical description. Link however, appears in his human form in every game for a majority in each game with similar features to his past incarnations. The whole Link and his animal form argument are weak and prove no point. Also, if you want to be technical, Ganon has many more forms than you counted. He's a human, demon, god like entity from Twilight, Agahnim, Phantom, Puppet, a possessed Zelda, and more. Saying that Link can be compared to a monkey form would be like saying that Ganon in control of Zelda would fit as a lead picture. Doesn't make sense right? Because he was that for a short time and has no qualities of the actual Ganon just like wolf Link has no actual qualities of "Link" other than blue eyes. No one in their right mind would associate Link with the bunny as he appears in that form for about 5% percent of the game. The wolf is simply another form of Link, which is incorporated into his article. Ganon by some is not a form and an actual enity, so it's not comparable to Link's wolf form. If you say it is comparable, than the lead picture for this article should be Ganondorf as a human since Ganon would only be a form. Same goes for Zelda being Tetra and Shiek. They only appear in one game where one is simply a disguise and not a person on their own and the other is not reffered to as Zelda until she gains the physical features. That is different as Ganon is an actual entity as stated before. Link being a human outnumbers any animal appearances by both games and time spent in his human form for each game. Also, you say that the boar of Ganon is similar to the Blue pig, the only difference is that they have different skin colors. There are plenty of other differences; the boar form has long red hair, while the blue version has none, the boar uses four legs , blue one use two. The blue one has clothing while the other doesn't. Look I made my point alright. -DarknessofHeart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 05:54, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. Comparing Ganon's multiple appearances per game to Link's transformations is a very weak argument. Ganon has only actually transformed in three games (from Agahanim in "LttP" and from "Ganondorf" in OoT and TP). The majority of the time, Ganon has appeared differently without need for a transformation. At most, I'd say you'd have better luck comparing Ganon's appearances to Link's various ages. Link inconsistently appears as everything from an 8-year-old to a 17-year-old (or both) in each game. You'd have a much better case arguing whether or not a picture of Young Link or Adult Link would be a "correct" representation of the character. King Zeal 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If I remember, the point was not that it is a common form, but that the appearance is so dynamic - if anything, you're reinforcing that while Ganondorf has four forms (counting Agahnim - Possessed Zelda and God Ganon were energy/magic manifestations, not his actual body), they are more stable than Link or Zelda's. And I don't see how Ganon being able to change form is so different from Link (in two separate games) being able to spend the majority of the game in up to six different forms.
"Like Like" - no, he actually is a Like Like, but still Link.
"Majority" - fine, Ganon appears in the blue pig forms for the majority of the series. He was introduced as such, ALttP maintained that it was his "true self", and he consistently appears as such. Green Boar is somewhat similar, and is a clear allusion, so a compromise is acceptable.
"Zelda"...that was possession, like when Link is possessed by a Poe. It's not an actual change of forms.
"Wolf""- by your logic, since he is in that form for most of the game, that is the most appropriate picture for him.
"Shiek" - that would be true, if the games confirmed that it was just a costume. They don't - even people familiar with Zelda think it's a man. It very well could be, especially since the official manga support that view.
"Tetra" - Ganon/Ganondorf, anyone?
"Green Boar"/"Blue Pig" - what I was saying is that the green boar is clearly an allusion to the blue pig forms - it was put in to add nostalgia for older games. No, it's not perfectly similar - but when are these characters ever so? The Wind Waker-like Links vs. the NES Links vs. ALttP/LA Link vs. OoT/MM/TP Link vs. Oracle Links all vary drastically in design, nearly as much so as Ganondorf - their only similarity is green clothes and a hood. Surprise, Surprise! Ganon's forms usually have more integrity, and blue pig is the most common appearance (and green boar the most recent).
"Clothing" - actually, OoT Green Boar has lots of clothing.
"King Zeal" - but both actually choose to transform (excepting Bunny and Monkey Link). And the fact remains that both have the ability to change form, Link even more so than Ganon (which is to be expected, as there's actually six or seven Links, against one Ganon - since we know Ganon is the same person in each game, why is this such an argument? It's not like Link or Zelda, who we also know are six to eight different people - then you two's arguments would actually make sense, as you would have to decide which Link is the most representative - for this article, we only have one subject, and he likes to stay in pig/boar form - so the choice is obvious).KrytenKoro 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, first of all you're not understanding my point. You say that by my logic, a picture fo wolf link would be appropriate as the lead picture for Link's article. Have you listened to my argument at all? Wolf Link appears in one game and I personally think that human Link is use more often. My whole point is to use a form that is the most familair, reconizable, and used form of the chracters. Link is always a human for a majority of the games and in some is only a human. So it's easy to find a picture as a lead for him. It's also easy to find the most recent as his physical traits remain fairly consistant. This picture of Ganon however is from a form that is seen in only 5% percent of one game and is the least reconizable. When I hear the name "Ganon", this is the form I least think of. Also, when you say that it looks like a Like Like but is actaully Link my argument was that you obviously can't have a picture of a Like Like as a lead picture for Link. The picture would literally be a Like Like; the picture is not like the game where you see him tranform. Also, how is Ganon possesing Zelda really any different than Link and a Monkey. True that Link may go under a physical tranformation, but by a picture, it could look as if Link's spirit entered an animal. You have to remember that pictures are meant to give clear interpentatinos of the characters which is another reason why Link as a human is the most appropraite. We're getting side tracked. Let's keep the argument soly about Ganon. My point is that just because this picture is the most recent doesn't mean it's the most appropriate. I don't want a picture at all, but if I were to have one, we should use a form that is most used, wich would be the the blue pig from of Ganon as that has appeared in at least 5 games. Also, just for the sake of argument, Ganondorf could actaully be a little better. Allot of people think that Ganon is simply a form of Ganondorf and not a seperate entity. His human form has seen in more games more than Ganon timewise. Ganon is usually seen in one scene in the games he is solely featured in while his human form is seen in numerous scenes in the games he's in. This is what I mean, Ganon has too many arguments to think about for a ead picture.-DarknessofHeart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 18:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say.
  • "I personally think that human Link is use more often" - however, Wolf Link is used more often in that game. Nintendo even made a statue of it, which would increase its notability.
  • "Always a human" - but he's rarely ever the same person - so the problem still remains, which Link is the most notable one?
  • "Physical Traits" - only if you count "being human", and again, that changes just as much as Ganondorf.
  • "Like Like" - I never suggested putting in a picture of a Like Like, especially since Link only had the form of a Like Like - he was green and everything. I was suggesting that that would be one of his forms.
  • "hear the name" - I'm sorry, but the two variations of pig form are by far the most common. Yes, green boar only appears in two games, but it is clearly a variation/allusion of the original pig form, and so would fit as a compromise between "most recent" and "most representative".
  • "I don't want a picture at all" - I really can't understand why pictures are that bad - having nothing to illustrate in this article would severely hinder it. (Yes, I know you meant only the lead picture - however, it's a pretty arbitrary decision, and at most the lead picture is supposed to illustrate the "best-recognized picture of the character" - TP Ganon is, right now, the best recognized, as most readers will be familiar with the game that isn't available only from collections or illegal download sites, and still has features from the earlier "Ganons".
  • "five appearances" - 6 1/2, actually, not including the cartoon. Or if you count "Great Moblin" as an allusion.
  • "Human form" - the hell? What pot are you smoking? Ganondorf in human form is only seen in three games, and sparingly. Ganon in pig form was the form originally introduced, has a dungeon shaped like him, and is the most common form, especially if you regard both pig forms as one. As for "in-game time" - TP as an example, Ganon and Ganondorf were thrown in at the end - you see maybe a few seconds of him while the sages and Zant are whining about how stupid they were, and then not again until you fight him.KrytenKoro 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ganon is seen in his human form throughout the entirety of Twilight Princess. I don't see how the boar form is the "best recognized picture". He only appears in that form once the entire game, and only for one fight. No other version of Ganon is a four-legged incarnation.
Besides that, you're forgetting that Ganon has made appearances in his human form outside of the Zelda series. Human Ganon (or "Ganondorf") has also appeared in both the SpaceWorld trailer and in Super Smash Bros. Melee between the release of Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker.
I propose a compromise. TWO pictures. One picture being Ganon as he appears in the Oracle series (the last game to have the pig-like Ganon). The other picture being Twilight Princess Ganondorf (the last game to mostly feature the human-like Ganon). King Zeal 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know Ganon is in more games than his human form, but he mostly only makes one appearance in those games. His human form, while in only three games, makes allot more appearances than his demon. Ex; Ganon makes one appearance in four swords, a link to the past, and the orginal games in which he fights the last battle and that's it. Ganondorf from Ocarina makes several appearnces from threatening Link at the drwabridge, to the numerous cutscenes that make up the ending. Twilight has him in flashbacks and numerous sequences at the end. Ganon is usually defeated and not given as an elaborate outcome at the end. In A link to the Past, he simply exploded, while Ocarina give a few cutscenes to show Ganondorf's fate. My agrument here was that though Ganon is seen in more games, Ganondorf gets more attention and scenes when he is in the games. If you count all the appearnces Ganon has made, it's about 6-7 appearnces. He may be pivitol to the story, but is not particulary shown. Ganondorf, however has esaily made more appearnces than Ganon; drawbridge, tempting Zant, execution, four custscenes at the end of Twilight and many more. That's what I meant by more time spent on Ganondorf. All right, closing coment; you made good points and the picture is decent, so it doesn't matter to me anymore. No point in arguing anymore as it's getting no where. -Darknessofheart

