Talk:Shadow Invasion/Archive 1

Long Windedness
I understand you're really just working on this page in general, but does it really need to be just so long? I mean half the sections have "Main Articles" so why are they so big here? Those sections should only contain explicit, pertinent information regarding this subject, and nothing else. If they can't be summarized/paraphrased without basically including the article that they link to, then they should be cut entirely and just replaced with the "Main Article" link, and only sections with no other articles representing them should remain here. Plus, this article seems to be shaping up more as a giant summary of events in Twilight Princess - or is that my ignorance speaking?

I'm not against page length when it's relevant, but I am against pages that are excessively long for no reason, and just because you're building the article is no excuse to make it this way. Do it right from the beginning and save yourself the trouble later. If anything you'll expand it, and that's better than cutting down, right? --Xizor 04:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand Xizor, but I just gave a brief overview of the main articles so as to give an idea about how they relate to the invasion for those who just come to the page about the invasion. The greater details are covered in the longer main articles. Also, I'm not completely done with the article, I still have the aftermath to cover and to get pictures and sources into it, so it's still a work in progress. Link87 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I sorta saw this coming, which is why I offered to make the nav bar. Just rework the top into a very few statements encouraging the reader to see the other articles in the chain of events here. Have it in one section, Preceding Events or something. This is what I was trying to get at in Skype. 04:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well see about putting this page (and for that matter, any page you work on in the future =P) on Wiki Weight Watchers, because obese pages are not good. Buff pages are hot, obese pages are not! --Xizor 04:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you want, and I shall do what I can to comply with your requests. I can't promise it will be done one, two, three, but I will definitely work on it when I can between classes and work. And that really did make me laugh Xizor, lol. Very good quip, very good indeed. ;) Link87 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that stuff that happens after Zant takes over Hyrule should just be omitted. This is just supposed to be about Zant's invasion, right? So why does it look like a summary of TP's plot in general?Ganondorfdude11 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it was a rather fat page. The extra fluff really isn't needed. It should be trimmed down to what is known to have happened for that event in the game. Instead of conjectures and plot summaries. 22:01, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I will make a new page detailing the aftermath of the invasion, as per the wishes of the admins. However, I put some rather interesting facts that had been removed back into the page, as well as the quote proving its authenticity, namely the fact detailing that it was because Midna's father refused to name Zant as his successor that the throne was left vacant. As it does come from a true source and is marked correctly to my knowledge, I feel that information is important to new readers curious about the circumstances about Zant's rise to power. This is not conjecture, this is actually stated in the collector's edition book for the game, so it does have proof. Link87 00:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This book was published by Prima Games, not Nintendo. It includes a lot of stuff they just made up. The guide says that Ganondorf is fifty years old, which is patently ridiculous since he's been alive for more than a hundred years by the time of Twilight Princess. The true king of Twilight isn't mentioned in the game in any form, and since Zant is the usurper, Midna was the legitimate heir to the throne anyway. The deal about "no male heirs" is pure conjecture. Ganondorfdude11 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The guides can't be used a prominent source for facts. Either support your claims with proof from the game or just don't mention it at all. 01:11, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again Ganondorfdude, don't take this the wrong way, but we've already been through this: Nintendo would not allow them to publish the information if it were not true. And deleting almost half the article after all that work and effort I find insulting. Editing it is one thing, but deleting just for the sake of deleting is another. If you will notice, I didn't delete or undo your edits before, I merely added to and improved upon them. I have tried to compromise by not reverting your edits, and I am willing to accept some of your proposed changes, however you could compromise a bit as well by not ramrodding everything. And Mandi, it is just as "factual" as the game if it's an official guide, I just don't see how one person's "opinion" of what is and isn't canon can dictate others. We've had other information from other guides and manuals on this wiki, and I don't see you contesting, for example, the ALttP manual's statements on Hyrulean history. The guide is an "official" source. And Ganondorfdude, perhaps you aren't clear on this: 50 years old is likely how old Ganondorf was when he ceased aging after acquiring the Triforce. Did you stop to think about that? Take note of that in the future. Link87 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are taking things a bit too personally. This page was too long, and I cut out all redundant, unimportant and conjectural information to make it flow better and not be so wordy and long-winded. Ganondorfdude11 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't take anything personally man, it's strictly business. But I can understand you wanting to shorten things and make it flow better, but that's no reason to cut half the article. And I did not put any "conjecture" into it, as there is no place for it. There were no other members of the Royal Family besides Midna in game, it is said the Twilit king didn't name Zant to the throne, so that set up Midna's selection for the position. That's an important bit of information in regards to the circumstances surrounding Zant's rise to power. Link87 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Twilight King is never mentioned in the game at all. Listen to what Mandi said. Don't use unofficial guides as fact sources, and quit reverting all the edits. Ganondorfdude11 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mandi is not the sole arbiter of what is and is not canon, and that would mean we would have to edit out ALL manual information or guide information on the wiki. You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Link87 05:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So essentially, you're going to ignore what an admin suggests if you don't like it? Ganondorfdude11 05:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection?
