Talk:Goddess of Time

I don't know if Nayru should be posted as the most likely candidate.--Remo 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Any particular reason? 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Really Remo? It woul seem as Nayru is the most likely of the three to be the Goddess of Time. ZeldaGirl96 20:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

nevermind...the theory section is there now...so thats satisfying enough. It's just cuz it was stated so matter of factly thats why it bugged me.--Remo 21:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the article should be expanded. "Nayru is more often attributed to the element of time" is used as justification, but there are no specific examples listed. I personally don't know of any such examples. HylianElf 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Look no further than Nayru, Oracle of Ages. This is why Nayru is the most likely thought to be the Goddess of Time. --Felicia&#39;s Champion 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, I think there's this whole subconscious thing in Zelda, where people associate the color blue with time...

Oracle Nayru's candidacy is still suspect, though. I expanded a lot. Hope this sees the issue from all sides. --Linque1 04:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Theory
This article doesn't conform with the wiki's quality standards regarding theories. Previously it was in poor shape, and with the addition of the lengthy new Theory section the lack of references has become too great to ignore. Also, to me the writing style doesn't seem suitably encyclopedic or in keeping with the phrasing of normal article content. My first instinct was to revert the recent changes, but instead I've added the relevant templates. If sufficient improvements can't be made, reversion amy still be deemed necessary (in line with the policy stated above). 11:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you Adam. This article is literally "all over the place" with the theories, they're not even coherent. There are no references, and what evidence is stated is so "all over the place" that one can't really make much sense out of it. I would agree with any of the actions you suggested above myself and perhaps have a complete overhaul of the entire article to start from scratch, it's become that confusing and incoherent. Link87 13:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The new additions to this article are a wordy....er...mess? A lot of things are incoherent. Not only this, but the theories are pretty far fetched. I think it needs reverted, unless someone thinks it holds merit? I personally cannot see any. 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. I'll see what I can do to conform so my work isn't completely erased. Also, I apologize for the number of changes to the page. I suppose I didn't have every picture at my disposal or know how important it was to keep the history page clean. It was, as you noticed, a large amount of information I was adding. I hit the wrong button sometimes or my computer shuts down for no reason and when a lot of work is lost that way enough times it trains a person to save often. I'll try to become more adept at saving in the biggest chunks possible in the future. In the meantime I wonder if there is a standard of conformity for "all over the place." I thought what I added was somewhat well thought-out, but I suppose I can be wrong; help me understand what you mean so I can improve the article and my future writing. Also, while I have someone who can help me, what does the "UTC" mean st the end of the siggy's? Thanks for the feedback. --Linque1 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, so having reviewed the standards page for Theories, I saw that it was encouraged to discuss the relevance and the acceptedness of said theories before posting them. Maybe I should start there. I'll be as direct as possible even though some of these topics have been discussed elsewhere:


 * What are your opinions on the possibility of Nayru being the Goddess of Time?


 * What are your opinions on the possibility of Farore being the Goddess of Time?


 * What are your opinions on the possibility of Din being the Goddess of Time?


 * What are your opinions on the possibility of there being a fourth goddess whose sole theme is time?


 * My opinions are already contained in the article. I would be willing to edit them as is shown necessary by the above discussion. Please help me make this an effective page, rather than allowing this thought and work to count for nothing. --Linque1 10:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Linque1, our biggest concerns stem from several things however: as this is an encyclopedia, any information that is not offical (via confirmation by the series creators or Nintendo) should have credible evidence to back it up as well as references as to where this evidence comes from. This is one of the great hallmarks that separates Zelda Wiki from others such as Zeldapedia, our higher regard for references and direct confirmation. As for me, the only logical and credible candidate I can see for the Goddess of Time is Nayru, as she is the one that created the laws of science which include time itself. The others, no offense, don't seem to have any credible evidence to support them. That's just me though, I can't speak for everyone else. Theories need to be in a theory section with credible evidence and references to back it up. Without those, there's no need to include it. If those are present, they can be welcome additions to articles. To me however, the only credible candidate is Nayru since the only credible evidence I've seen supports her. Others may feel differently about this, but the others are more for forum thought since they don't have the credibility that Nayru does. This article in general needs a complete revamp though in my opinion. It shouldn't look like an essay (which it does, right down to the conclusion), this is an encyclopedia article. Only information regarding the Goddess of Time, where she is mentioned, any details about her, and only credible theories as to candidates to be her should be inlcuded here. This just too much has the feel of being more of a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article. I personally would favor starting over from scratch or reverting and doing a complete re-write as Mandi has said, because there's just too much here to fix and not enough meat to support keeping it as the theories outside of Nayru are indeed pretty far-fetched with no relevant or credible evidence to support them really. Link87 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from. You want it to be as factual as possible. I'm re-working what I wrote before now, so give me a little time and hopefully it will come out better the second time. Linque1 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)