Talk:Demon

FSA *Ancient Demon Reborn* Translation
Apparently some people have said that NOA mistranslationed when they said that Ganon/Ganondorf from FSA was the *Ancient Demon Reborn*, but that's only because they where looking at this http://forums.legendsalliance.com/topic/14202-translation-of-japanese-game-texts/page__st__1230#entry429274. However, my Friend StarFumu from Youtube confirmed that it wasn't a mistranslation at all, she subs episodes for Kirby of the Stars on Youtube and I turned to her when I made a translation of that text too http://i.imgur.com/l82VI.png. She replied and said I was mainly correct and she gave me her direct translation of that phrase from the Japanese version of that game http://i.imgur.com/dJpFN.png. This proves that there is more than one way to translate Japanese text, it could be refering to the Trident of Darkness, BUT, it could also be refering to Ganon as well, NOA translated it refering to Ganon. --Vaati The Wind Demon 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the translators in LA (Jumbie and Jacensolo) were also fluent and a Japanese guy (MikePeterSucks) agreed with their translation that's why I made this edit. Also, in OoT Demise was not reincarnated, rather his hatred was what "corrupted" Ganondorf. Zeldafan1982 19:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the hatred part being reincarnated, since SS was Demise's only appearance, however, Japanese is a pretty complex language, many sentences can be translated into English and put together in many ways, Jumbie, Jacensolo, and MikePeterSucks should have mention that when they made translations as well. --Vaati The Wind Demon 19:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The translation was only part of the reason I made the edit. Even if it is properly translated I think that this part "Ganondorf, originally a Gerudo, became the Demon King Ganon after claiming the Triforce of Power by allowing the rebirth of an ancient demon inside of him." should be changed to something like: "Ganondorf, originally a Gerudo, became the Demon King Ganon after claiming the Triforce of Power. He is a manifestation of Demise's hatred." Zeldafan1982 21:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right but Hyrule Historia did say that FSA Ganondorf was a different Ganondorf than the one from OOT, but he is OOT's Ganondorf's reincarnation and anonther manifestation of Demise's wrath which does make the *Ancient Demon Reborn* thing true. --Vaati The Wind Demon 21:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where we disagree. Demise was not reincarnated as Ganondorf, but his hatred was. The way it is currently written it is as if Demise himself was reincarnated. Also, since HH confirms that Ganon is reincarnated in FSA (still carrying Demise's hatred of course) we don't need the quote from FSA. We can refer to HH instead. Zeldafan1982 22:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this one using my humble japanese skills... I generally agree with Vaati The Wind Demon and his friend. I think what throws most translators off is this term '邪器'(じゃき). I can't find it on any dictionary but if you take the two kanji components literally this would translate to 邪('wicked') and 器(instrument, tool, utensil, vessel etc.). So I think Jumbie and Jacensolo probably thought it would refer to the Trident but I don't know why it shouldn't refer to Ganon himself. Another thing to note is that Google translates '邪器' to 'evil' in both chinese and japanese which would mean the same as the more common term '邪気'(じゃき). Could be a typo or maybe it's a more unfamiliar sino-japanese term. What makes it more clear to me that it refers to Ganon and not to the Trident is the comma. Commas in japanese aren't that frequently used and the rules are less strict than in english. However it usually always means that something is seperated. Other than that there's really not much to mistranslate in this sentence if taken literally.

'闇の王(King of Darkness)…　太古から(from ancient times)　よみがえった(reborn)　魔の邪器(Demon of Evil)、(seperation!) トライデント(Trident) を 手にした(obtained, took)男(man)!'

So If I had to translate this sentence into english while being most literal I would probably do it like this...

'King of Darkness... evil demon reborn from ancient times, (and) the man who took the Trident.'

Like I said, just my two cents and something to think about. I think NOA got it right after all. Bakeneko 06:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The translation discrepancy comes from 器, which can be translated as either vessel or device/instrument. Which means you can either translate it as:
 * King of Darkness... the demon's evil vessel reborn from ancient times, the man who took the trident.
 * King of Darkness... the man who took the trident, the demon's evil tool restored from ancient times.
 * Regardless of whether using vessel or instrument, the "...that was reborn/restored/resurrected from ancient times" applies to it. However, due to the sentence rearranging required for the second translation and that seems to be a little strange to be referring to the trident as having been restored from ancient times (not just from ancient times), I think the first translation is more likely. The sentence probably has a clear meaning to native Japanese speakers, but to non-native translators it seems ambiguous. Pretty much what Bakeneko said, but I had this typed up before he posted and didn't want to waste it. -- Snorlax Monster  07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I totally agree.
