Talk:Great Cataclysm

Relevance?
This article seems irrelevant, considering that there is already an article on the Imprisoning War, and half of the page is somebody's theory, anyway. Also, the inscription on the Master Sword in ALttP seems to imply that the cataclysm hasn't happened yet, so most of the quotes referring to the prophecy of the cataclysm are talking about something that hasn't happened yet, so it's not an event that happened during the ALttP backstory or OoT. It's also been tagged since December 07 and never improved. Move for deletion?Ganondorfdude11 04:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Ganondorfdude11


 * Okay, it's cool that people added stuff, but why is it all marked as theory?Ganondorfdude11 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would presume it was added because it was felt that the article was more speculation on events than fact, but if you feel it is a fact based article, I don't disagree with the removing of it. 04:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll pare down the theorizing and plot summary and add a theory section for those who think the MS inscription refers to OoT Link. In the context of the game, the prophecy refers only to ALttP Link, though.Ganondorfdude11 04:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Book of Mudora

 * Aginah specifically mentions that part of the prophecy states that the Hero will use the Book of Mudora. Whoever is removing this canonical information is apparently wanting to turn this into a fan-theory page, which it is not for.Ganondorfdude11 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pure insanity, b/c this guy doesn't even get it that the Book of Mudora has nothing to do with the theory concerning OOT. It doesn't even have much of any relevancy in ALttP. It proves/disproves nothing. The guy above doesn't want his views disproven. Link87 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Lock
This page has been locked for one (1) day to prevent further editing in the "edit war". It will relocked if this continues to peruse, and further actions will be taken. 04:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Theory section
Does this theory section conform to the theory guidelines?


 * 1) The basis of the theory, that the Cataclysm prophecy spoke of OoT Link, is only based on the non-canonical manga, because OoT Link is never confirmed outside of the manga to be of the bloodline of the Knights.
 * 2) It does not cite its sources.
 * 3) It outright ignores contradictory evidence pertaining to the prophecy about the Book of Mudora.

Doesn't this mean that it shouldn't be on the page due to violating the guidelines of Zelda Wiki?Ganondorfdude11 05:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, as it has legitimate evidence to back it up and acknowledges that while the manga is unofficial, it is still noteworthy as it was intended to fill in some of the gaps left in the story of the game. And only a small part of the theory is based upon that, so you really have no case there. I do not know how to cite sources, especially from a book. If I am assisted in this, I would be more than glad to do it. And your ludicrous rantings about the Book of Mudora do not even APPLY here, it's not even RELEVANT. You're making a bit of a fool out of yourself b/c it doesn't even fit in with what the theory is saying. You have no case here. The theory is under a theory section, it has evidence to support it, and there is a substantial number of fans that do seem to support it. So you really have no case beyond making citations, which can be done easily with instruction. Your true motivation behind this is obvious in this statement:


 * "If a theory is wrong, it shouldn't be on the page. It is not your personal theorizing page. Ganondorfdude11 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * Well this is not your personal theory page either, and you are not the series creator, therefore you have no discretion to determine what theories are right and wrong. You need to learn to be more respectful of others' views and be willing to compromise.Link87 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not need to create a flame war on the talk page. I am simply following the guidelines regarding placing theories in articles. The guidelines state that "When considering adding a theory to an article, it is best to propose the theory on the corresponding talk page, to allow its veracity and relevance can be discussed and a decision reached. " Theories are not sacrosanct, theories need to be discussed before being added to an article. Because this is an encyclopedia, the majority of the article should be about facts, not theories.Ganondorfdude11 05:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And we have a specific policy for theories b/c they are still legal to include if they have the support to sustain them. Your true reasoning for all this was given above, and you know you have no case. Oh, and no "flaming"? Considering you were the one that was doing all the flaming, insulting other Zelda fans and calling me names and making pointless rants about why no theories should be included other than yours??? I'm not surprised you don't want to bring that up again, you got a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease from that exchange, and you revealed that the real reason you vandalized the page was simply b/c the theory doesn't agree with your own views. And if you were so worried about "following guidelines" that by the way don't "require" them to be brought to the talk page, then why did you not delete it from the start? Why did you just try to edit it to your specifications? That discredits your claims right there. You weren't interested in guidelines, you were interested in keeping your own views from being disproven.


 * "Said other community is a laughable mockery of a wiki. Ganondorfdude11 04:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * "This is not Zeldapedia, which prints fan theories as articles. Ganondorfdude11 04:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * "If a theory is wrong, it shouldn't be on the page. It is not your personal theorizing page. Ganondorfdude11 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * Hmmm, now does that sound like being interested in "following guidelines"? I think not. Link87 05:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The new guidelines say you should bring up a theory on the talk page and let other people discuss it. It is not your wiki, and we don't need to get into personal attacks here. My opinion of Zeldapedia has no bearing on the status of this theory. You seem to want to punish me for my opinion about another community that I felt was inferior to this one. Do not forget that you came to my talk page and started the argument you are quoting there. These personal attacks do not need to continue any longer.Ganondorfdude11 05:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, this gets goofier as we go. The "guidelines" do not "require" a theory to be brought anywhere, it merely suggests it. And the theory meets all other requirements except your own personal standards. Do not forget you are the one that started the whole ordeal by trying to first edit the theory section to what you wanted and then when you saw you couldn't keep it that way, you just up and decided to remove it entirely b/c it came too close to disproving your own thoughts on the topic. And yes, you were wrong to bash another group of Zelda fans, very wrong. Everybody deserves respect, something you obviously have yet to learn. The evidence speaks for itself above: you were not interested in "following guidelines", you were interested in forwarding your own views and squashing any theories that disagreed with them, no matter how well-evidenced they are and even resorted to insulting an entire Zelda community in the process. You have no case, so you resorted to those tactics to save face. Link87 05:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

We have decided that, as the Wiki is not a forum, theories are in a bit of a tough spot as far as discernment goes. However, according to Quality Standards on Theories in an Article, it clearly states a few things:


 *  "Theories are to be reputable, show evidence to support them [...], and have a reasonable amount of support or acceptance within the community. That is, they are not merely personal theories."  We have decided that based on this, since a non-canon source would obviously not affect the future storylines of any games, they are irrelevant to theory because a later game could simply refute that theory because its developers would not pay heed to the original source of the theory. We have also decided that whatever theories are on the page now, if they are supported and sourced by games or game manuals or any official Nintendo endorsed, sponsored, or released material, then they are acceptable theories.
 *  "If an administrator determines that a theory does not meet the specified criteria, it may be removed from the article."  We use this as the basis on which we make this decision.

We hope that this is satisfactory to all parties. If editing continues to be out of control, the page will be protected and the users involved may face consequences. Also, the arguing is over because this matter has been decided. Failure to comply could result in a brief ban of up to one week. Thank you. -- Xizor 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, I'm glad to see some see that there is evidence to support the theory. Can any of you instruct or help me learn how to cite in this programming language? I would gladly start helping to cite them if I knew how. Link87 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Does "Knights' line" have to mean bloodline? Could it just mean an army of knights? "In true" could mean loyal to Zelda/Hyrule, couldn't it? --Galladeon 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm for certain it's a bloodline thing. 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But a line of knights could also be an army on a battlefield. --Galladeon 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)