First off, SSBM isn't even part of the series - yes, he's there as cameo, and yes, that's lovely OOU info - but it has no character info to it. Same with spaceworld.
"Entirety of Twilight Princess" ...no. He shows up in a flashback at the beginning and end of the Palace of Twilight, the "last level", and in the throne room of Hyrule Castle. Three scenes isn't that much. He's not even really mentioned outside of those times, unlike Ganon, who is usually constantly talked about.
"Four legged" - he's not four legged, he's just running around on all fours. You can still see his fingers. It's just a small room, is all.
"Compromise" - that would break the leading picture policies, I'm told - it was tried before, and was removed as against the rules.
  • LoZ - Has a whole dungeon drawn after him.
  • AoL - appears all the damn time, when you get a game over (yes, I'm being facetious)
  • ALttP - appears at the end of Ganon's Tower. Has statues of his pig form all over it (and actually, all over most of the games - that's the form he wants to be seen as).
  • LA - yes, only at the end of the game
  • OoT - yes, only at the end of the game, and yes, Ganondorf gets a fair few more scenes
  • OoA/OoS - starts being talked about halfway through the first game, but only "appears" at the end of the second
  • TWW - pig symbol appears all over, Puppet Ganon appears, but yes, Ganondorf is seen first and foremost
  • FSA - starts being talked about in middle of game, appears in the last bits of the game.
Basically, if the Oracle picture is put in (even though I personally think it is best, and I mostly agree with you), people will start complaining that it wasn't "really Ganon" (even though it was, but whatever). If human is put in, people will rightly declare that, simply, Ganondorf has much less of a presence in the games compared to Ganon. If the boar is put in, we can claim that it's his pig form, so it's the most common, that it's "really Ganon", which will get rid of those who have an irrational hatred of the Oracle Ganon, and that "it's the most recent", so we can put in a semi-nice picture.KrytenKoro 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t care anymore, but I just want to say that how does a pig symbol and being spoken of compensate for an appearance. His names are used interchangeably regardless of his form. Notice that Ganondorf is also used much in Four Swords when speaking to the Gerodus or Sages. He is called Ganon always by the King of Red Lions in Wind Waker yet he is 100% human in that one. So being spoken of or having dungeons modeled after him is not supporting anything. I don't even know what your talking about with this symbol from Wind Waker and could only be your opinion. Being spoken of is nothing like making an actual appearance as the names he is called by other characters cannot always describe the form he's using. Also, the argument of the scenes simply being a flashback is utter bullshit. So what if its' a flashback, it's still a scene he's featured in and that can be considered an appearance in the game and to players. If that's your argument, then saying that text that talks about him is a more horrible excuse to keep this picture. Also, he is featured in four scenes at the end of Twilight alone; one when Link meets him, one where he attacks Midna and is on a horse, one where he takes his sword and prepares to duel, and one where he gets impaled. When he is Ganon, he has one scene usually of him exploding. By this logic we would put a Ganon picture up and say "Ganon as he appears in Wind Waker, even though he doesn't appear like this, but he is called this by the King of Hyrule." One last time, you have said yourself all the arguments presented in this picture. You say that this is the best, yet we are having the most heated argument yet over it. When we had no picture we had no complaints for a while. Also, you can't just change a picture like the oracle one with the only reason being that people are acting like assholes saying "It's too comical". Allot of people like the oracle picture and it's the most appropriate, so keep it. People have yet to give a vaild reason with what's so wrong with the oracle picture. At least that form is the most used and recognizable with the only exception sometimes being the color of his skin. This one is even worse "Oh, but at least he's not comical looking." It's simply impossible to give an accurate depiction of Ganon from one picture. We have pictures of his various froms thoughout the article, don't know what would be the big deal for the person to scroll down for the accurate depiction.-DarknessofHeart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 07:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it's impossible to give an accurate depiction of Ganon from one picture. That's part of the reasoning behind going with the most recent picture of him. It's going to be the depiction that people will currently recognise most. Also, a flashback cannot necessarily be considered an appearance as it does not necessarily represent their primary form thoughout the story (I'm saying that generally, across all forms of media, rather than by the game itself). .:Alex:. 08:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did say that, but at the same time the oracle picture is the most appropriate. It seems like the only reason that it was removed was that too many people were complaining. What kind of excuse is that? The people never gave a valid reason why the oracle picture should be removed other than saying, "He's mindless or comical looking." People will only recognize this picture if they have played Twilight Princess in which this depicts one little scene. People still won't find this the most recognizable in current standards because his pig form is seen in many more games and five minutes on Twilight Princess really isn't going to stick out of anyone's mind.

Also, why do have a picture from a game where Ganon plays the most minor role? Ganon from A Link to the Past and Four Swords Adventure is shown as highly intelligent and capable of making complex plans. In this game however, he looks more like an animal than a demon and has no personailty like his past incarnations. You can tell from this picture, that it's obvious that this was not the form he was in most of the game as he is simply an animal and not capable of creating plots. The oracle picture, however shows that he is more anthropomorphic and most importantly, is in that form for the entire game. When he's the blue/green pig, he never changes forms. They are always consistant as opposed to this picture where he looks simply like an animal and was not in that form for the most pivitoal moments of the game or any other parts for that matter.

I just don't know why the oracle one was removed while it was the most appropriate. You cant' change something because people are bitching and moaning and have no valid reason for the removal. The most reconizable form by today's standards would still be the form he appears most in. Unless the green boar form is used more than the blue Ganon, the blue one shall remain the most recognizable by today's standards. Another thing to bring up is that Ganon in Twilight is presented as more of a form of Ganondorf and not a seperate entity as he is shown in many of the other games. This picture is presented as a form while the oracle one shows an actual entity.

The most recent argument is weak when you have a form, the green boar, that has appeared only twice, which look significantly different from each other, while you have another form, the blue Ganon, that has been in 6 games and is fairly consistant in appearance. Recent does not mean that it will be the most recognizable by today's players, especially when the other appearnces outnumber this one by allot.-DarknessofHeart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 08:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

"Also, he is featured in four scenes at the end of Twilight alone; one when Link meets him, one where he attacks Midna and is on a horse, one where he takes his sword and prepares to duel, and one where he gets impaled."
...those are all part of one long boss battle. They're not true "scenes".
Okay, let me explain why "most recent" makes sense.
  • Q: Who's going to be coming to this article looking for more info on Ganon? (Or, "Who are the primary readers?")
  • A: People who have just been introduced to the character.
  • Q: What version of the character are they most likely to recognize?
  • A: The version from a game that it's at all likely they've just played without already knowing in their bones who Ganon is.
  • Q: Which game is this?
  • A: Either Twilight Princess or Phantom Hourglass.
Because the green boar form is a reference/allusion to the original Ganon, it is a tidy compromise between being representative and being useful for readers (which is the reason for the existence of this article, actually).
"Animalistic" - actually, he didn't seem that mindless to me - the irony is that the only "true" mindless Ganon is the Oracle one. As for why people complained about it - because they strongly believe that without Ganon's mind, it doesn't actually count as Ganon, and is just a copy. Even though (In my mind) the game makes it clear that it is, at the very least, Ganon's true body, there's not much arguing we can do with that without getting into heavy OR.KrytenKoro 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you can't tell that Ganon has no mind in the oracle one. This one however it's fairly obvious that he is simply more animal than demon as it does not look like he can speak. People who play Twilight are not going to give a shit about Ganon because he is presented as an alternate form of Ganondorf. They are going to be interested in Ganondorf because they saw him transform into Ganon. If it was Ganon throughout the whole game, that's a different story. Stick to a game where Ganondorf is overpowered by Ganon time-wise. Twilight was a game where "Ganondorf" was the main form. Other games such a A Link to the Past feature Ganon only and present him as an actual being rather than a separate form as he is presented in Twilight. Also, my first Zelda game was Ocarina where it's more or less the same story in terms of Ganondorf. He transforms into Ganon. I never asked, "Who's Ganon". It was made very obvious that Ganon was just another form, at least in these games. Also, you have to look at the facts. You say that allot of people are going to see Ganon for the first time in Twilight.

There are still plenty of other people buying past Zelda games online, used video store, etc. There are 6 games that feature the Ganon that the oracle picture depicted. If you assume that people buy Twilight, you also have to assume that they are going to buy past Zelda games. You have to assume that people are still buying past Zelda games, which is very believable since it's considered one of the most influential games of all time. Lots of people still buy Four Swords, Oracle, and A Link to the past. I just bought the oracle series a few months ago. You can't just put a picture up with the assumption that many people will see that form of Ganon for the first time. And even if they do, they won't be wondering who Ganon is, but Ganondorf, as he is the main villain in this one.

The oracle one though, you can play by assumption too because these games are popular and continuously purchased. Look on amazon for proof of that. But beyond the assumption of people seeing Ganon for the first time, which is the core reason why this one is on as it seems, we can safely say that it is the most used form. I'm really tired of having to say this, but the blue Ganon is the most recognizable. The arguments of keeping this picture are weak, you cannot assume that people will see Ganon for the first time in this game, especially when there are more people seeing Ganon for the first time where he is simply that and not Ganondorf in one out of 6 games.

Also,KrytenKoro: You stated that you think the oracle is the best, but removed it because that people were complaining. You can't take a picture down with the only reason being that people were bitching and moaning. Allot of other people liked the image and it was the most appropriate. People never gave a reason why the oracle one should be removed other than "Too comical". So the hell with them, should've of just kept it. Now you have me bitching away at this one; hard to win nowadays.

And let me just ask this one last time; Why do we need a freaken lead picture for Ganon? All users have to do is scroll down to find information on him. You can't get a more accurate depiction of Ganon than scrolling down and seeing every form he's in, in each game. The article had the least arguments when the picture was gone. Some articles are better off without a lead picture and this is one of them.-DarknessofHeart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 18:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

You're not really making sense on the vintage games bit - most people aren't going to be shopping at vintage video game stores, at least if they're truly new to the series. Add to that that old Zelda games are very rare at those stores, and the main group is ebay and illegal downloads. Twilight Princess, however, is the one that is selling the most now - it is the one that people are going to be introduced to the series now.
"Alternate Form" - Yes, Ganon is "an alternate form" (technically, he's the "true" form, but...) That is explained as early as ALttP.
"Oracle Image" - I didn't remove the picture, but as far as I've seen, you, me, and Zeal are the only ones who didn't hate it. And whether it looks like it or not, he was mindless in that game - whereas in TP, he still has enough control to sneak up on Link, teleport around, etc, and reverse his transformation when he wants to. And I said that though I thought they were wrong, there is no way to really prove it without getting into heavy OR territory, or personal opinion on the nature of souls.
"Lead picture" - because this is a character page, and it's most helpful for characters if you can look at the lead paragraph and lead picture, and then continue reading if you want to. Some articles don't need leads, yes - but those are usually stuff like Twin Paradox or Eigenvectors.KrytenKoro 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that picture can't just run on assumptions. The removal of this picture had very valid reasons while the other did not. It doen't matter if there were only three people who liked it, and I think there were pleny more people who liked it, it was fine by wiki standards. A picture for Ganon won't serve anyone who wants know about the character. If there has to be a pictue. it should be oracle. What is to ask a person to sroll a couple of inches to get what they want. No one is going to go on Wiki, look at the lead picture and be done. The main draw of this site is the information, not a lead picture. A lead picture can help illustrate a character, but with a chracter that is in and out of forms, sometinems for entire games, a lead picture is useless. We have a picture on almost every form he has in the atricle, that's good enough.-DarknessofHeart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 21:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