 * King of Darkness... the demon's evil vessel reborn from ancient times, the man who took the trident.
 * That's pretty much what I meant when saying that 器 can also refer to Ganon. It would practically mean that this sentence refers to Ganon being the 'wicked vessel' or 'instrument' of Demise or it refers to just another reincarnation of Ganon himself. I was and I'm still unsure though, since I have never seen this term 邪器 being used in Japanese before, so I decided not to further elaborate on it. Bakeneko 07:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither have I. And like you, I ended up looking up the characters individually. I agree that it looks like NoA got it right. Since Japanese doesn't use plurals, it could easily be "King of Darkness... the evil instrument of demons that was reborn from ancient times, the man who took the trident.", which doesn't carry the same implication of Demise, just that he has been used by demons (which he has). In fact, it would be probably better to substitute in demons for demon's in my other translations, as that seems to make more sense. -- Snorlax Monster'  07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think -ら at the end of a word　can be used for plural, but they don't have to use it, so you're right. That's the problem with the context-based nature of this language but I think japanese always expect the listener to guess the obvious and here you have to refresh my memory, thou. When was Ganon ever being used by demons? Bakeneko 08:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that his followers have been manipulating him. So rather than being essentially controlled by Demise, he has been constantly manipulated by demons to obtain the Triforce, eliminate Link, etc. It's really open to interpretation though. And yeah, I know there are ways to denote plurals in Japanese, but they aren't required in most contexts and aren't used that often. -- Snorlax Monster  09:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I still don't know what you mean. From the 16 Zelda games out there, I have played 12 and I never feeled that Ganon was being used by demons in some way. Ganon as the 大魔王　is the one who is controlling demons but I don't know where the opposite is the case. Anyways, I think we can agree on the fact, that we consider the NoA translation as seemingly more fitting in context. Bakeneko 11:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bakeneko. His followers never manipulate him, rather he is the one as a demon king who commands his minions and manipulates others. It is in a sense correct to say though that he has been manipulated by Demise since it's possible that he wouldn't be the man he is if he didn't carry Demise's hatred. Zeldafan1982 22:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Two Demon Kings at the same time
Although there is no game featuring two of them, if we take into account that Malladus was sealed ages before Tetra's crew arrived in New Hyrule, it can be inferred that before Ganon was killed in TWW, Malladus was alive (sealed). So two demon kings can be alive at the same time. Given that, I don't see how Malladus could carry Demise's hatred. Ganon would need to be permanently dead first in order for Demise's hatred to leave Ganon and "corrupt" Malladus or anyone else. It's also questionable whether Ganon can be permanently dead. Zeldafan1982 22:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I never meant to imply that it was possible for a Demon King to permanently die (although since the FSA Ganon is a reincarnation of the old one, the previous one must have permanently died). Also, the intro of Spirit Tracks seems to imply that the war happened while or just before the settlers arrived:
 * "Finally, the spirits subdued the Demon King, though they could not destroy him. Their powers were greatly depleted. With their remaining power, they buried his spirit in a dark, dark realm. They built shackles to imprison him, along with a tower that acted as a lock. These shackles cover the land to this day. With their power drained the spirits returned to the heavens. Suddenly bereft of both demons and spirits, the land was entrusted to us."
 * I found 2 quotes for the Castle Town resident, and I'm too far through the game to check (he says something different now), so I assume one is the NoA translation and one is the NoE one:
 * ""It's said that our kingdom was established about a hundred years ago... But I hear that the Spirit Tracks are even older than the kingdom. And did you know that they all meet at the Tower of Spirits that's nearby? It's all very mysterious, don't you think?"
 * "By the way, do you know anything about these tracks? People say they've been around since before we came here. But how could that be?"
 * Hyrule Historia says:
 * "Tetra and the pirates continued sailing and had finally found a new continent. There, stood a tall tower called Tower of the Gods around which were godly tracks that had been laid."
 * So for all of these statements to be true, the spirits had just sealed Malladus then basically led the Hyrulean settlers to the new continent so they could care for it. So this does not mean that Malladus existed at the same time as Ganon (although he probably did). Regardless, the point of the statement was that two had never appeared in the same game, not that two had never existed at the same time. -- Snorlax Monster  00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had concluded that based on these quotes, especially the second:
 * "The Tower of Spirits: Used to seal away the Demon King in the distant past."