It appears this page needs to be protected, as an edit war is about to break out. Ganondorfdude11 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's no need for this, if you would just talk to me and try to find some common ground. I built this article from nothing, I put a lot into it, and while it is not my sole property, I do take pride in my work. I am more than willing to compromise on certain things, but you have to be willing to compromise too man. Didn't you even read anything I sent you?? Link87 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen to the admins. Page was too long, I cut it. Too many conjectures, I cut them. You say it isn't personal, yet you act differently. Ganondorfdude11 05:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not being fair here man, you have one admin that's stating an "opinion" that is not consistent with other examples of this on the wiki, hardly a plural number of people. You're the one being personal here. Link87 05:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xizor and Matt said the page was too long. Xizor and Mandi said it had too many conjectures. Ganondorfdude11 05:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An edit war has broken out. I'd say protection is really necessary now. Ganondorfdude11 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Figure something else out besides going back and forth. Thanks. --Xizor 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [12:30:40 AM] Heil Mein Grammar! (Xizor): That seems soemwhat legit.

[12:30:46 AM] Heil Mein Grammar! (Xizor): *somewhat [12:30:49 AM] Chris: That's what I thought too. [12:31:12 AM] Chris: No, it's not coming from Aenouma's mouth, but then again, he told us it takes place 100 years after OOT, and that's not in the game. [12:31:26 AM] Chris: Yet we still consider it canon b/c he said it. [12:31:49 AM] Chris: So I'm like you, if there is a source for it, specific and complete, I don't see anything wrong with it. [12:32:40 AM] Chris: I don't want to step on anyone's toes either, that's the last thing I want, but I do want to elaborate on something like this if there is proof to support it. [12:33:16 AM] Chris: Heck, there's probably a lot of people out there that wonder what the circumstances were behind the succession to the throne before Zant's coup. Link87 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Prima Games Guide Source
I say it should be removed for 3 reasons: 1. The guide was not authorized or published by Nintendo, and this information is not coming from a Nintendo guide published by NoA or a Nintendo affiliate. 2. The guide has patently false information in it, such as stating that Ganondorf is fifty years old when it's been over a hundred years since OoT. 3. The information cited is mentioned nowhere in the game. The previous ruler of the Twilight Realm could have easily been a queen. Ganondorfdude11 05:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All opinions, and thus not enough to dispute an official source. See the discussion below. Link87 05:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reaching a Consensus
An edit war has broken out on this page due to the objections of a few users who question the legitimacy of certain sources, and I would like to reach out and try to find a compromise/consensus here. Firstly, we use other forms of printed information on the wiki, such as game manuals (i.e. the ALttP manual detailing the Imprisoning War) and interviews (Eiji Aenouma has given such information as TP taking place 100 years after OOT) and it is considered canon. I don't follow clearly those who contest that official game guides previewed and approved by Nintendo are not considered canon. There is no official policy detailing what sources are acceptable, therefore this leaves discretion up to the users and places the burden of proof on them to produce a fairly legitimate source. In the absence of an official policy, I don't see how any one person's opinion can set a precedent for what is or is not acceptable. I can understand that they may give pause to some hardliners, but the fact of the matter is they are still official printed sources that had to be approved by Nintendo before publication. If Nintendo is not contesting the contents of these guides and approved them for publication, I see no reason why we, the fans, should. This is really open to a person's opinion, and that can be tricky as some may feel it is somewhat legitimate while others may not, but to me, if a credible quote/proof can be produced and sourced, I don't see anything wrong with that. As I said, I can understand some of your concerns and am willing to hear them and work with you to find common ground. I am also open to changes in the content of the article, as I have heard some don't like that it reads like a story. But I have to ask, how do you write about a historical event without it sounding like a story? Most history books and encyclopedias today are like storybooks with definitions and glossaries, so how can you really avoid it sounding like a story when you're telling the history of an event? I'm open to ideas. Link87 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not know that Nintendo editorially reviewed these guides before their release. We only know that they had no legal objections to their publication. This does not mean that they are canon. Are we to expect Nintendo to go over every page of a competitor guide manufacturer's guide and refuse to let them publish it because it mentioned a Twilight King? Note that said Twilight King is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the game. If we're to use these guides as canon, then I suppose official Nintendo-sanctioned material like the comics and manga are canon too, even if they contradict the games. Note that the same guide gives Ganondorf's age as fifty, which contradicts Eiji Aonuma's claim that TP takes place over 100 years after OoT. (Note that I switched the edit referring to the time between the games back after rereading the Aonuma interview, because his statements are canon). Ganondorfdude11 