You're not making sense.
"A lead picture is useless" is not a valid reason for the removal of the picture. In fact the lack of a lead picture can actually hinder an article.
"What is to ask a person to scroll a couple of inches to get what they want?" shows that you are more concerned about the other pictures in the article than the lead picture.
To be honest I'm confused at exactly what you oppose. The logic of "Most recent picture" is to illustrate the currently most recognised form of Ganon (new players who started with TP would not recognise the other Ganons and they are the most likely people to read the article because they want to know more about this character). Then when a newer picture comes along we move the current one into the body of the article and put the newer one on like some of the other articles do. What exactly do you oppose about it? .:Alex:. 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm making this my last post because I'm sick of talking about this crap. I never said that a lead picture is bad in general; I said a lead picture is bad if it's a character like Ganon where he is in one form for one game and then in an entirely different one in another. The thing I oppose about this picture is that it pales in comparison to the oracle one simply because this one is a form of Ganon seen only once while the oracle had that form 6 times with the exception of skin color changing. There is no point in saying anything else; I've been repeating the same crap over and over. My problem with this picture has been pretty clear; it's in all my posts. It is not very recognizable even by today's standards because there are 6 other games depicting another form. Also, no I'm not more concerned about a bunch of pictures than the lead one. I don't care about the pictures as they are all fine, but a lead picture does not do anything for this article. Too many forms, too many arguments; what the hell is the big deal in just not having one? Someone who plays Twilight will already be introduced to that form. So having the oracle one is better because it immediately introduces the viewer to a more common form and not one that they already know exists. I'm done; I've said my opinion, over and over again. You guys can do what you want.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 06:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

...gah. Fine, another editor is demanding a vote. I'm not sure how to do this correctly, so please fix whatever mistakes I make.KrytenKoro

[edit] Oracle Ganon

[edit] Other Blue Pig Ganon (specify which)

[edit] Twilight Ganon

  • Support - I support this picture as a compromise between blue pig, most recognizable, and "It's not really Ganon". Also, I believe that a lead picture would be useful to this article, and this debate is the result of us being anal or picky, and not actually because of trying to make this most useful for readers. (Myself included in that).KrytenKoro 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - The top of the article says he didn't return for twilight princess. so. wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganondragmire (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ocarina Ganon

[edit] Ganondorf (specify which)

  • Support I haven't read the discussion, but surely he should be depicted as in when he was out of the Zelda universe—I'm referring to SSBM. Since its modelled from OoT, you can either have that or character art from SSBM. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is actually good reasoning, as it supports out-of-universe, and an SSBM pic would fit both Zelda and Smash Bros fans - thus, applicable to a larger portion of the readership. Has Ganondorf been verified in SSBB yet?KrytenKoro 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No lead picture

  • Support - As has been said, the character has too many vastly different forms to have one single picture as the lead. If a reader wonders what Ganon looks like, he merely has to scroll down to see most of the forms that have been used in the various games. King Zeal 04:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Because there is no constant portrayal of Ganondorf in Zelda games, there should be no lead image. Today the recent image could be his pig form while tomorrow they could announce a new Zelda with human Ganon. I don't see the obsession with having a lead image on a character whose appearance is always different. There is a split in which version should we use (whether it be human or pig), and then there is the version of the pig we should use. It's complicated fanboyism and it's inherently destroyed the minute we vote for no lead image. --ChibiMrBubbles 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, too many disparate portrayals. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to discussion

It was there because adding another header would have been silly, and nearly every vote I've seen had comments and discussion. But, whatever: Then shouldn't the same argument apply to Link or Zelda? At the very least, Ganon is always the same person - Link and Zelda have no such arguments, and about as many forms. Basically, if we remove the lead image here, then there's pretty much no argument for keeping those two lead images.KrytenKoro —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 18:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Bring up the argument in those Talk pages. King Zeal 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay.KrytenKoro 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Link and Zelda logic fails on the principle that they are both humans and the only differences are the ages. And for those we use the latest portrayals of those characters, simply because they still stay true to the original characters, with slight variations such as age.

Ganon is not constant. Zelda and Link are.--ChibiMrBubbles 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)--ChibiMrBubbles 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

...Link even has a variant form displayed on the front cover of Twilight Princess. And A Link to the Past establishes that blue pig Ganon is to Ganondorf as Bunny Link is to Link, and green boar Ganon is to Ganondorf as Wolf Link is to Link - the Dark World forms are the "true forms", and the Realm forms are the "Twilight forms". And again - they vary much more than ages - hell, TWW Ganondorf looks more like OoT Ganondorf than with the Links.KrytenKoro 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you're thinking of the green outfit and pink dress - in OoT, both Ganondorf and green Ganon wear essentially the same armor, just like Link and his mask transformations. TP is the only other game they both appear, but even though boar Ganon isn't wearing clothese, he looks aesthetically similar. Basically, the conceit that Link and Zelda are static and Ganon dynamic is an unbacked opinion - both transform plenty. Either you accept the "no lead image" argument, in which case all three articles should have the image removed, you accept the "most recent" argument, which actually seemed to be the policy for the project, or you accept the "most common appearance" - which would actually mean Link and Zelda don't get pictures, as each of them only appears in one or two games, whereas the same Ganon (except possibly for FSA) appears in nearly every game. You can't really have it both ways, as their situations are not so different as you pretend.KrytenKoro 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Zelda and Link remain relatively the same through the series. While Ganon does not. If you deny this, then I'm done and I'll be waiting for the poll results.--ChibiMrBubbles 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again - besides being of the same race (incidentally, Gerudo are considered humans too, according to Majora's Mask) and sometimes wearing similar outfits, how? Ganondorf does that too - and you keep on ignoring that they change forms (Hell, Tetra appears in at least three games (including PH, which apparently Zelda does not appear in), and Sheik actually appears "out-of-universe" (SSB), as opposed to Ganon, who only appears in the Zelda series.KrytenKoro 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: All non-article discussion about the image has been moved to User talk:KrytenKoro#Ganon's Lead Image.KrytenKoro 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so consensus is that Ganon (the pig form) is too disparately portrayed, right? Fine, I can accept that decision. A decision still needs to be made on the related Link and Zelda pics, since that discussion was rerouted to this related discussion to keep from redundancy — both are already knee deep in reversion, as many are arguing that the PH Link "isn't really Link", and that the SSBB Zelda "isn't acceptably canon".KrytenKoro 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell me, what's wrong with using the incarnation that the characters in SSBB were modelled from? This is their portrayal outside of their own universe. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with using the most recent picture of a character (though if disparate forms are to be accepted, Tetra should be the most recent for Zelda...), but apparently a large part of the editorship for those articles thinks that the various Link and Zelda pics (and just of the one form) are too disparate to agree upon one...so I'm trying to get discussion redirected to here, so we can have some kind of consistency

KrytenKoro 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have a related question - wouldn't the "just scroll down" argument work for most, if not all lead pictures? Cats, for example, which truly do have many disparate forms - yet somehow agree on a lead picture. What's up with that?KrytenKoro 15:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Except not really. The lead picture for the cat article was different last month, different two months before that, and different yet again several weeks prior. Also, whereas the various breeds of cats remain fairly consistent through years, decades, and even centuries (Siamese cats, common house cats, and Tabbys have been around forever), the character of Ganon(dorf) takes on an entirely new identity and persona within each game. King Zeal 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But if it's changing every few months or so, and cats are so "stable", then why is it changing? I mean, if that's the criteria. Oh well, I'm sure there's some explanation on the image guideline pages.KrytenKoro 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask on that article's Talk page. There may be a valid reason for the change--or, it could just be that one person liked a particular picture better than another. King Zeal 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is this even being discussed. Every character needs an image in the infobox. The Prince 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
...because noone can agree on which one to use - for example, you picked TP Ganondorf - a form he only uses in 3 games, and which is Ganondorf, not Ganon (while almost the same character, Ganondorf is usually just the human host).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. You use the image of his latest appearance. The Prince 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then wouldn't that be "Dark Beast Ganon"? Or would it be the Ganon who appeared in the Oracle games? Are they even the same thing, or type of thing? Which is the character, which is an alter ego, etc.? Are non-canon games included? What about manga and tv? Link and Zelda are easier - we know which form is the "true form", since their name only really refers to the human form. (Though, technically, Tetra should be the image on the Zelda article, but I digress...). Ganon's is much murkier - while he has only three forms that are about as consistent as the other two characters, which one is truly "Ganon" is not clear.
As for Ganondorf, TWW or PH would be the most recent, as he is (fleetingly) depicted in PH, making it his most recent appearance (both technically and as a character).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you making this such a big deal? If you have an image of Ganon's most recent appearance, feel free to add it. I added the TP image, since was the most recent image in the article. The Prince 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to explain to you why the editors agreed not to use a leading image. If we really must use an image, I would suggest OoT Ganondorf, since the SP episode seems to imply that that is the most recognized (Thus giving us an outside source to decide). While I'd much prefer OoX Ganon, if other want to accept Matt and Trey's decision, then we can put up an image.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better than no image. The Prince 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article will have great difficulty in reaching a higher status without a lead image. We do need one. I vote that we should use the TP image of Ganondorf, as it is the latest image of him and humanoid Ganondorf is consistent and recognisable (the latter point is without a doubt), while beast Ganon has many different forms and it is very difficult to determine which one is the true form. .:Alex:. 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree on the recognizability of the TP Ganondorf, using that image would be misleading; the reader wouldn't know the difference between the two forms until they read the article. Haipa Doragon (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well while Ganondorf can only be used to refer to his humanoid form, Ganon can be used to refer to either form. Besides, the information about his forms should be in the lead section. It's currently far too small. .:Alex:. 09:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My earliest compromise was to use by TP Ganondorf and Dark Beast Ganon in the lead pic. Both Ganondorf and Ganon are notable enough to warrant a position at the top, and though the article is named "Ganon", he is equally known as Ganondorf these days. The fact that he appears in an entirely separate series in that form should be an example of that. King Zeal (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brawl Confirmation?

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0802.1741.54921.htm

"GI: Have you been consulted at all for the usage of Link or Sheik or Ganondorf for Smash Bros. Brawl?

