Talk:Oshus

Possible Japanese etymology (my own hypothesis):

Oshus' name in Japanese is シーワン (shiiwan). I suspect that "shii" is just the English word "sea" (this is how the Japanese would transcribe/pronounce it). Also, "wang" is Chinese for "king" (it is the Chinese reading of the character "王") which the Japanese would pronounce "wan". Thus I believe that his Japanese name is "ocean king" in an English-Chinese combo ("sea-wang"), which seems really reasonable since that's his real identity.

I specifically created an account just to bring this up... :P (I couldn't find a similar theory anywhere on the internet.) Is this something that should be added to the article?

-ebenezer


 * I can't say I'm entirely convinced it's not just a coincidence, but I don't see a problem with adding this under a "Trivia" section.
 * Welcome to the wiki, by the way! For future reference (we hope you'll be sticking around!), please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). This automatically generates your username as well as timestamp, which lets everyone know when the post was made. 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! I added it under "Trivia". I'm quite sure that this theory is true, and so is my friend who's better at Japanese than I am.
 * I came up with this on my own, but I googled it in Japanese and found a lot of pages with the same conclusion. See e.g.
 * ,, , , , ,
 * Even if you don't know any Japanese at all, you can search for "sea" on the page and look nearby for the 王 (wan/wang) and シーワン (shiiwan).
 * Ebenezer 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

THEORY. Oshus based off of Proteus. Asking for approval.
This is a theory I and I alone came up with, and I'm asking for approval to add it to the page, as you're supposed to do for theories. The theory is: Oshus is utterly based off of the Greek god Proteus.

The evidence is, note that I have MUCH evidence:

-Proteus was commonly referred to as "the Old Man of the Sea" in Greek mythology, just as Oshus actually is an old man of the sea.

-Proteus was known as a shape-shifter, commonly turning into sea creatures, just as Oshus turns into a whale at the end of PH.

-They both prefer to take the form of old men

-Proteus could foretell the future, and if I remember correctly, so could Oshus (That could be wrong, been forever since I played PH.)

-They're both shown to be extremely wise

-They are both sea deities

-I noted that MUCH of PH was based off of Greek mythology, and this is no exception

-They even LOOK extremely similar, as shown in Ancient Greek paintings.

For more info on Proteus, just Google it.

My class at school is studying Greek mythology, and when we went over Proteus, I just noticed how similar they were in personality, description, even looks. Everyone who agrees this is a legitimate theory say "I." — ᏒᎬᎠᎬᎪᎠ64 00:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, personal theories are not admissible to articles. Only theories with reasonable community support and evidence are allowed (see policy here).
 * Please feel free to place this theory on your userpage. You can also start a thread on Zelda Universe's forums in the theorizing section. 01:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I read the whole theory policy before I posted that, just to make sure it was allowed. I'm pretty sure I posted that in the right spot, as the page clearly states: "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." It told me to get approval on the talk page, so that's what I'm doing, right? I do admit it's a personal theory, but I believe it has a 'reasonable' amount of evidence. I'm confused, what rule did I break here? ._. — ᏒᎬᎠᎬᎪᎠ64 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal theories are inadmissible regardless. Please take a second look at the first bullet:


 * "Theories are to be reputable, show evidence to support them (see Help:Citing Sources), and have a reasonable amount of support or acceptance within the community. That is, they are not merely personal theories. "


 * Sorry for the confusion. I've went ahead and clarified the policy. 10:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)