 * "Anjean: In ancient times, this sage of the Lokomo tribe were sent to the land by the spirits of good. She guards the Spirit Tower and is acquainted with the pirate Tetra."


 * But I guess it could be that Anjean was sent before the war with Malladus. Anyway, I find more likely that Malladus was alive before Ganon was killed in TWW. If not, then when the spirit war took place he would have to be very small in age. Zeldafan1982 12:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that the event was ancient is because to them it was a long time ago. Also, it's possible Malladus didn't gain the title of Demon king until after Ganon's death (it makes more sense than Malladus being incredibly young). Regardless, whether or not two Demon Kings were alive at once isn't really relevant; the point was that two hadn't appeared in the same game. -- Snorlax Monster  14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a "Maou" or demon king basically just requires that you have a "mazoku" (demon tribe) to lead, and a "makai" (demon realm) to rule. If you've played a game like Disgaea, there are tons of maou at any one time. I suppose the implication is that there'd only be one "supreme maou" at any one time, but are Ganon or Malladus ever actually called that?KrytenKoro 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Ganon gets called 大魔王 Dai Maō, which I suppose could be taken as "supreme demon king". Of course, I'm not sure this distinction you draw is accurate, as what you seem to be describing is the role Ghirahim took, but he had the title (Demon Lord). Likewise, Zant had a demon army in his command and a demon realm, but it was still Ganon who was the Demon King. The most baffling one is the Genie though, who I am still confused as to how it is a Demon King. -- Snorlax  Monster  16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there really is a distinction: as long as you're a demon in charge of other demons and some kind of hellish territory, you qualify as a demon king for the purposes of japanese fantasy fiction. There's no implication of there being only one supreme demon in such fiction, as there usually is with "The Devil", and it's more on the level of the demons of the seven deadly sins, or other such minor nobles of Hell, if the maou are even considered to be part of the same system rather than living in totally distinct paradigms. Basically, if you look at Disgaea, it illustrates pretty quickly that the Ganon/Malladus thing isn't a contradiction.KrytenKoro 21:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Different Japanese names for different types of demons
So when I was writing this page I was also preparing this table for the different Japanese words for demon. However, after almost finishing it, I ended up losing it to a browser crash. I had given up on doing it, but I feel like it needs to be done so here it is:

Unchecked: Uncle Rupee, Chancellor Cole, Demon Fossil, Batreaux -- Snorlax Monster  13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the ones using "ma", that's actually more of an adjective than a noun ("demonic", instead of "demon"). "Akuma" would be the real signifier for "this creature is actually a flesh-and-blood demon, rather than just some dude who acts pretty evil."KrytenKoro 14:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the problem is that 魔 ma can also just be used to mean magic when used in the right compounds, and in a lot of cases just means "demonic". Which makes it difficult to tell what are actually demons. -- Snorlax Monster  16:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalfos, etc.
It would be a good idea to take a look at the original Japanese word used, as it's likely to have just been "Majuu", which would just be "monster", rather than implying an actual infernal creature as with "Majin", "Maou", or "Akuma".KrytenKoro (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Did many Demon Kings exist prior to Skyward Sword?
So there is indeed this quote in Hyrule Historia which claims that: "Not all residents of the Surface are friendly. Some are the subordinates of the demon kings from ancient wars. Since the demise of the demon kings, their numbers have multiplied, and now they are destroying the Surface" (page 59). The problem is though that Japanese (as far as I know) doesn't make a distinction between singular and plural and this translation must have been the decision of the translator. The timeline section of Hyrule Historia doesn't make a mention of other demon kings existing prior to Skyward Sword apart from Demise. So, I think we should disregard this as a mistranslation. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Demon King isn't an official title. Basically any strong demon/evil being can be called a Demon King. You think Ganondorf was appointed the King of Demons?