Aonuma: I’ve been working with Sakurai for a very long time with this new Smash Bros., because the Wii came out and when discussion for a new Smash Bros. took place nobody could think of anyone other than Sakurai working on it. He was kind of the default, and I was very happy to hear that he would be working on it. Actually, my designers did work on the designs for Sheik and Link and Ganondorf. So they submitted the initial designs, and so it would fit in the Smash Bros. Brawl environment, they’ve had to tweak some of the designs. But Sakurai has brought those altered designs to NCL. We’re working very closely with the team of Smash Bros. Brawl to make sure the characters look their best."

Should this be mentioned, or do we have to wait until he appears on the official site first? 75.153.231.20 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another user already inserted it into the article. The original phrasing of the edit suggested that Ganondorf and Sheik were already in the game, but weren't confirmed as playable. I took it a step further by editing the article to only mention that the designs had been submitted. Personally, I think at least Ganondorf will be included as a playable character (and probably Sheik as well, since Princess Zelda was much less popular than him/her in Melee), but as of right now, the only confirmation we have is that their designs have been submitted to the Brawl development team. Jeff Silvers 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
unless he officially appears on the main site or is later found unlock able in the game or a press statement THEIR IS NO OFFICIAL confirmation-Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

This is retarted. Nearly every pic is nominated for deletion. Who's the moron with the stick up their ass that's doing this? They look and think. OH NO! IT'S SHOWING A PICTURE OF GANON AS HE APPEARED IN THE GAME. I BETTER NOMINATE IT FOR DELETION BECAUSE THE IMAGE IS REALLY MAKING NINTENDO SUFFER! 99.243.212.228 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They're nominated because the copyright information isn't correct. Did you even bother to look at the images? -Sukecchi 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If it is really needed, I guess I can attempt to fire up my Wind Waker (my GameCube is a dusty old piece of junk), or I can whip out my N64 and take on Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time and snag a good picture for this article. I also have OoT and an N64 emulator on my computer. As long as whoevers deleting the image gets the stick out of their ass....*whistles and walks away* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Падший ангел (talk • contribs)
Edit: I see we have several images on the page, why not just take the Wind Waker image or the Ocarina of Time image and use it at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Падший ангел (talk • contribs)
Because this type of article normally shows the character as they appear in different games. See Link (Legend of Zelda) and Mario for example. 99.243.212.228 17:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why get all upset and start swearing here in the talk page, the only reason it was nominated is because it either A. - didn't have a source, or B. - didn't have a fair use rationale. If you add those, then this whole conversation is pointless! Ejfetters 10:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three voice actors?

The same paragraph that says there were a total of three voice actors for Ganon only list two. Are we missing one?

the three offical voice actors 1. was the original 1989 TV series link which has been doing all the video game voices and 2. is the Ganon from the animated series in japanese and 3. the American voice actor for the 1989 animated ganon

Why was the cartoon VA removed from the top?--ChibiMrBubbles 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So why do we have cartoon Ganon's image but refuse to mention the voice actor? That strikes me as odd. So can I add the American voice actor? --ChibiMrBubbles 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. OoT/TWW/SSBM Ganondorf: Takashi Nagasako
  2. TP Ganondorf: Hironori Miyata
  3. American cartoon/CD-i games?: ??
  4. Japanese cartoon?/CD-i games?: ??
I don't remember when exactly the cartoon VA was removed, so I can't give you an exact reason, but it was probably due to the objections to its "canonicity" - which is ridiculous, as the character is supposed to be the same as in LoZ and AoL, whether it is canon or not.KrytenKoro 04:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be fine - it is technically Ganon, so the "canon" obsessees won't really have much of an argument against it.KrytenKoro 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, seems rather odd but thanks for the hightlight. --ChibiMrBubbles 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification over his recurrences

In the very first paragraph, it says Ganon was given his own separate backstory for FSA. While that's fine and dandy, it brings into light the tone over his role in the series. Since the series timeline is a fanboy's backyard grillfest, is there anything that can be done to improve this article's accuracy over Ganon?

I'm not saying to divulge an entire section over his background, but just minor edits that improve on the quality as if not to give the impression that from the very beginning to the very end we had the same Ganon.

Any thoughts on this?--ChibiMrBubbles 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see how it verifies that it is a separate backstory - there's no real indication of when Ganondorf took the trident, just that he did (since none of the Zuna or Gerudo ever visit the Pyramid). There's also a number of theories that he pulled the "Agahnim" trick on them, reincarnated with the same soul but with a baby Gerudo's body, etc...add to that that FSA seems to do at least a small bit of building on earlier parts of the mythos...and all you're really left with is that FSA mentioned some of his backstory for that game.
I would think the best idea is to get a creator quote verifying whether there is one or multiple Ganons - I seem to remember the last official word being that they were all the same (though Aonomu introduced that damn split-timeline kink into a working system), and that only Link and Zelda continuously reincarnated. I could always be wrong, though. Until we get such a quote, though, making such massive edits to the article is only going to induce an edit-war with fanboys.KrytenKoro 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Revert

Why?KrytenKoro 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conception and creation

This part of the article does not discuss the conception nor the creation of the character, but mainly the confusion regarding the two spelling variants of his name. If this doesn't need to be changed, can someone explain its relevance to the subject heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmRodyle (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TobiSamoh stop changing the pictures around

We have two pictures of Ganon in his boar form, two in realistic and celshaded human, and one cartoon pic. Your edits are unnecessary.--MrBubbles 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We have too many pictures. Fair use, anyone?~ZytheTalk to me! 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
...he has at least three very different forms, and we're using only one of each (or at least, we were, until people kept changing it). If we really needed to, removing the cartoon screenshot, and the LttP pixel, and replacing them with the Oracle image would be acceptable. If we do that, none of the pictures will actually be from their merchandise, just their promotional material - and so we'd just be giving them free publicity, without touching their actual product. (I guess character design would still be touched, but without removing all pics for fictional characters, there's not much to do).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganons images

I think that Image:Ganond.jpg should replace the ganon pic in oot and Image:Ganon11.jpg should replace ganondorf in tp.TobiSamoht 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because the OoT shot is even more copyright vio than anything we have here. The images we have (minus ALttP) are promotional images intended to advertise: still not free, but less vio than direct screenshots. Plus, the OoT image is much less illustrative, as it only shows his head. If you must, exchange the OoT Ganon for Ganondorf, and the TP Ganondorf for Ganon. However, we had already came to a consensus to stop the image edit-warring, so unless you can present an argument for why the images need to be changed, you will be reverted.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windwaker info

in the 2002-present section, it says that he was kidnapping girls with blonde hair and long ears. i only remember the long ears part, and there was a girl with brown hair in the cell that link's sister was in. --BubbaYoshi 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember that it said blonde hair and pointy ears. Besides that Link's sister is blonde. Shyrangerr 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No it was definetely just "long-eared girls" that Ganon was after in Wind Waker, it wouldn't make any sense if a brown-haired girl was captured if he was looking for girls with both long ears AND blonde hair, unless the Helmaroc King was color blind. Unknown Dragon 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganondorf Dragmire

The guidebook that came packaged with A Link to the Past, when describing Gannon's life before overcoming his rival power-seakers and aquiring the triforce, refers to him as Ganondorf Dragmire. I'd like to see that mentioned in the article, presumably with Gannon's other names, however I don't know how to go about citing the game booklet.—AltiusBimm 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard that wasn't official, just like "Gannon" from the original LoZ. Shyrangerr 03:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's official or not, it should be mentioned. This is a page for "real-world" info - the fact that his name was badly mistranslated at first and led to a lot of confusion is real-world. Unless its for a "plot summary"-type section, canonicity really shouldn't enter into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.182.129 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FacesGanon.JPG

Image:FacesGanon.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering by real-world time

Why is this done if there is no actual discussion of how his design or any actual real-world based info? I've heard the excuse that it "confirms more tightly to the guidelines about in-universe" - but all it does is group together info that is no more related to each other than any other section in the article. In fact, trying to claim it does anything "out-of-universe" is laughable - the only out-universe facts in the entire article is that about "Gannon", the voice actors, and SSBB. The entire gist of the article is plot summary anyway, why organize it to make it more confusing?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom Hourglass

Would it be worth putting an image of Ganondorf in Phantom Hourglass in? .:Alex:. 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why. It's just a version of the TWW Ganondorf, and he's not even mentioned by name. It would just be a picture for a picture's sake.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a picture of Ganondorf for Wind Waker here at all though, to show viewers how his design was in Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass shouldn't there be a picture of him? Unknown Dragon (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if we're going to include a picture of Ganon from every appearance.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
But Wind Waker Ganondorf was quite a key appearance. In fact it was more key than in TP. .:Alex:. 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
And yet, it was just Ganondorf. We already have a picture illustrating what Ganondorf looks like in OoT, and unless there is a specific section added for how his design has changed throughout the series (which would also have to include beast Ganon, as he's appeared nearly three times as much...), it's just putting up pictures for the sake of pictures. The fact that he was wearing a cloak instead of armor wasn't a big part of TWW's story (in fact, may I suggest that not once was any element of his design mentioned in the game?), and as an accompaniment to the plot sections is not at all needed. Trust me, I've had to fight against the image patrollers many a time, and having one image of Ganondorf is barely getting away with it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immortality

I notice there's been a bit of conflict as to whether or not Ganon should be in the Fictional immortals category. I personally think he should be as the Triforce of Power appears to have rendered him immortal. He has been alive for hundreds of years and is exceptionally hard to kill. Furthermore being immortal doesn't mean you're indestructable, it just means you live forever. And besides Ganon might not even be destructable as Zelda and Link can never kill him off permanently can they. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WW is a good example of what you are saying, but what about TP? The Triforce of Power leaves him leaving him absolutely powerless and therefore seemingly dies in TP, so unless there is a game that takes place after where he is alive we are led to believe he is dead. .:Alex:. 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that Link regularly kills him. He dies in OoT, then is resurrected. He seems to die in TP and TWW, and he most definitely dies in ALttP, when he has the whole Triforce, and in TLoZ, when he again has the triforce of power. His death is one of the situations behind the events of OoX and TAoL.
If it really was just that he's died once, and come back, he might count. But simply being long-lived isn't basis for calling him immortal - his death has happened frequently, and he's been resurrected like any other person could.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can be immortal and still be destructable. Just out of curiosity is Ganon an Elf? It's just he has pointy ears and I don't think he's a pixie. --Illustrious One (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

