Talk:Ganon

Merging Ganon and Ganondorf
I think it makes more sense to merge these two articles together, because: 1. The Ganondorf article was an extremely bulky fan-fic (or something) and required rewriting anyway. 2. They're the same person, and it doesn't make sense to have redundant info spread over two articles. 3. It's easier to manage this way.

Unmerged
The above comment was written exactly one year ago today, and I would assume that the articles were merged then, or shortly afterwards. Today, someone has made the decision to split it back into two separate articles, Ganondorf and Ganon. Given the history involved and the debate over the nature of and link between the two forms (see below), it may have been better to have discussed this here first. I realise that I suggested the same thing below as one possible solution to make the distinction clear, but do the benefits outweigh the repercussions of this? For example, do all the pages that link to Ganon or Ganondorf now link to the correct article? And doesn't having two separate articles increase the risk of duplicate information and misinformed edits?--Adam 01:54, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Chronological timeline of Ganon's appearances
This refers to the canon storyline chronology, not the game release dates, since we're dealing with the timeline of a person. The games may been to be rearranged; I only ordered OoT, TP, and tWW.

Just a thought--I've always been under the impression that Ocarina was first, and Wind Waker was last. After all, if not, then in all the other games, Hyrule would be flooded. Just a suggestion.
 * Well, OoA seems to indicate that the flood withdrew, at least somewhat. And FSA shows what seems to be Hyrule between the flood and ALttP (beyond its many other recalls to TWW). Also, the Deku Tree indicates that withdrawing the flood is possible, and ALttP Agahnim is said to have reversed natural disasters for the kingdom (though repealling the flood might be a bit much - then again, if the gods wanted Hyrule flooded, he would be the kind of person to undo it). There's really no reason to assume that TWW is the "end of the line", as there are so many ways for Hyrule to be returned given, even in that game. And lets not forget, wishes made on the Triforce are not eternal. Ganon had the Triforce at several parts of the series, and later wishes repealed what he wished for. All it would take is for the inevitable next wish.KrytenKoro 06:42, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Alright, Who did the CD-i section?
Very funny guys. If somebody actually played these, please fill it in.

God-fucking-awful shitty games, with horrible artwork Phillips, I hate everything   about you for  making this ugly spot in the LoZ series...

Dark Lord Ganondorf Strategy
I made a small correction in the final form section, adding the Back Slice. Very effective, and probably easier than waiting around for him to do his thing.

LOL @ CD-I comment. Yeah, they were pretty terrible. There are videos circulating around of gameplay and cut-scenes if anyone wants to watch them and edit it correctly.

TAoL's Evidence
Just where in the game or the booklet or anything that may faithfully pertain to TAoL says that Shadow (*not* Shadow Link) is Ganon reborn?

TP
Is it okay if i go ahead and post a picture of ganondorf form TP as the main picture? Ive found alot of great pictures for the wiki and i think its important to have the most recent of Ganondorf.

About Ganondorf on Twilight Princess-you see Zant's neck cracking as Ganondorf dies...? I know Zant and Ganondorf were connected (Like Midna and Zelda) but can anyone clear up was that exactly meant? Thanks. ZeldaGirl96 13:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually... no. No one can, unfortunately. People have been theorizing since the game came out as to what that meant. Maybe it was a representation of Ganondorf's death, maybe Zant actually kills Ganondorf somehow... No one really knows except the game creators themselves (and they'll probably never say). 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible that when Ganondorf gave Zant some of his power, it created a link between them. While Zant cannot die while Ganondorf lives (according to him in TP), the demise of Ganon may cause the same fate to Zant. Link did "kill" Zant near the end of the game, however Ganon's magic was probably the only thing keeping Zant alive at that point. In other words, when Ganondorf is defeated by Link, Ganondorf's power is destroyed, and therefore so is Zant. 11:43, 8 July 2008 (EST)

Large edit
I reviewed the most recent edit before mine on this date, and noticed it tore away many paragraphs and made rather drastic changes, some of which actually took away information from the article. I believe such an edit can be justified, but I don't understand why stuff would be REMOVED and not IMPROVED upon... some explanation, if possible? If it can be justified, then I'll put it back the way it was. --Jase 21:21, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Featured Article
Congrats, everyone, on liking good ol' Ganon enough to make this article crazy awesome. --Jase 20:05, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Ganondorf rules
I think Ganondorf, the great King of Evil, is the coolest Guy in the Galaxy. Sorry, but I had must say that =)--62.47.140.151 16:02, 5 June 2007 (PDT)

They are the same
Ganon and Ganondorf are not the same as I understand it. Ganondorf is merely a vessel of Ganon and Twinrova are always trying to summon Ganon through letting Ganondorf get his hands on the Triforce. Ganon is the pig like creature which is released from Ganondorf under specific surcom stances. Ganon's true form is invincible and can only be released with the power of the Triforce. You cannot say that Ganon and Ganondorf are the same without taking in this idea. I beleive that they should be seperate pages in order for ZeldaWiki to stay netural in this arguement. If someone has a good forum to argue this on please tell me I would be glad to argue this point.