 * So yea, it's hard to say whether or not there were more before/after Demise, or even if the other Demon Kings were servants of Demise. There's really no way to know. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The word used is probably "Maou", which can also be translated as "Demon Lord", which would include Malladus and is in general just talking about demons who are "in charge" of a group.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that any strong demon can be called a maou. Demise, Ganon, Malladus are demon kings for example. Also, two demon kings can exist at the same time. The quote from the book refers to SS though, and according to the translation it says that prior to SS others existed apart from Demise. Skyward Sword and the timeline section of the book mention only Demise. Given that Japanese doesn't make a distinction between singular and plural, I assume that the same passage could be translated like that: "Not all residents of the Surface are friendly. Some are the subordinates of the demon king from the ancient war. Since the demise of the demon king, their numbers have multiplied, and now they are destroying the Surface". I'm questioning the validity of the translation, that is all. To make a proper translation from Japanese one needs to understand the context well, knowledge of the language is not enough. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple demon kings exist in the canon, and without a direct statement from the authors, there's nothing in that sentence that would be a contextual clue for whether singular or plural was correct. Therefore, since the line was written in an official publication intended to set down canon, it should be treated as such until retconned. As long as we provide a citation, we suffer nothing for accepting this at face value.KrytenKoro (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Spirit Tracks seems to indicate that Malladus was sealed a pretty dang long time ago, judging on how primitive the humans were depicted in the backstory.KrytenKoro (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that sentence, indeed, there isn't enough context. What about Skyward Sword or the timeline section of the book though? They don't mention another demon king prior to Skyward Sword. The Japanese version of Hyrule Historia is definitely canon. The official translation contains some mistranslations though, so we have to decide whether this translation is the correct one or not. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, based on the game canon and the line, there's no reason to assume it was a mistranslation. Even SS has Ghirahim.KrytenKoro (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ghirahim is not a maou though, he serves one. I think we can agree that the Japanese version is canon, and that the translation is also canon, as long as it is done properly. Now, to say that there could be other demon kings apart from Demise, so the translation is valid, is incorrect in my view. The available context, (SS and the timeline section of the book) talk about one demon king and one war prior to SS. Given that, the translator should have translated it differently. Based on the context, "Not all residents of the Surface are friendly. Some are the subordinates of the demon king from the ancient war. Since the demise of the demon king, their numbers have multiplied, and now they are destroying the Surface", is preferable. Anyway, I don't think I have anything else to add. It can be decided by consensus whether it stays or not. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, though, we know there are other, unrelated demon kings implied to have been around at the same time, i.e., Malladus.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Malladus is not related to Demise and that he is ancient, but as of yet we don't have any info that he attacked Hyrule prior to SS. We know for sure that he launched an attack in another continent. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so instead of moving the whole bit to a trivia section, a trivia bullet could be included mentioning only that the original quote could have been translated differently. Translation issues are supposed to be included in a trivia section. Again, what I'm suggesting is that the quote could be translated like that: "Not all residents of the Surface are friendly. Some are the subordinates of the demon king from the ancient war. Since the demise of the demon king, their numbers have multiplied, and now they are destroying the Surface" instead of "Not all residents of the Surface are friendly. Some are the subordinates of the demon kings from ancient wars. Since the demise of the demon kings, their numbers have multiplied, and now they are destroying the Surface". There is no reason to assume that the translation is perfect, since there are other instances in the book where the translation is clearly flawed. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it needs to be a trivia bullet. The section as is already notes that the intent of the original Japanese line is uncertain.
 * As for reason to assume the translation is accurate, we do have one: the English translation was published as an official part of the Zelda series with Nintendo's approval. They are completely able to retcon it later, but the current English translation is neither obviously incorrect nor obviously contradicting the games. As it stands, the idea that there was only one demon king is the speculation, without solid basis in the canon.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the translation was made under the supervision of Aonuma or another expert on the canon, I wouldn't insist on this issue. The problem is that there are some blatant errors in HH, which leads me to think that they just gave it to Dark Horse to translate it. I'm not blaming the translators by the way, it's Nintendo's fault. As an example of an obvious mistake I'm citing this quote from page 76: "Fi’s role as Link’s guide is complete. The Master Sword and its spirit, Fi, are returned to their resting place in the pedestal inside the Statue of the Goddess. Impa returns to the past and continues to look after the Master Sword and protect it from the curse." Just compare it to the unofficial translation from GlitterBerri's site: "Fi also fulfilled her role and her contract with Link was dissolved. The Master Sword was returned to its pedestal, and enters a long slumber along with Fi. Impa stays in the Past in order to watch over the sword, ensuring the complete eradication of Demise’s residual conciousness." There are some instances even in the games themselves where the official translation is inaccurate (it's not only ALttP, but also some quotes from TP and TWW primarily). Anyway, what I get is that Japanese is not the easiest language to translate from.
 * As it is now, we are assuming that the translator got it right. The translator only made a guess though. Given the context the same quote could have been translated using singular nouns and I think this should be mentioned.