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's please use our common sense, of course they had to review them, it's a matter of trademark and copyrights. Prima would be in so much legal trouble if they didn't have Nintendo's sign-off on this. So let's not have any more of this questioning if Nintendo had to review it, b/c that's just how copyrights work Ganondorfdude. Why do you think they post "All characters, music, ect. are copyrights of Nintendo" at the end of every single game??? That means that anything that's published for monetary gain that involves those elements must have the copyright holder's (Nintendo's) approval first. And as I said, Nintendo has released seemingly contradictory information about the series since its inception. That's not unique to Prima. In regard to Ganondorf's age, let's think a little: Ganondorf appears to be about 50 in nearly every game we see him, yet it is known that hundreds of years separate the games, so how has he stopped aging all this time??? The Triforce of Power that has granted him near-immortality. We know from Daphnes Nohnasen Hyrule that hundreds of years pass between OOT and TWW, yet Ganondorf still retains his usual look, and for the same reason. So really your attempt to use that example is moot. The fact of the matter is this is still an official, printed source, and it is correctly sourced. Therefore, in the absence of a policy stating that it is illegal to use, I don't see how it should be disputed if a proper quote and page number have been produced for all to see. Link87 06:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look on the back of the book. Does it have the Nintendo Seal? I can think of tons of sources that have that seal yet are non-canon. Why should an unofficial source be canon when it even lacks the Nintendo Seal? You also assume that Nintendo editorially reviewed said guide book before it was published, when this has never been proven. Copyrights don't mean that the creators reviewed everything about the book, especially since Nintendo published a competing guide book at the same time. That one should receive precedence, not the Prima Games one. 99% of the Zelda fan community has the common sense to realize that anything not published or produced by Nintendo is non-canon. I suppose using your logic that the CD-i games are canon as well. Nintendo licensed them and signed off on their production, after all. Ganondorfdude11 15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris/Link87, the Prima guides are not a valid source of information. And the article doesn't need all this conjecture and made up theories. So much about the event we have no idea what happened. You can't just insert any random information as filler and call it good. That's called fan fiction and it is not allowed in articles. Plus this constant acting of owning these articles is not acceptable. That's got to end. If someone makes a change to an article, nothing gives you the right to assert that articles are your own domain. 15:53, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The guides are not a canon source of information. Heck, even the images in this article contradicted what the text was stating later on. 15:59, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt and Mandi, I respect your opinions on the matter and I know the guides may not seem canon to some, but the fact of the matter is that is a matter of opinion. Simply saying something is not canon as a matter of opinion does not make it true, and I have put no theories or conjecture into any article to my knowledge, and if I have, I would agree that it be reworded to make it otherwise. But neither of you has provided a legitimate reason beyond opinions to discredit the source, and we do take other written materials such as manuals and books as canon in other instances here. I still do not see how either of you can discredit this source when this book was made specially for the game itself, not a manga or storybook, it was for the GAME itself, even giving pictures and a detailed walkthrough for the game. I also noticed the Nintendo seal on the packaging for the guide when I bought it, that proves to me that Nintendo did indeed view this guide before it was published, as they must with all of them. I do not believe Ganondorfdude11 understands copyright/trademark laws or he just isn't willing to acknowledge that they do work a certain way. Nintendo had to see this guide before publication, there would have been legal trouble had they not. I do not write fan fiction, so please do not insinuate that I do. And I will thank you to quit trying to act like I'm saying I "own" the articles, b/c I made it very clear above that I do not, but I will not be ramrodded on a project which I have been working and have no say-so in it, b/c I took the initiative to begin it. Ganondorfdude11 just came in at the tail-end and acts like HE owns it, and refuses to compromise on final edits to it. It's either his way or no way, and I do not accept that. Neither of you have said a word to him about this, so until you do, I'm afraid I don't give much credibility to what either of you are saying until you show impartiality in this case. And by the same token, nothing gives you the right to assert that I'm doing things I really am not. This is not meant to mean any disrespect to either of you, but neither of you have shown impartiality here. All you have given are opinions, and since you have no official policy to discount this properly sourced quote, you have not produced any reason that it be removed. Even Nick said that it is somewhat legitimate and that as long as it was properly sourced, it was fine with him. I stand by what I've said, that you have not provided any policy that states this source cannot be used, that all you've offered are opinions, and that is not enough to discredit an official source. Link87 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * However. We have stated that the guides are not an official source.

" The guides are not a canon source of information. Heck, even the images in this article contradicted what the text was stating later on."