...he's a Gerudo. And no, if you can die, you are by definition not immortal. Mortal means "subject to death", and...well...Ganon is subject to death. Very much so.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. My point about the Elves before was that in JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Elves are described as immortal but they can still be killed. However they are, like Ganon, very hard to kill. --Illustrious One (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a book uses the word immortality in a different way doesn't change the meaning. It just makes it easier to understand. Just like the Immortals in highlander aren't really immortal. They're close, so it's easy to describe them that way, but they aren't immortal. DurinsBane87 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you were to say Ganon is immortal, you'd have to claim that both Link and Zelda are too.212.219.254.158 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No you wouldn't, since Miyamoto himself has confirmed that many of the Links and Zeldas in the series are completely different people. But Ganon/dorf is always the same person. King Zeal (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
To make it clear - he is hard to kill because of his possession of dark magics, which are merely amplified by the Triforce of Power - like the other Triforce bearers, possession of the Triforce merely acts on whats already there. Also, in every situation, waiting for him to die naturally isn't an option. The only possible "immortality" (and that's specious, given how PH indicates that Hylians easily live longer than a century) is when he is sealed in the Dark World - and in this case, he is both no longer using his human body, slightly spectral, and acording to FSA, he is seemingly able to bind his soul into an object as a method of resurrection.
He's a bit like a phoenix - technically mortal, but able to work around that so that overall death is a minor annoyance. And we've still got to remember that we have only two indications in the entire series as to the length of Hylian lifetimes.
  1. TMC indicates that one NPC is unsure if he'll be around for the next Picori Festival in 100 years.
  2. Linebeck, apparently middle-aged, is said to have not been seen by Jolene for a century, when he would still have had to be an adult.
For the Gerudo race themselves - Twinrova, in OoT, claim to be over 600 years old, and there's not much evidence to suggest that they artificially extended their lifespan.
However, it is possible that none of the "human" races die of old age - there might be an instance where one does, but I honestly cannot remember any LoZ gravestone that wasn't attributed to murder or violent illness.
Basically, we have no confirmation either way, besides that he is long-lived - so let's just leave the space blank, and choose neither side.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that was just an expression used by Linebeck not meant to be taken literally. If he was that old I'd think he'd be way smarter. But maybe he just never learns. Delsait (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was used several times by Jolene, not Linebeck. Besides, Twinrova are several centuries old, and don't seem to be that mature; I mean, they know magic, but so does the relatively young Ganondorf.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Why was my edit undone, I don't see how a bunch of pictures throughout the article but not one at the top is preferred. The Clawed One (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As the edit summary said, precedent has been set but for more info, you might want to read up on it in the latest archive. --Coreycubed (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So, the problem isn't that I made the edit, I just didn't ask permission first? The Clawed One (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
...no. The problem is that every time a picture was added in the past, edit wars started because: the human form only shows up three times in the entire series and is only once called Ganon, we couldn't agree which game's image of Ganon to use, and we couldn't argue why a lead picture was specifically needed. Therefore, barring new and convincing arguments, we decided to have no lead image. The edit was the problem, and you were directed to the discussion to explain why.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Understandable, but the article looks poor with a character box at the top and no picture there just because no one can agree on what one to use. The Clawed One (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the beast form appears almost three times as much as the human form, was the original form, and is the one consistently named Ganon. It's also technically the most recent appearance, since Dark Lord Ganondorf appears before Dark Beast Ganon. After that, Blue pig appears almost twice as much as green boar, and is the form that appears in the in-game statues and cartoon, so I vote for either blue pig or green boar. However, there was a ton of people who believed that human Ganondorf was the "most representative form", so we compromised on having no image. If they no longer care, or if you can convince them to accept a certain picture, more power to you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is this "they"? Only two people have voiced their opinions on the matter, and if either of you have no objections, then choose an image and go with it, I have no preference either, I just chose the OoT picture because it was the first time he had appeared in human form in the games. Either way, I just think the article should have some sort of picture at the top. As for "they", take it from someone who's been in edit wars, sooner or later one side just leaves and doesn't bother anymore. The Clawed One (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the previous discussion? Or the edit history in regards to lead images?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any changes to the main imagebox since before early November. Again, does anyone object to this change? The Clawed One (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's actually Ganon - human form Ganondorf hardly ever appears, and pig Ganon is emphasized as his "true self".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agahnim

Since Agahnim is an alter ego to Ganon, like Sheik, Agahnim should be covered on this page under "alter-egos".

Ganondorf could also be covered in this section, as Ganon's initial human form.

Links to Agahnim should also be redirected to this section.

Thank you!Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we also make a note about Phantom Ganon here? The Clawed One (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm a little rusty. Is it specified anywhere is Agahnim is a human who served Ganon/is under his control, or if he's a manifestation of Ganon himself? The Clawed One (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ganon specifically calls him his "alter-ego", and he seems very similar to TWW Ganondorf. I've heard the theory that Agahnim was a servant of Ganon, but I've not seen it to be supported by the games.
Phantom Ganon, however, is a creation of Ganon like Puppet Ganon. I guess they could be mentioned, but they are not alter-egos - in OoT, for example, Ganondorf casts Phantom Ganon into the void between the worlds as punishment.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overcategorization

I removed: centenarians because he does not age and thus, does not qualify (another category such as "fictional characters who do not age" or something, if it exists, would be better); demons, he is not a demon, as far as I know, he was a Gerudo and then became immortal but the game does not list his race as "demon" (maybe in TP, but I haven't beaten it yet); emperor-for this one, he's the "Great King of Evil" in OoT but I don't recall him ever getting the title of emperor (unless in TP); deities, he is definitely not a deity; Kaiju, just because he's made by a Japanese person doesn't mean any monster that Japanese person invents is a Kaiju. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is a demon, as his title is "Demon Emperor" (Maou) in many of the games. He is called the Emperor of the Dark Realm in TWW; and is definitely a deity according to FSA, OoT, and TP. I agree on the kaiju and centenarian bits.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not following you on the deity bit. What exactly qualifies as a deity then? The rest I can agree to. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of these look unexplained: demon (thought it was only a title, not specie), pig (couldn't he shape-change into anything)? And since when is he a god? Think he was only a sorcerer. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need of having any of those "fictional" categories. PS: Kudos to the user adding the lead image. The Prince (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes I like the image. Although it depicts him in his pig-form it looks scary and imposing enough to be a good (evil?) representation of Ganon. As for the categories I think they're more or less all accurate.

Centenarians - Yes. He's been around for more than a hundred years. Think that qualifies him as a centenarian. As for Fictional characters who don't age, there is actually a horribly under-used category called Fictional immortals which (like the Fictional dictators cat actually) suits him perfectly but which nobody seems to want to use.

Fictional demons - Yes. He's a malevolent, supernatural creature who has been referred to as a "demon" or "devil" on numerous occasions. You don't have to be born a demon to become one. Look at Randall Flagg.

Fictional deities - He is a god-like creature who is worshipped as a deity by his servants. So yes.

Fictional emperors and empresses - Yes. He's the King of Evil. There's quite a lot of evil in the universe and if he's the ruler of it all then I suppose that makes an emperor. Furthermore he ruled Hyrule (and possibly the world) for a while and Hyrule's big enough to qualify as an empire.

Kaiju - Hmm. Not sure about this one. But the others, deffo.

--Illustrious One (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The "demons" bit is more apparent in the Japanese, as he is frequently called "Maou" (Demon King), or Yami no Maou (I think, "Demon King of Darkness"). In TWW he is explicitly said to be the "Emperor of the Dark Realm", and as for deity:
  • In OoT, Gerudo worship him as a god
  • In FSA, Deku worship him as a god
  • In TP, Zant outright says that he is a deity
Fictional centenarians - I disagree with this as he's not so much immortal or ageless as constantly resurrected. He dies plenty of times, and while the Gerudo lifespan seems to be long, it certainly allows him to age. I wouldn't claim that he's ageless without any proof from the games. As for kaiju - no, not at all.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I quite agree on the subject of demons and deities but with with regards to the centenarians business I'm afraid I beg to differ. How do we know he doesn't have a lifespan of over a hundred years. He has certainly lived for more than that long even if he has been killed on the odd occasion. He had already lived for a century or more in Wind Waker. Furthermore I think Kaiju is debatable. The term Kaiju is Japanese for "strange beast" and as Ganon is indeed a strange fictional beast of Japanese origins he could be classed as a Kaiju. The Kaiju category is pretty much the same as the Fictional monsters category but it can also encompass creatures in mythology as well as fiction so by those standards I think the Loch Ness Monster and the classic European Dragon could be classed as Kaiju. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaiju are a specific type of "strange beast", like Godzilla. Ganon, however, is based on European demons.
And as for centenarian, no. He is killed too often to claim evidence of him living so long. A big part of "living over 100 years" is, well, being alive.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here on the categories. Is he a shape-shifter? If so, why is he classified as a pig/boar? How are the characters Randall Flagg and Ganon classified as demons if they're really mutated humans? Furthermore, I would suggest removing all categories which are not accompanied by reliable sources in the text of the article. Anything else before I get rid of these ORish cats.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these categories should be removed. It's more than sufficient to list him in The Legend of Zelda series characters, Super Smash Bros. fighters, and Video game bosses. "Fictional thieves" is supported strongly by the canon. The rest are neither obvious nor useful and I'd like to see them all removed. Dcoetzee 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
.......In the Japanese versions, he is almost always called "Maou", and even in the English FSA he is "Ancient Demon Reborn". For shape-shifting, C'MON! How is this not obvious? Have any of you played Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess? He shapeshifts between man and boar, that's how he's both. Deity is also said, many times throughout the series.
How is it that I've explained where these categories are from each time, and yet people still think it's fanon? If I absolutely must, I'll provide exact quotes from the text dumps, but that will take quite a while to find each occurence, and in my opinion, it's a waste of time - since each of these titles are major plot points of their games, and you really should remember them.
Ocarina of Time: "アタシたち　賢者は　六人そろえば　魔王ガノンドロフを　　封印することが　できるの。" (We six sages will be able to seal the Demon King Ganondorf)
"ヴァルバジア　魔王が復活させた炎の神殿の主よ" (Volvagia: Revived by the Demon King to be the god/master of the fire temple)
"大魔王　ガノンドロフ" (Great Demon King Ganondorf)
In general, its used everywhere "Evil King" is in the English.
"They say that Gerudos worship Ganondorf almost like a god."
The Wind Waker: "He is the very same Ganon...The emperor of the dark realm the ancient legends speak of..."
Four Swords Adventures: "おお…、俺は闇の魔王！！" (Graah! I am the Demon King of Darkness!)
"I'm off to the Temple of Darkness to worship Lord Ganon! Oopipi!"
"King of Darkness, ancient demon reborn. The wielder of the trident!!"
Twilight Princess: "大魔王 ガノンドロフ" (Great Demon King Ganondorf)
"魔獣ガノン" (Demon Beast Ganon)
"It was then, in the thrall of hatred and despair, that I turned my eyes to the heavens...and found a god.";"My god had only one wish..."

