Talk:Princess Hilda

Sabrina Trivia
Unsure if it's worth noting as Trivia here - given that Hilda seems to be presented as the other world's equivalent of Princess Zelda, that gives us Zelda and Hilda, the two aunts of Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Drake Clawfang (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that trivia is not worth noting. The most likely reason is that Hilda and Zelda are phonetically similar, exotic sounding names. The Legend of Zelda and Sabina the Teenage Witch likely chose the names for that same reason.
 * Also, name the section in the future. Pages looking messy without one. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru
 * Why exactly is the Sabrina trivia irrelevant? Not mentioning it would be like if two NPCs were named Archie and Jughead and we banned trivia referencing that because it could have just been a coincidence. Nintendo have inserted easter-egg names into Zelda games before. The carpenters in the German version of Ocarina of Time were named after the Beatles, Dr. Left is an obvious reference to Mr. Wright from Sim City, and Telma and her cat Louise are a pretty blatant reference to the movie Thelma and Louise. This isn't useless trivia. It's a fairly obvious easter egg that the article needs to mention. Ganondorfdude11 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason it's irrelevant is because it's not a reference to Sabrina the Teenage Witch. The reason why Nintendo chose the name Hilda is because it shares the same etymological root as the name Zelda ("hild"), which is entirely based on the fact that they are counterparts. I acknowledge the fact that you've provided examples where other series have been referenced, but given the etymology, it's safe to say that this one simply is a coincidence. 12:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think an extremely obvious reference to a popular comic book and television series is more noteworthy than a relatively obscure linguistic association. I know the community has been seeking out low-quality trivia to delete, but this is a legitimate item of trivia than the one which is currently on the page. The names I listed before are obvious references and mentioned in the trivia sections of their articles. Why is it not in this case? The only other franchise to have counterpart characters named Hilda and Zelda is Sabrina. "Zelda" is not a true Germanic name, but a shortened form of "Griselda," which originally came from the Canterbury Tales. Would it be more logical that Nintendo would look up the obscure and roundabout etymological origins for a name when deciding her counterpart, or simply select a name already well-known in popular culture? It would be like arguing that "Lorule" isn't a pun. Ganondorfdude11 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess it a reference to the etymology or at least because the names sound alike. Not many names sound similar to Zelda. Honestly, why would Nintendo reference Sabrina the Teenage Witch? There is literally no similaries between that show and Hilda/Zelda. The people at Nintendo are inteligent, I'm sure they know about etymology. Don't assume people are ignorant of etymology (or Google). Champion of Nayru (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
 * Since you're arguing about popular culture, what relevance does Sabrina the Teenage Witch have in Japanese culture? The name was surely initially chosen by the Japanese developers, not some avid American fan.
 * As stated in interviews (regarding the Pokémon series), Nintendo employees take great care in naming their characters, so the idea that they would settle for a cheap and culturally obscure reference is frankly delusional. They do, however, consider the etymology of words, so it is far more reasonable that they should retroactively decide Hilda's name to match Zelda's based on the common root and phonetic similarity. 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I might as well ask what relevance Thelma and Louise had on Japanese popular culture. Sabrina the Teenage Witch is hardly obscure, considering she has been in Archie comics for around 50 years and had a hugely successful TV show in the 1990s. If I recall correctly, it was even spun off into a popular manga in Japan. I don't get the resistance to a simple piece of trivia. I know the community is dealing with removing low-quality trivia, but this is nothing of the sort. Ganondorfdude11 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Princess Hilda
Shouln't be change the name of the article from Hilda to Princess Hilda, since she's the equivalent of Princess Zelda, no?so, she's a princess --Isamisa (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We really shouldn't be editing these pages until the game comes out. Do we know for sure she's a princess? For all we know there will be a plot twist where it's revealed that Hilda is Link's Uncle in disguise or something. When the game comes out all will be revealed and these articles will be filled in. Champion of Nayru (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

Hilda, is in fact, a princess. Aounama called her princess several times: http://zeldawiki.org/images/b/b6/Princesshilda%2Cyup.png, source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/12/nycc-zelda-producer-reveals-new-princess-lorule-kingdom-and-item-upgrades
 * No one's going to die by waiting six days for the game to come out, like CoN said.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, the game is now released and it is certainly clear everywhere that Hilda is in fact Princess Hilda.~.:NasiDe:.~ 06:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Realy just Princess in english? In german version she's queen--Soran (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Race
As with Ravio, Hilda is from Lorule rather than Hyrule, so it seems like her race wouldn't be Hylian. Maybe Lorulan (as an equivalent of Hylian) or Lorulean (as an equivalent of Hyrulean) would make sense? I dunno. That would go with all the other residents of Lorule as well.~.:NasiDe:.~ 06:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as we know, they're Hylian. "Hyrulean" isn't a race anymore than "Canadian" is; they're nationalities.  Until something comes along to suggest otherwise, I think it's best not to mention their race, because until something concrete is mentioned it will only be theoretical.