 * "I don't see why it needs to be a trivia bullet. The section as is already notes that the intent of the original Japanese line is uncertain." You mean as it is right now? I don't think so. The rule I'm referring to is at the bottom of this page. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, well then per the canon policy it shouldn't be mentioned at all, because we're not talking about a significant difference between the two versions, we're talking about a theoretical alternate interpretation that lacks support from the series canon.
 * Yes, we're assuming that the translator got it right. We're also assuming (I hope), that we are not actually being contracted by Nintendo to translate and publish the Zelda canon in an officially-approved capacity. Dark Horse was. Dark Horse, therefore, trumps our guesses, as well as our guesses into how the book was translated or whether it was approved. I mean...the logic we're relying on right now would also allow us to say "it's possible to argue that the Pegasus Boots should be translated as the Pegasus Boot, and that Link is hopping on one foot as he runs".
 * Regarding the line about Fi, are you talking about it confusing the pedestal within the Statue of the Goddess with the pedestal a few hundred feet away from the Statue of the Goddess? That seems like a very minor mistake, certainly smaller than stuff that's been retconned even within the original Japanese material over the course of the series.
 * I get where you're coming from, and I assume that if I was responsible for translating the work, and only had access to the info I have now, I would have translated it as "demon king" because I probably would have forgotten about Spirit Tracks. But there's nothing outside of the Historia to indicate the translation is in error, and we're not privy to the same information the translators were to even be able to say for sure that they did their job incompetently. If you step back and take a look at your request, you should see that it is some pretty sever extrapolation and accusations based on basically nothing.KrytenKoro (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How does my suggestion lack support from the canon? I'm talking about one demon king and one war prior to SS. This is what SS and the chronology section of HH say. The translator assumed for some reason that there were many. Just because he (arbitrarily I'd say) assumed that, doesn't make it canon. This is the point. Malladus launched an attack in another continent. There is no reason to assume that he was in Hyrule at that point. The less assumptions we make the better. Also, I'm not the only one who believes that the translation of HH has some errors. Ask Fizzle for example! Regarding the quote: The Statue of the Gooddess was not on the surface at that point. Also, Impa stays in the past. Clearly the translator hadn't played the game. Another mistake is on page 104. It says: "Seeing more promise in Princess Zelda, he passed on the Triforce on her in secret." Of course what was passed was the location of the Triforce, not the Triforce itself. The FSA section says that Link was searching for the Light Force. Force or Force gems would be better. Also, the Elemental Sanctuary is assumed to be the Four Sword Sanctuary. Most likely it isn't. On a side note, have you checked the re-translations from LA? Many mistakes have been discovered there as well. Anyway, I think you are putting too much faith on the validity of the translation of the book and this seems to be the main reason we disagree. Perhaps we should ask someone who owns the book to make a re-translation of this passage? I know that Fizzle owns it, but he is currently inactive. I could ask Snow to re-translate this passage I guess. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It lacks support because there's nothing in the canon saying there's only one.
 * The Statue is part of the Temple, and is returned there by the end of the game. It's an error, absolutely, but honestly not a huge one.
 * I'd have to see the original Japanese section to judge the translation for the Triforce bit.
 * Light Force and Force Gems are the same thing in Japan, and should be the same thing on the wiki.
 * I don't see how treating the Elemental and Four Sword Sanctuaries as the same is an error, as they're pretty clearly linked by the games. I'd have to check the original Historia to see if it says they are explicitly separate.
 * No, I'm not relying on "faith in the translation". I'm relying on three things:


 * 1) The book was published as a translation in an official capacity.
 * 2) The line is not provably wrong.
 * 3) Amateur translators may think they have a better translation, and may even have more skill as translators, but the fact remains that the writers of the Historia, and its translators, had access to resources that we do not, so it's plausible that where we disagree, we are ignorant.
 * Retranslating the passage isn't likely to change anything because Japanese does not often specify plurality; the only thing that could confirm it one way or the other would be particles explicitly stating it as a plural.