Similarly, while Ganondorf is a Maou (he has his own Makai and Mazoku, as well), Vaati and Bellum are Majin - Demon God/Devil.

And that's just from the games I was able to get the Japanese version of - I couldn't get ALttP, TWW, or OoX. He is quite clearly a demon, shape-shifter, boar/pig, emperor, and god.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For TWW "centenarian":

"So long as Ganondorf was not revived, Hyrule would remain below, never waking from its slumber."

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Still looks like strong implications and mere hints, but not confirmed facts. As said, if you can cite it with reliable sources within the article context the categories will stay. Other than that, they will be removed momentarily per violating WP:NOR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WHO is the idiot who so rudely removed my comment. As I was saying, he lived for over one hundred years in Wind Waker KrytenKoro, that's what I just said you may remember. Also he is a shapeshifter because he can transform into a pig/boar. That's also why he is in the Fictional pigs category. And another thing. A demon is a malevolent supernatural creature. Both Ganon and Randall Flagg were humans who became demons. Furthermore since when do you need citations for categories? --Illustrious One (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't start name-calling now, Illustrious, we have civility rules to follow. For the third time, reliable sources should be placed within the context of the article to confirm these categories. For instance, his abilities section is blatantly unsourced. Why are there categories placed with barely anything verifying them for the page? This is what I mean. And we are not supposed to categorize the character based upon some vague translations, or else, it'd be fluffed. Categorize per the most practical feats, not also what he did in only one or two games. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
One needs a citation for anything that can be legitimately challenged and it is being challenged now. I'm not aware of any citation that specifically says he lived for more than 100 years at a time, only OR inferences. I think we can drop the thing about demons and emperors since that's pretty established by now. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you agree with me as well Axem? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sessh is right on the money here. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, IO - there was an edit conflict, and I was in a hurry so I just pasted my long comment to the top box and saved.
To LS - I don't see how any of it is implications. He is outright said to be a demon in both versions, over and over, in nearly every appearance he has. He is outright said to be the emperor of the Dark Realm in TWW, and he is outright said to be a worshipped god in three different games, by three different groups. The shape-shifting is by definition shown in both OoT and TP, (and as a bat in ALttP), so I can't possibly see how that could be denied (unless the category is for someone with a certain number of transformations - that seems arbitrary, though). The boar form is his beast form - I believe he's actually called a pig in the OoX manual and cartoon? Maybe not, but its clear that he's porcine. If that's still considered OR, fine, remove it.
The only removed category that can't be cited, from the list I just gave, even, is the centenarian thing, because not only does he die over and over, but the only close game is TWW, and it indicates that he was recently revived, not unsealed (the unsealing happens when Link pulls the Master Sword). His legacy might be centuries old, and even his soul, but his body doesn't seem to last extraordinarily long.
I do agree that any category added needs to be explained and cited either in the article or the talk page, to prevent all these ridiculous "Characters associated with bats", "Fictional users of silverware" categories.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Not on the talk page, every category needs to be supported by sourced content on the article. We have number consensus (Me, The Prince, Axem, Dcoetzee) so I'll be removing those unverified categories now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, are there any categories that I may have accidently removed that are cited on the article and/or are so obvious that they should be re-placed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Ganon is a wizard, and a shapeshifter, those are for certain, they do not need to be removed, Ganon is constantly seen as a using powerful magic, and he changes he form to Ganondorf and Ganon in many games. The Clawed One (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I can put those back, however, it'd be best if someone can reference this beforehand. Where does he perform wizardry or shapeshift? Put that in the article first (suggest <ref></ref> style) then the cats. go in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
He performs sorcery in almost every game, but if you insist: he uses magic in Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Adventure of Link, etc. He shapeshifts between human and Ganon forms in Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time. The Clawed One (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The important thing here is not whether Ganon technically qualifies for each of these categories - it's whether they describe fundamental defining features that were particularly emphasized. I might give in and also allow fictional demons, but the rest of these are - first of all - based on a particular and debatable interpretation of the game text - but more importantly, inessential to the nature of his character, and that's why they ought to be removed. Dcoetzee 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
....I'm really sorry, but wizard, emperor, demon, and god are fundamental to his character - so fundamental that that's the title NPC's use for him. Shapeshifting is also a huge part, as his transformation into Ganon is a major part of the story for him. Wizard, emperor and god are mentioned in the article, and if the problem is that they're not properly sourced - well, I typed, word for word, the sources here. As for claiming majority - Axem agreed on the demons and emperors bit, so why are you claiming he didn't?
His identity as a wizard is fundamental - in ALttP, he was able to claim the triforce due to his skill in the dark arts, in OoT he was constantly called a wizard, or shown using it as a crux to his plans. The same in OoT and TP - in fact, in TP, it was responsible for his revival.
"King" is also hugely essential to his character - he is always the King, whether of demons or thieves, whether great or reborn, whether of evil or darkness.
While I understand the love of consensus, I can't possibly understand how, after providing multiple sources from each of his appearances, nearly all of which were rooted in important plot scenes (and thus not easter eggs, at all) and hard to deny, it was still claimed that they were not properly sourced. These claims appear in the article, are explicitly essential to his character, and have sources. I respect you as an editor, LS, but I just can't see the logic behind this, and I think it's highly inappropriate to demand a moratorium on editing the section when so much evidence was presented in favor of what you removed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On another note, just to reply to earlier claims - I don't know how much D&D you've been playing, but there's no such thing as a "natural-born demon". Even in mythology, it's something you become from falling into evil - this is true even in Japanese mythology, where there are "natural-born monsters". It's simply silly to claim that something must be "born a demon" to be in that group, since everything that group would be based on, didn't.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Calm down man. I'm trying to improve the article, as you are, and everyone else. I've re-added two categories according to The Clawed One's given references, see the new refs on Ganon. The others (king, emperor, demon, and god) can only be added so long as you provide the refs. Now, do you have sources that verify these or not? If you so choose, list them here and I'll add them to the page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
....I have. Many times. Ganon is the king, of the gerudo, of evil, of theives, of darkness. It is his title in every game. Furthermore, except for in OoX, to my knowledge, he is also always the "Demon King", and in TWW he is the "emperor of the dark realm". His existence as a worshipped god is explained in OoT, FSA, and TP - it must be remembered that both the Zelda pantheon, and the real-world pantheons it is based on, are extremely dynamic - beyond the creator goddesses, there is little in the way of dogmatic definitions of gods, and Ganon is frequently shown to not only be more powerful than most of the gods appearing in the series, but is given part of the power of the supreme gods themselves. There's little reason to doubt that he's not a "fictional god" - especially since the very nature of that title, like demon, is not a species - a god is a god if it is believed to be one. He has temples dedicated to him, he is worshipped, he is frequently called a god, and has more power than all but three of them - he's a fictional god.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For once I agree with you KrytenKoro. Centenarians and Kaiju I don't mind leaving out but demons, emperors, thieves, deities and wizards, gotta go in. --Illustrious One (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There we go. The notes you guys gave verify these categories. BTW, in which game(s) does Ganon teleport and fly? Just want to know for myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
He hovers during the boss battle at the end of Ocarina of Time, and as Ganon he teleports in Twilight Princess. However, those truly are ancillary to his character, and as far as I know are only seen, no reason given, for a small period during each of these games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing seems kind of pointless, what exactly is the harm of having many categories anyway? And most of these you just have to have common sense to know what categories Ganon belongs under. Unknown Dragon (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:OVERCAT. We've discussed this already. And please stop making unconstructive edits without the community's approval. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brawl Designs

Why does someone insist on including the fact that Aunuma said he submitted designs for Brawl? That's no longer relevant since we all know Ganon is in. Does it really matter anymore? 75.152.155.200 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

...yes, because it's development info. It's something keeping the article from being deleted for being in-universe - It's extremely relevant.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ALttP pic

There's a really good pic of the blue pig form in the Zelda Legends image gallery. It's official art from ALttP, and is both large and clean enough, and portrays all the details correctly.

I gave the link to HaipaDragon earlier, but he wasn't sure how to get the fair-use explanation correctly. If anyone knows how to do those tags correctly, please upload the image so we have a non-crappy pic of the most-often appearing, blue pig form.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons Neede To Kill Ganon

I think we should rephrase the sentence to not be Biggoron-sword specific and just say "although other weapons can cause superficial damage". Also, I'd like to point out you can't kill Ganon with the Biggoron sword in OoT - you can damage him, but once you retrieve the Master Sword you have to kill him with it. You can keep attacking him with the Biggoron sword, but he won't collapse for the final blow until you attack him with the Master Sword. Trust me, I've tried it. The Clawed One (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As originally specified in the sentence, you can kill him in the first battle - from everything I've seen and the script, I'm pretty sure he died that first time, and was revived with the Triforce, just like the Triforce revived him before TWW. It can also kill him in OoA/OoS, so it is definitely able to kill him in general. This is the point of the qualifier - that seemingly non-sacred weapons can kill him.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What? Ganon died once in OoT, you fight him, he gets weakened and this causes the flames to die down so you can get the Master Sword. Either way, if the point is that non-sacred weapons can kill him, why are we singling out the Biggoron sword in particular? Technically in OoA/OoS, I think the Wooden Sword can damage him too, if we want specifics. The Clawed One (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Then add that too. Also, the section specifically mentions Ganondorf, so that form is not excluded - the Biggoron Sword is able to slay him, during the battle at the top of the tower.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the first battle, sorry, I was thinking you meant the second battle. The Clawed One (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Things

I'd like to remove the cleanup tag because it appears to be "clean" and what is really needed is the {{copyedit}} one. Inclusively, the word "impressive" (see Abilities, first line) looks quite POVish. What is a better, more encyclopedic word? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Formidable? --Illustrious One (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that could work. And of my other proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think you're absolutely right, the article seems to be in more or less tip-top shape. --Illustrious One (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganondorf's race

The article claims that Ganondorf was human. However, I seem to recall that Ocarina of Time considers the Gerudos a distinct race from both Humans and Hylians. Shouldn't be Ganondorf be considered a Gerudo in the article? Then again, he was mentioned in the backstory of A Link to the Past, a game that predates Nintendo's creation of the Gerudo stuff... Thoughts? FightingStreet (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing about Ganondorf being human was retconned in favour of the "Gerudo stuff." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As Majora's Mask claims, Gerudo are a subrace of humans. Shiekah, Hylian are also included.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Since Gerudo is a subhuman race and Ganondorf was claimed to be Gerudo, it would be fitting to say he was human. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not subhuman, just human.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that Guerdo is simply a subrace. They are physically similar to Hylians and seem to resememble middle eastern people quite a bit. just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.104.92 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the devil?