 * Also, sign your posts. --KingStarscream (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not Hylian - think of where that word even comes from. They're called Hylian because they're the descendents of Hylia and happen to live in Hyrule. Hilda and her people, on the other hand, live in Lorule and are most definitely not descended from Hylia. If you're gonna say the people of Lorule can be called Hylians, then we're basically saying that the whole reason why the name Hylian exists is wrong.


 * It's strange, but call them Lolulan or Lolians or something - just not Hylian. Teekay (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And how different are Hylians and Lolians? The way you said they are not Hylians but Lolians -- Lolians would still be the same as Loruleans because the term still describes the Hylians who live in Lorule. The Lorulean Hylians are Hylians. We had the same problem with Skyloftians and Terminans from Skyward Sword and Majora's Mask, thinking they are different kind when they are actually of the same species. All of them, the humans with long ears, Hylians.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Every person I've come across won't call the people of Termina "Hylians". They do call the Skyloftians Hylians, but that's because they *are* Hylians - descended from Hylia and their descendents lived in early Hyrule. In technical terms, Hylians and Lolians probably are the exact same species - the only difference comes in how they'd name themselves, and the words derived from Hylia(Hylian, Hyrule, Hyrulean) don't exist in Lorule as far as we've seen. Teekay (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you went to another country, and found people that call themselves Ooknogs instead of humans, does that make them not humans? The people of Lorule are the same species as the people of Hyrule. Champion of Nayru (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just said they're the same species. Problem, is, they're in different universes and they name themselves differently. Ask yourself this: What if Lorule was never named in-game? Would you instantly assume that their kingdom was called Hyrule simply because "they're basically the same kingdom anyway"? It's a matter of perspective - the people of Lorule aren't going to call themselves Hylians because that word doesn't exist in their universe. This may be a silly topic to argue over, but it just seems so clear-cut to me. If you're a human with long ears and magic powers from Hyrule, you're Hylian. If you're a human with long ears and magic powers from Lorule, you're Lolian(Lorulean). If fandom decides to name them Lolians (Loruleans), what would be the big deal? All it does is add more clarity - why is that bad? Teekay (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither I, nor Teekay, are saying that the people of Lorule are known as "Lolians" or anything of the sort; what we're saying that they until their true name is revealed it's not canonically established. What we do know, canonically, is that they are parallel counterpart to the people known as Hylians. Because Zelda and Link's Lorule counterparts go by the names of Hilda and Ravio, we simply cannot assume that the people of Lorule are known as Hylians, so they're thus far unnamed from a canonical perspective. We can't apply fan canon to the pages of the wiki unless it's in a theorising section at the bottom of the page. It should also be noted that the info boxes list character's "race" as opposed to their nationality - "Hylian" is a race but the rarely used "Hyrulean" is even accepted on this wiki to refer to the Hyrule nationality, not the indivudual races. Her Grace (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's another thing. What if, by some strange mistake, the developers of ALBW forgot to name Ravio in-game. People would instantly assume "ah HA, that's Link!" Thing is, it'd be wrong since his name isn't Link. Same with goes with Hilda. The point I'm making is that we shouldn't throw away the word Lolian simply because Hylians and Lolians are the same thing, because nearly EVERYTHING in their universe is the same as in Hyrule's universe, yet we're still distinguishing between Link and Ravio, Zelda and Hilda, Hyrule and Lorule, etc.Teekay (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The people of the World of the Ocean King and Termina are Hylians, despite living in other worlds. All humans with pointy ears are Hylian. How exactly are the people of Lorule not Hylian? Champion of Nayru (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See one of my above posts :p Teekay (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where has it been confirmed that the OceanKing-ians and Terminians are Hylian in species?KrytenKoro (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

On the Characters template
Wasn't sure where to put this, but I was wondering about Hilda's place on the characters template. Would it be more appropriate to put her with the minor antagonists, since she had good intentions even though she really orchestrated the whole scheme? I think it's safe to assume Yuga is the game's major antagonist since his intentions are more evil and he's the final boss of the game. Okoa (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an odd situation since she is the driving force behind the plot even though Yuga back-stabs her. She reforms in the end, but that doesn't make her less of a villain before she does. Ganondorfdude11 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By all definitions of the word, she is an antagonist. She opposes the protagonist, therefore she is an antagonist.i would probably day major, but apparently we only lost final bosses as major antagonists. Champion of Nayru (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, she does reform by the end. I'm thinking she might belong under minor antagonists because of that. She's kinda similar to Byrne in that regard. Okoa (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * She is totally a major antagonist. Darth Vader is no less of an antagonist just because he reforms in the end. Being an antagonist is irrelevant to whether or not the character is a villain. Champion of Nayru (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling Princess Hilda a *major antagonist* is like calling Shadow Kirby one, it's just not correct. She litarally had no intention to *Destroy Link/The Protagonist* but rather, *Claim his Triforce fragment*. Heck, she even provided assistance to him whether intentional or not. Anti-Villain or Minor Antagonist describes her more better, since she isn't pure evil, nor did she do things that would be considered *purely selfish*. A major antagonist is someone who does something out of sheer selfishness and pure evil and never does something that might benifit others. --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend you check the definition of antagonist. Good and evil are irrelevant to whether or not someone is an antagonist. If the protagonist is a baseball player, the antagonists are the other teams. If the protagonist is a serial killer, the police are the antagonists. Most stories just follow a good protagonist vs an evil antagonist formula. Hilda is most definitely an antagonist because her goal runs parallel to Link's.