 * It is inherently irresponsible for a wiki to assume the position that a published, canon part of the fiction, even if it can be proved to contain a few errors, is completely in error even where it does not explicitly contradict the other entries, and a blanket position of "let's always assume the Historia is unreliable" would require us to just throw the thing out wholesale and not mention it at all. That's not a statement of "faith in the translators", because there isn't a "true history" of Zelda; it's fiction, and the current canon is whatever the authors are presently going with (this means that, since the Historia was released after Skyward Sword, it should technically be taken as the most current canon...) -- it's a statement of accepting official sources as official, and noting contradictions only when they can also be sourced. Otherwise, I might as well start claiming "Tentalus was really an alligator, Skyward Sword just got that wrong," etc. It's arguably acceptable to make a (minor) note that the Japanese line has ambiguity, but...well, I'm still somewhat iffy with that, because we could apply that thinking to virtually everything in the series, and we'd still be assuming that the translators are not privy to special knowledge. I definitely do not think it would be giving due weight to the hypothesis if we called attention to it by making it a separate trivia point. If we could point to a line in Skyward Sword that said something along the lines of "Demise is the one and only king of the demons," then all-ships-ahoy on calling it a contradiction, I'd be right on board with you. In the absence of a smoking gun like that, though, I can't support it.
 * So, to summarize:


 * I agree that, on its own, the Japanese line could be translated either way.
 * I do not agree that the chosen translation is obviously wrong, even though it seems to be primarily talking about Demise.
 * I do not agree that we should be casting doubt on any official source, unless we can confirm an explicit contradiction with another source (be that another entry, or another official language version).KrytenKoro (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Light Force and Force Gems are the same thing in Japan, and should be the same thing on the wiki." The source of the power is the same but Zelda apparently carries more of it or a stronger form of it (whatever). Every creature has (life) force but Zelda's is supposed to be more special. "I don't see how treating the Elemental and Four Sword Sanctuaries as the same is an error, as they're pretty clearly linked by the games." The thing is that the Elemental Sanctuary is located between Hyrule and the Minish World, while the Four Sword Sanctuary is located in Hyrule (according to the FS backstory). "The line is not provably wrong." The problem is that it ignores the context. In this case the context is that between the creation of the world and SS one demon king is mentioned and one war. The translation assumes more than the context provides, so it assumes more than it should. My understanding is that this is not a good practice when translating from Japanese. The choice of plural nouns seems arbitrary. Here's the reply I got from Snow anyway: "Japanese can be somewhat problematic in that it rarely specifies whether a noun is plural or singular. There are terms which can be used to indicate plural, but even those aren't actually necessary. Therefore, I can't say with 100% certainty what HH intends to convey, but it should be noted that the Japanese translation makes a point of clarifying that the subordinates are plural but does no such thing for the Demon King(s). Moreover, the term Demon King itself (Maou in Japanese) is almost exclusively used as a replacement for the name Ganon (or Demise) in the Zelda series. Therefore, based on context, I would say that there is no reason to pluralize neither "Demon King" nor "ancient wars" in that paragraph. I would have used singular myself." Zeldafan1982 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Force Gem" and "Light Force" are literally called the same exact thing in the Japanese games. They're not just implied to be the same essence. Zelda has goddess-level Force, true.
 * It wouldn't be a huge retcon to say the boundary shifted, and it really is already implied by the games.
 * One, we've already covered several times that Malladus is also called 魔王; technically, the Genie from LA is also called 魔王. Two, I don't think you're getting my point -- we can, in discussion, make as much noise as we want about what the translation "should probably be". But unless we can point to an explicit contradiction, it is fundamentally responsible for it to become anything more than just that, noise. When we start allowing the negation of completely official translations based on our own interpretations, no matter how minor the original translation seems to be, then we're focusing more on fanon than canon. Look, you really, really don't have to tell me about how translating plurals works -- most of what I do on the internet is translating Japanese for fansites. The grammar here is not my point, responsible use of sources is.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you know Japanese. Nevertheless, I posted Snow's comment because he has the Japanese version of HH and has also done a lot of translating. Regarding the sources, we should focus on the Japanese versions. In fact there is a contradiction, because the translated version refers to ancient wars. According to the chronology section and SS there was a single war. Anyway, what I'm suggesting now (as a sort of compromise) is that there should be a trivia mentioning the possibility that the quote was not properly translated, although personally I'm confident that it was a mistranslation. The justification is that the translation ignores the context. Again, SS and the chronology section mention one demon king and one war prior to SS. This is the context the translator should have used to translate this line. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree with saying it was translated "improperly". At best, the trivia note should say it "could" be translated differently. Only mentioning one war is not really usable as a contradiction, as the series is basically built on finding any period that hasn't been explicitly covered and stuffing another game in it. Hell, the Historia doesn't even leave room for ALBW in the timeline. If it said that there was definitely only one, that would be different.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)