(*Should that be a capital "D"?) Happened to the image? It was a good image! And now it's gone, dammit! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody seems to want to remove the image on the grounds that it's "outdated". Whilst I can see that a fan site or a commercial site might only want to display the latest images of a character, this is an encyclopedia so the criteria for suitability are quite different. There's no reason to exclude an image simply because it's old. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: The lead image dispute lives on

I absolutely do not agree with the current one (obviously). My basis for removing OoT Ganon from lead is as follow:

-It goes against the principle of the 'last' big consensus. Which was...nothing. It wasn't a universal agreement on leaving it with no image, but for months all the parties left (content perhaps?). -It's very outdated.

I am against a lead image due to how Ganon is portrayed differently in each game (human or monster) and once AFTER we fully agree on either human or monster, then it's which variation to pick (Wind Waker? Twilight Princess?).

I'm very happy that an Admin stepped in and locked the article. I've voiced my thoughts. I'm not pushing for any images, and if we have to pick one, it most certainly won't be an image of Ganon from a decade ago. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You're outnumbered, see above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as not even a day has passed, I don't follow. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that if you can't come up with a better arguement other than "no consensus was reached", then a lead image will be placed. Believe it or not, consensus can change, and right now the first representation of Ganon appears to be the best choice. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So instead of using the more recent, much bigger, and sourced (as of now, I don't see a source for OoT beast Ganondorf), Twilight Princess Ganon? If a main image is to be used, like most articles that I'm aware of (Sonic, Link, Mario), they use the latest installment. And TP is the last appearance of Ganon as of recent. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you feel, then voice your thoughts here. It just seems like you're ignoring everyone, that's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've called an RfC on this. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: This is a classic case of the point of consensus. The matter is entirely too subjective to really make a ruling on. Hopefully some kind of peaceful consensus can be reached. I suggest taking another vote, setting a, say, 14-day deadline to vote, and notifying all major editors to this article as well as the participants at the Video Wikiproject. Hope some kind of agreement can be reached that way.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    You suggest we take a what? :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We had a previous attempt at a vote, but you already knew that from just by looking at this page. Get more people to be aware of this new vote on which Ganon to use, set a deadline for the poll, and that's that. Whichever the community firmly believes is the best for the page then so be it. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't know. Now I know why we have no image on the page--the wrong process was used to select one. Wikipedia works by discussion with the aim of producing consensus. Try to short-circuit that discussion phase by making a vote (which forces people to choose one option exclusing all others) and what you do is polarise the discussion, which is the opposite of what is needed to establish consensus. I therefore suggest politely that, since we're seeking consensus, all calls for vote be very firmly resisted. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Image Vote (March 2008)

Since it's been suggested we do this, I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

Remember, the issue at hand is to provide a lead image that everyone (or a sizable majority) can agree on. We have two forms (human and beast) and a number of games (including from the Zelda and Smash Bros. series) to choose from. To keep this from being a stale vote, please state reasons for your pick. And I'll start with mine:

  • Human (Twilight Princess). Reason: The human Ganondorf has become the new "face" of the character. Although beast Ganon has appeared in more games and is arguably the more well-known, ever since Ocarina of Time, the human Ganondorf has been used more often than not. Whether it be the Zelda games, Spaceworld, Smash Bros., or whatever else, THIS is the Ganon that Nintendo has chosen to represent Link's archenemy. And, the Twilight Princess version is, of course, the most recent version of the character. King Zeal (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Beast (Twilight Princess). Reason: The human Ganondorf has made three total appearances, canon-wise, and has only appeared without the beast form in TWW (in which many commentators claimed Puppet Ganon was a reference). Beast form by itself has appeared as recently as Four Swords Adventures, and in Brawl, both forms are present. The Beast form is the form of how which the character has been introduced, and how he still continues to appear as an "ultimate" form, excluding the one instance in TWW. Spaceworld was a demo for a game that would never exist, and the only other appearances of "Ganondorf as the main form" are in South Park, where he appears for a fraction of a second within the hordes of evil. While I would not reject his TLoZ or ALttP artwork, TP or SSBB form is acceptable as "most recent".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing I noticed in your previous argument was that you used the term "canon" and then immediately cited Four Swords Adventures and Brawl as appearances for beast Ganon. I say this because it makes the point you're making a bit unclear. Are "canon" appearances the only things we're considering here, or are games like FSA and SSBB being considered? It can't be both ways. King Zeal (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
...how is FSA not canon? Fine then, Ganondorf has made three canon appearances, and two non-canon appearances with Nintendo approval, and only twice has he appeared without beast form. The rest of my reasoning stands.
(Completely OR, I guess, but I would also add that in TWW, Gerudo Ganondorf is presented with a host of similarities to Agahnim's situation, and the whole turn-to-stone thing indicates, at least to me, that it's just a golem or something.)128.211.164.141 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see where all this "canon/noncanon" stuff matters. Canon/noncanon is OR, especially in the Zelda series, where individual theories run rampant. The only thing that should be considered, in my view, are Ganon's appearances in published material. Since 1998, he's only appeared in beast form as the final form (or near-final form) of the main antagonist, and as a special attack in Brawl (excluding FSA and the Oracle games). This is how the character is represented now. Not to say that the past doesn't matter, but things DO change. It is for this reason that the lead image of the Batman article doesn't show the character's older costumes with a yellow circle--even though that's the form he's taken for nearly 30 years. King Zeal (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Because Nintendo has specifically defined which games are "canon", and Miyamoto and Aonuma frequently agree with this list. It's not OR, it's been explicitly set out by Nintendo itself. "Since 1998" - FSA. OoS and OoA. No human form at all in those games. FSA isn't even clear how long ago the human Ganondorf sought out the trident - after all, he's given the same trident to Phantom Ganon in OoT, maybe FSA is right after OoT.
My argument is that things haven't changed - pig form is only slightly less frequently used, and has only been left out of TWW so far (in which it still arguably appears, as a frequent symbol used by Ganondorf, and the design of Puppet Ganon). Human form still does not outnumber the pig form, no matter how recently you put the cutoff - at best, you can only get a 50-50 split.
The numbers are clear - pig form continues to be used just as often as human form, and is his traditional form - it was for that reason that they had it in OoT, as a call-back to previous games. The same deal exists in OoX - they originally started out as remakes of the first two games, and Ganon was meant as a call-back to them. If anything, it's OR to try to ignore these numbers, and make claims based on not much else about how Nintendo intends to portray him. This is how they have and do portray him - barring some statement from Miyamato along the lines of "We picture Gerudo-form Ganondorf as the definitive image of Ganon", there's not really much to debate with.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize you're citing the Oracle games which are a what, 7 years old? Miyamoto once said the timeline started with OoT, what Miyamoto thought 7 years ago has no baring on the now. Especially since the Oracles weren't created by one of Nintendo's own studios. I'm aware that Miyamoto still oversaw production, but it wasn't Nintendo directly involved with the project. Flagship wasn't outsourced, they just made their own Zelda games. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. Start at FSA - 2 canon pig, 2 canon gerudo, 1 noncanon pig, 1 noncanon gerudo. As I said before, no matter where you put the cutoff, 50-50's the best you can get, completely disproving this whole "They've changed it over to Ganondorf as the main face of the character." idea. I have no idea why you're bringing up OoT's place in the timeline, could you please explain? Also, whether or not Nintendo itself did all the work for OoX, it is still considered part of the canon series of games according to the Nintendo websites and listings.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I decline to vote, but would observe that perhaps we might like to seek consensus that an image representing Ganon would be preferable to no such image. Voting won't find consensus where none exists, and if there is a chance of reaching consensus, holding a vote too early may make it harder by forcing people to make a decision rather than consider the issues. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'd rather there not be a vote, either, but I at least want to see where everyone's opinions stand. King Zeal (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Human (Twilight Princess). Reason: The main antagonist of the series has been presented in recent years in his human form. I like to think his beast form is on par with other enemies in different franchises that mutate their appearance as the 'final battle' (Dracula comes to mind, yet his own article uses human art). His Gerudo form has become his most prominent and popular form (Melee & Brawl are guest appearances where he's human). While I normally don't want him to have a lead image, this is the only one that should be put on (we already have this image in the article, just a matter of making it the lead) due to the nature of the character in recent years and it being his last canonical appearance. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to do this again, but here:
Canon
  • TLoZ: Wizardpig
  • TAoL: Wizardpig
  • LA: Wizardpig
  • ALttP: Wizardpig, with Agahnim
  • OoT: Gerudo and Beastpig
  • OoA & OoS: Wizardpig
  • TWW: Gerudo
  • FSA: Wizardpig
  • TP: Gerudo and Beastpig
Non-canon
  • Cartoon: Wizardpig
  • CD-i: Wizardpig
  • Melee: Gerudo
  • Brawl: Gerudo and Beastpig
Five total appearances in the major entries, out of 13. Two of these are non-canon appearances, and the wizardpig's appearances are as recent as FSA. Even if we rule out all the games before OoT, Pig still appears just as often as Gerudo. The human form is simply an additional new form, like Zelda's sheik - it has in no way replaced the pig as the usual form, and rarely even appears without it. The pig as "final form" only occurs in these games - in others, wizardpig is his normal, and according to ALttP, true form.128.211.164.141 ([[User talk:Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not a solid argument. Sheik was not a replacement form for Zelda. It was not meant to represent Zelda as a character. As a comparison, no one is saying Agahnim should be Ganon's lead image. King Zeal (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really correct about his beast form on some of those games. In FSA he has the same backstory, he was born as a Gerudo. Though he did not appear as a human, his human form was still mentioned ala Agahanim. It's not a matter of which form has appeared the most in all his years, it's which form Nintendo has been using to portray the character Ganon. It's not like in Zelda I where he was always a pig from the start, in TWW and TP he was a human 99% of the time. That's the point I'm trying to convey, he's become the leading representation of the timeless evil that is Ganon. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And he has the wizardpig form in FSA, which in ALttP is indicated to be his "true form". And again, even starting from as far back as OoT, there's still an even split for Pig to human.
I didn't say that Sheik was meant to be a replacement for Zelda - just like I don't think Ganondorf is meant to be a replacement for Ganon. They're additional forms, and used as such.