 * On whether she is a major or minor antagonist, a major antagonist is basically just a central antagonist, either for an arc or the entire series (eg Darth Vader from Star Wars, Sauron from LotR, Khan from Wrath of Khan). Currently, this wiki defines major antagonists as final bosses, and minor villains as major antagonists that are not the final boss. I personally a not a huge fan of the way we differentiate between major and minor antagonists, but that's the way we would organize this. Champion of Nayru (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read perfectly well the definition of *Antagonist*. *Major* means serious, for sure, and/or crucial, Anagonist is something or someone that gets in the players way sometimes with reasons good or bad, Major Antagonist is a central villain who's *Always* getting in the Protagonist's way, like someone who does things for the wrongest of reasons, and a Minor Antagonist is someone or something that gets in the way of the Protagonist very rarely, like someone who is pushed in a corner like Princess Hilda was or someone who has to challenge the Protagonist to accomplish something for another but equally greater good!  Good or evil wouldn't necessarly fit with Protagonist or Antagonist sometimes, but a term like *Major Protagonist* or *Major Antagonist* is another story.  Besides, Princess Hilda doesn't even have enough qualificiations to be considered a Major Antagonist because not much was revealed about her, and what was isn't enough to consider her place in the template yet.  I don't even think there is any catigory called Major Antagonist in this link http://zeldawiki.org/Special:Categories nor here http://zeldawiki.org/Final_Boss, it only claims that the Final Boss is *Often* a main mastermind and lead obstical.  --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused what you're arguing about. Hilda is, by Zelda wiki standards, a minor antagonist. And I'm not quite certain you understand what defines an antagonist; Hilda is absolutely an antagonist. Having a lot revealed about them is irrelevant, we know very little about Bellum or Malldusp, but they are still major antagonists. The category I referred to is the Template:Characters. Champion of Nayru (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to say, a Minor Anatagonist, of course revealing some things about a character is relevent, you have to have *Information* about a said character to classify them, at first, you where saying that Hilda is a *Major Antagonist*, but now your saying that she's a *Minor Antagonist* by ZWS. But the thing about Bellum and Malladus is that they have backstories and legends about them, indicating they took place and are going to take place against the Protagonist as the mains and that catigory never turned up in my search, even with the quotes added to "Major Antagonist", it wasn't included in my results.  Hilda is a *Type* of Antagonist, but she isn't purely one, I agree that by ZWS, she is a Minor Antagonist.  Lets give others a chance to pin in with their insights also.  --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. "Major antagonist" simply means that the character is the main obstacle to the PoV character, the "protagonist". It doesn't mean good or evil. A "minor antagonist" would be a temporary, forgettable annoyance, like a Like-Like or somebody that runs off with your Rupees that one time. Hilda is the mastermind behind Link's obstacles, even if Yuga usurps her, and is thus the game's Major Antagonist. Antagonist != most evil or villain or shows up rarely. All it means is that they are the cause of the primary obstacle.KrytenKoro (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think we're confusing the terms "major antagonist" and "main antagonist." If I'm interpreting Zelda Wiki definitions correctly, they're not the same. It is true that Hilda instigates the whole plot, but the person who directly opposes and challenges Link throughout the game is Yuga. On top of that, he reveals his true motives right before the final battle, and it's implied that this was his agenda from the start. In this respect, he was manipulating Hilda the whole time, and he gets the closest to achieving his goals (Hilda did get another Triforce, but not by stealing Hyrule's). Also, no one is denying that Hilda is an antagonist. I noticed that we're throwing around the definition of the term a lot; we know she is an antagonist and she kicked off the plot herself, but in light of how said plot unfolds, does that really make her the game's major adversary? I know it's a minor issue, but I don't wanna start an editing war, so I'm curious as to how others will weigh in. Okoa (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, my posts seem rather bipolar. Anyway, we just have to decide whether or not to put her as a minor antagonist. All of the other minor antagonists are fought at one time or