 * Such as...
 * "The Twili army eventually even reached the gates of the fortified Hyrule Castle Town itself, invading the city and forcing the surrender of its inhabitants. Once the city was firmly under his control, Zant turned his attention to the stately Hyrule Castle just beyond the city's main square." Which was a quote taken directly from this article before it was trimmed.
 * Clearly, as we can see from the images, it did not happen like that. Yet you claim it as fact. If you can't support your claims with in-game proof, don't even bother to state it.
 * Also, this defiant attitude is unacceptable. Continue this, and I will not hesitate to block you, sir. 20:00, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Mandi, making threats is not going to get you anywhere with me, I'm just being honest. You are the one raising tensions here, I am not. I am defiant b/c I'm speaking my mind, and that's not against the law. I mean you no disrespect, but you are taking everything out of context, and you are only proving to me that my suspicions are correct: that this is just another attempt to bait me and get rid of me. This is why I have a hard time trusting some of you, b/c I don't know half the time whether or not your intentions are honorable or personally motivated. You can't fault me for that, given what I've seen of what you've said about me behind the scenes. Where were you a week ago, when I first wrote this article?? Why did you not raise these concerns then?? Why just now all of a sudden you're so up in arms?? You only chimed in when someone else tried to just rip the whole article apart. If it was so wrongfully done, why didn't some of you say anything when it was first written?? And why did you not give me a heads-up and just ask me to rewrite it if it wasn't to your standards??? And yes, obviously Zant's army invaded the city, they had to in order to reach the castle. Simply b/c the citizens weren't being beaten down by the Shadow Beasts doesn't mean they didn't invade the city, obviously they did. You didn't see the people offering any resistance either. I even said I was willing to rewrite certain parts, but you just take it on yourself to blow past my offers of compromise and side with the other party without regard to seeking compromise as you are supposed to do. And you have not given any true reason why the source citing Midna's father shouldn't be used beyond opinion. To me, it appears you are trying to change the subject b/c you know I'm right, there is no policy prohibiting its use, and as long as it's properly sourced, even Nick said it was okay to use it as it is somewhat legitimate. Link87 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'''This really needs to stop, right now. We are working on establishing a comprehensive, inclusive, yet loyal criterion for what is canon and what is not. I'm asking on behalf of the entire staff, and at the request of a few admins, that this discussion cease. Chris, when our policy is outlined and finalized, I fully expect you to go along with it. This belligerent attitude cannot persist. If it does, I cannot guarantee that you will be allowed to stay here. We have ways of doing things, and you need to go with it. Thank you.''' --Xizor 20:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick, I agree that if there is a genuine policy to follow, it should be followed. And yes, I will abide by it, but I do not accept personal opinion as the rule of law. Even you agreed with me that a source such as this is somewhat legitimate, and everyone has a different opinion about it. If it is the decision of the ruling council that a new policy outlining acceptable sources be adopted, then of course I shall abide by it. But I am not the only one being belligerent here, as others have shown personal motivations behind this whole ordeal. I agree that the discussion cease, but I want it made clear that I am more than willing to abide by policy when there IS a written policy. But I will not be talked to like a dog and threatened either, that is not fair to me. It's insulting. Link87 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category suggestion
Uh, well, I know things are getting fierce on these parts; I'm just going to suggest something inoffensive. Don't you think this article should be included in the Wars category? It's a fight between Zant's forces of darkness and Zelda's forces of justice. --K2L 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, seems like the article is long forgotten. Nowadays, the only thing I would like to know is how much of the subject the article actually covers. Two thirds of it currently deal with events that are described already in Overthrow of Midna and, with very little about the invasion by Zant. Is there something that can be done in this case? -- 11:20, 2 February 2011 (EST)
 * The page is not protected at this point, so feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary or would benefit the article. That includes removing information you think is redundant, and adding information you think is necessary. --Xizor 05:06, 7 February 2011 (EST)
 * OK, I'll see what I can do. -- 15:29, 7 February 2011 (EST)
 * Pal, it's ready at last; I removed the Ganondorf section because he's not directly related to the invasion, and his execution (taken place 100 years ago) is even more unrelated. The part where Midna is overthrown nis left because that's indeed the very basis of the invasion (a Main list is left there for further reading). A new section detailing the direct consequences of the invasion was added: The eruptions, the river freeze, you know the drill. A short Aftermath section concludes the page. If there are more ways to improve the article, they're more than welcome to be put in practice. Godspeed -- 16:05, 7 February 2011 (EST)
 * I almost forgot to say that this isn't a war in the strict sense of the word, so adding the Wars category wasn't necessary after all. --
 * Good work! :) --Xizor 06:18, 8 February 2011 (EST)