How about making a compromise: we show both the Ganon form and the Ganondorf form in the lead, like in the Wario article, where both his overalls appearance and his WarioWare appearance have been included. The Prince (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with The Prince. Will this satisfy all parties involved? The boar form from Twilight Princess and the human Gerudo from Twilight Princess for lead?--HeaveTheClay (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the very compromise I suggested from the beginning. I'm in full agreement.King Zeal (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Beast Twilight Princess" --ZeWrestler Talk 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm personally okay with it, but it's probably going to get one of the fair use editors in a twist.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I could go for a joint pic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a joint picture of Ganon and Ganondorf from Twilight Princess. Does everyone agree with this decision? The Prince (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

's best compromise we're going to get, so yeah.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact.
Well, fair use is certainly an issue on this article, what with all the different Ganon(dorf) pics in it. I doubt this is something we can get away with as far as fair use policy is concerned. I'll look into it. For now, I'm just happy we've reached some sort of consensus on this issue at last.--Atlan (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template change request

{{editprotected}} I was wondering if someone could replace the current navigational template with Template:The Legend of Zelda which more completely covers the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to change it, but since this article is about a character, the character template is appropriate.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Ganon is included in the other nav template, I'll add it, but not replace the existing one, since he's in that one too, and as Espirit pointed out, it's a little more relevant. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We already have a Gerudo Ganon uploaded on this article, as for the beast form

I can't find anything that Nintendo released. The only other 'possibility' is the beast Ganon from Brawl.

Here's what I have in mind: http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/images/hidden09/hidden09_080318p.jpg

Just shows him. If everyone's ok with it then a request should go to an admin to unblock the article so we can add it. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not the TP Ganon? It's a lot less ugly of a picture, and is the same design.
Also, can we replace the ALttP Sprite with this?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that work (Twilight Beast Ganon) at TSA's website. That works a lot better than the Brawl one. And the tiny sprite from ALTTP desperately needs to be replaced with something bigger which as shown by another editor works fine. We have the most up to date Ganondorfs (beast and gerudo), as well as the Faces of Evil, and the classic Ganon as a moblin (or whatever you want to call it) which hopefully should be OK by everyone.

It doesn't bother me at all whether this goes through or not, but the CDI Ganon reminds me of the Ganon from the animated TV series. It's mostly opinionated, but perhaps the cartoon one would fit better for the role of Other Appearances given that it's more canon and we'd probably fine a better picture than the goofy looking one we have. --71.2.37.29 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of titles

In my version of Twilight Princess, he's called "Dark Lord Ganondorf" and "Dark Beast Ganon", not "Great Demon King Ganondorf" or "Demon Beast Ganon", so can we get some verification as to which title is correct, or if the Japanese name could possable translate into both names, and make suitable adjustments to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.67.43 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

...yeah, those are the english names of the character, not the Japanese or its translation. That ref is specifically talking about the japanese name. And no, the Japanese names do not actually translate to the English ones, its just that Nintendo has a certain aversion, at least with its main series, to religious-sounding titles and names.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we could put the English titles in alongside the Japanese translations to avoid confusing people like myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But the refs are specifically referencing the Japanese games for verification that he is a demon emperor - the passage isn't talking about his titles, merely what he is. I mean, we could add it in, but it wouldn't fit well, and I don't really see how we can make it any more obvious that it's from the Japanese version.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganon vs. Ganondorf

According to this article, Ganon specifically refers ONLY to the beast form, and Ganondorf refers ONLY to the Gerudo form. But that's just not true. In The Wind Waker, Ganon is used regularly to refer to Ganondorf, even though he's in his human form. In A Link to the Past's manual, which is where the name Ganondorf was first used, it's said that Ganon is his common name or nickname or something, not a name for another form. So I'm pretty sure this article should be changed to reflect the fact that the name Ganon is interchangeable. I believe that only his human form is called Ganondorf, but after he's obtained the Triforce or Trident and become the Evil King/King of Darkness, the name Ganon can be used for either form. So for his human form, Ganon and Ganondorf are interchangeable. --Impossible (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

....no, that's not what the article says. "Ganon, also known as Ganondorf in his human form" - it's saying that Ganondorf is a SECOND name that can be used for him while in human form, along Ganon. If you want to make it more clear, go ahead, but try not to make it confusing.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
When I made that comment, the article certainly did specify Ganon and Ganondorf. The images at the top were labeled "Ganon form" and "Ganondorf form". It was definitely a problem, it's just been fixed now. You're right, but that doesn't mean the article was. However, I'd say that Ganon is the "second" name, not Ganondorf. Ganondorf is his real name, after all. The name Ganon wasn't used in OoT until the end. --Impossible (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demon Emperor

I'd like to suggest that we change that single line from "dark demon emperor" to "evil king" or "king of darkness". The reasons I suggest this are as follows:

  • These are the titles an English audience knows (Ganon is the King of Evil in OoA/OoS and OoT, and the King of Darkness in LttP). We could and possibly should note he is a Demon in the original games, but in the english game this is translated as Evil/Dark King, and this is the English Wikipedia after all.
  • It's less specific and more general a term than Demon Emperor, which implies Ganon is a ruler of a demonic army, which is true but he's in general an evil ruler.
  • It wouldn't need 6 sources, which look awkward and strange, having six citations for a single phrase when plenty of other, agreeable alternatives exist.

Just a thought. The Clawed One (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we make clear on what the Japanese and English adaptations use. I see no compelling reason to remove the references though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
....Huh? Yeah, the English translations don't use the term Demon Emperor, so we should use the English term and note the Japanese term elsewhere, in brackets or in a footnote. The Clawed One (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
But that would cause confusion. Just use the original dialogue, then mention what the English version said. Simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How about demonic emperor? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That a translation from the Japanese? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I just thought it described Ganon well. After all he is demonic and he is an emperor. Sounds better than "demon emperor" which sounds like an actual title. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Think we should be consistent here guys. Creating a title seems like WP:OR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a major point in the Japanese versions of the games that he is a demonic emperor. This is often translated to dark or evil in the american version, to avoid the religious connotations, but it is even touched on in the English FSA. The entire point of the references given is that editors kept on denying that demons even existed in the series, much less that Ganon was one. If you must, edit the references to say that it is from the Japanese games (except for FSA, which is English). But he is clearly called the "Demon Emperor". Not Demonic, not Dark, not Evil (though he is called those at other times) - the Japanese versions specifically call him a Demon Emperor at these times.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the English Wikipedia, the English translation should take priority. The Clawed One (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And he's also called "ancient demon emperor" in FSA, so the English translation is consistent with the Japanese.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sesshomaru, we're not creating a title, we're trying to think of an adequate term to describe Ganon. I think dark demon emperor describes him well but people might assume he is an emperor over demons rather than an emperor who is a demon. That's why I suggested demonic. After all, he is dark (dark as in sinister, not dark as in dark-skinned), he is demonic and he is indeed an emperor. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, he does rule over demons, so its more than just being a ruler who happens to be a demon.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Splendid. Demon Emperor it is then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, demon emperor fits nicely. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Sesshomaru, I'm glad you agree, m'lord. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never even seen "demon emperor" before. The Japanese titles given to Ganondorf would be translated as "Demon King", "King of Darkness", or even "Demon King of Darkness", depending on the game. I would go with Demon King. The footnotes used to reference the use of "demon emperor" tend to say this, too, so I think it should be kept consistent with what the actual source says - "demon king" being the most common. --Impossible (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Impossible, I had to partially revert you there. It was agreed that Ganon is a ruler of demons, a warlord if you will, so "emperor" fit better than "king" in that instance. Aside from that, we're using Japanese terminology (appears he is initially titled "demon emperor"). So if you want consensus to change, you're going to have to discuss first. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's ever actually called "demon emperor" - however, he is variously described as a demon, an emperor, a dark demon, a king of darkness, an emperor of darkness, and a demon king - so we combined those into "dark, demon emperor".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And besides, we're not inventing a title for him, we're just thinking of an accurate way to describe him in the opening paragraph. He is dark, he is a demon and he is indeed an emperor so therefore "dark demon emperor" suits him perfectly. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But he's officially called a king, not an emperor. In what way is emperor more appropriate, when it's completely unofficial? King fits perfectly fine and fits with the description the games use. I really don't understand where emperor come from. The Japanese terminology DOES use Demon King, not emperor. --Impossible (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
....no, it's not at all unofficial. He's called emperor several times, such as in the english version of The Wind Waker.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unnecessary exaggerations?

"His abilities, both physical and magical, are augmented to god-like proportions by the artifact, such as invulnerability, immense physical strength, and nigh-omnipotent magical powers."

"In addition to Ganon's magical abilities, he is also a master swordsman, as shown in his final conflict with Link in The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess."

Maybe it's just me, but how do his WW and TP sword fights make him a "master swordsman", and where has he displayed nigh-omnipotent magical powers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.71.230 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is able to curse several of the deities in several games. Plus, it's part of the given definition of what the ToP does.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given what he's able to do to the Great Deku Tree and Jabu-Jabu, both gods, as well as a bunch of stuff in game I've never played, Ganon's powers easily surpass or at least equal those of the patron deities of many of the races of Hyrule. He's not Three Goddess powerful, but still. The Clawed One (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ganon's always been known as more of a sorcerer than a swordsman, so I would be reluctant to refer to him as a master. Perhaps a skilled swordsman instead.Garonyldas (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
He simultaneously held his own against Link, Zelda and King Daphnes Hyrule (or whatever his name is), all of whom are exeptionally talented swordfighters in Wind Waker. I think that qualifies him as a master. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's probably just wise to state it as "skilled," if people are causing such a controversy about this miniscule subject. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Aggreed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo's

I don't think this is worth fighting over, but I simply don't see how it is necessary. However, the guidelines on linking say that my manner, simply adding text outside of the link:

"Preferred style is to use this instead of a piped link, if possible."
As the guidelines ask for it, I will revert it to [[Nintendo]]'s, unless someone can explain why the other method is necessary or preferred.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Which guideline exactly are you citing? (Yours links to a portal.) I found Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use, though it doesn't give an example with an apostrophe. Response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this is the correct link. The piped link page does cover it, though, with:

"Given the option to pipe a link or to "blend" an affix, preferred style is to use a blended affix. Write simply Public transportation instead of complicated Public transportation. Both display identically as Public transportation."

Affix's include "'s".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)