another, so Hilda has that against her, but if not in minor antagonists, where else are we going to put her? Champion of Nayru (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno, both Skull Kid and Chancellor Cole aren't directly fought in their respective games. I think for all the reasons I listed, Hilda belongs most in the minor antagonists category, and if there are no further objections, I'll go ahead and add her there. Okoa (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically, you fight Cole being possessed by Malladus, and you shoot a bubble at Skull Kid. Anyway, support you on adding her to minor antagonists. Apologies for my  OCC. :) Champion of Nayru (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Might be a silly suggestion, but wouldn't it be easier to just call any antagonist that isn't the big bad of the game simply an "antagonist"? So Hilda, Ghirahim, Cole, etc. would just be called antagonists, with Ganon, Malladus, Demise etc. being called major antagonists.
 * As for Hilda's role specifically, she's obviously an antagonist, but she's most similar to Byrne and Skull Kid (particularly Skull Kid as you don't really fight him) in that she's not actually evil. I would argue that her definition should be the same as Skull Kid's.
 * But yeah, perhaps we should just remove the word "minor" from the the template, as it doesn't imply any lesser status aside from not being the final boss. 22:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's an idea too. Ghirahim is another oddball example because he technically kicks off the plot and he has a more active role than Demise. I dunno, I'm down for that if we wanna do it. Okoa (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I posted a similar idea like a month ago in the template talk page, but got no response. I suggested that we merge the two sub-sections and label it simply antagonists. Maybe we add a star or something next to the final bosses? The distinction between major and minor antagonists is ridiculous anyway. Was Sauron not a major antagonist in LotR (book only) simply because Saruman is the final threat? Or for a more recent example, in Pokémon Red/Blue Giovanni, the leader of Team Rocket is fought three times, but is not the final boss, your rival is.
 * Zant, Cole and Ghirahim are all the main antagonist for their games until the last 5%. They are the villains who drive the plot. Anyway this should probably be brought up elsewhere if we want to change this. Does someone want to suggest this at Hyrule Castle? Champion of Nayru (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't necessarily suggesting we merge them together, simply that we remove the "minor" terminology. I think a distinction between main characters and other major characters is still important, and a distinction between the final bosses and other major antagonists is also important, just a simple renaming might solve some issues. Minor implies that the characters under those listings are unimportant, which is completely untrue. Perhaps "secondary" would be a better word, or just "antagonists" with no real distinction. I think it's fair to separate Ganon, Demise, Malladus, etc. as being different from the Onox, Zant and so on, but implying that these characters are minor villains is just wrong. 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with not merging, is that it implies that Zant and the like are not major antagonists. Zant is just as big of a villain as Ganon in Twilight Princess. I see it as Zant is to Darth Vader as Ganon is to The Emperor; both are major villains. Zant/Vader shows up the most, but Ganon/The Emperor is the final challenge facing the protagonist and Zant/Vader's boss. Defining "Major Antagonist" as "final boss" feels redundant, and cheapens the role the "minor" antagonists had in the story.
 * PS We really should move this discussion elsewhere as it is getti exceedingly off-topic. Hyrule Castle or the category talk page?Champion of Nayru (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We probably should. Also, what's with everyone comparing everything to Star Wars on this site? Kinda gets a little wearisome. That aside, I just feel a distinction between the "big evil thing pulling all the strings" and "lesser evil doing his bidding" is worth pointing out. HOW we do it is a different issue entirely. The fact is that Zant is not as big a threat as Ganondorf and never was. Ganon is using Zant, much like how Yuga is using Hilda (in the end, anyway). Demise is LITERALLY using Ghirahim, and Malladus ends up using Cole. They're all weaker, subordinate threats, despite the fact that they play the antagonist role actively. In the end, it's the big bad that is pulling the strings. The distinction is clear and shouldn't be ignored entirely, although they are still clearly big antagonists in their own right. 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)