 * Correct; zelda.com clearly defines Ganondorf as referring only to the human form seen in OoT and TWW (and now TP): http://www.zelda.com/universe/pedia/g.jsp#Ganondorf, wheras Ganon is the name given to the "true" beast-like form which is more commonly seen. I've cited these references in the article to clear up any ambiguity. --Adamcox82 10:25, 9 July 2007 (PDT)


 * Thank you for showing evedence. I would also like to add that there is ideas that they are the same but sense nothing is confirmed it would be good to keep them seperate.
 * ~Cloakblade, 2:40, July 12, 2007 (CDT)


 * How did this come to be? It was already stated that Ganon was the result of Ganondorf twisting his powers to the very limit. They are the same being, albeit with a different name to emphasize this. Ganondorf being a vessel does not make any sense at all because never has been implied that Ganon is an indenpendent, everlasting spirit or what-not of old. There is no Ganon without Ganondorf.

Ganon vs Ganondorf
Round 1....{ding ding}...

Anyway, seriously there seems to be a problem with naming here. FACT: Ganondorf (as I've cited above) refers to the original Gerudo form (i.e the man), and Ganon is used to refer to the beast-form (which comes about as a result of Ganondorf's evil misuse of the Triforce's power).

HOWEVER, things are clearly not so simple, as detailed (less than clearly) within Ganon Conflicts. As with all things in the Zelda series, there is inconsistency within the games. Ganon has often been used also as a less specific term to refer to him without specifying his form; therfore it need not necessarily exclusively refer to the beast-form only. Hence the title of the article being Ganon...

Since the distinction has never been clearly defined, and a great deal of debate exists, clearly some degree of consensus must be maintained. Recent editors have applied this "rule" somewhat over-zealously, resulting in all instances of the name Ganon which do not explicitly refer solely to the beast-form being changed to Ganondorf. While this is technically correct, the result is that the word Ganondorf now features nearly nearly 100 times in the article (so legitimately the article could be retitled Ganondorf!) It's clearly overkill to change Ganon's Tower to Ganondorf's Tower; yes, technically Ganondorf built it, but Ganondorf's Tower is not it's official name! If some degree of clarity and consensus can't be reached/maintained then maybe there should be two separate articles again? (see above, Merging Ganon and Ganondorf) --Adamcox82 21:51, 16 August 2007 (PDT)


 * Huh... maybe have the article be Ganon, with the first line being something akin to "Ganon, born Ganondorf etc" or something to that effect? It does bother me that there are two articles with a lot of information on Ganon in the Ganondorf article and a lot of info on Ganondorf in the Ganon article. I say, treat it the way Wookiepeedia treated the Anakin Skywalker/ Darth Vader articles- merged, but with an infobox for each of the two alter-egos. Sound plausible? It ended a lot of endless debating over there, and I think a similar solution (tailored to fit the situation) may indeed work here. Dinosaur bob 18:53, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * And as for the argument that Ganon and Ganondorf are not one in the same, well, based on all the evidence- including those claims- I still believe that Ganon IS Ganondorf, only when the ugliness in his heart, through the power of the Triforce, becomes so profound it cannot be hidden by his Gerudo form any longer, and he becomes as hideous on the outside as he is within. Of course, that's more a metaphorical take on his beastial form, but it describes my feelings on the matter succinctly. Dinosaur bob 21:51, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * To be honest, when the articles were unmerged (see "Unmerged" above), my initial instinct was to undo that immediately. However, I simply commented on my view and left it up to others to get involved (you're the first by the way!). I'd suggest that we post the merge template on both articles and start up a proper discussion. All the "Ganon is Ganondorf, no he isn't, yes he is!!" debate aside, in simple practical terms it makes far more sense to keep the information together (as it always was), unless someone can present a compelling reason otherwise. --Adam 03:49, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I think the articles should be merged and the resulting article named Ganon. The merge because they are the same entity and the name because Ganon is the one with the most appearances (and thus being more representative). Ganondorf only appeared in OOT, TWW, TP, sort of in FSA and was refered to in ALTTP. Ganon beats that with appearances in TLOZ, TAOL, ALTTP, being refered to in LA, OOT, OOx, a reference in TWW, FSA and TP. Also, Ganon is the original entity of the series and his Ganondorf counterpart came only 2 games later into existance, but did not even appear until 4 games later. And timeline wise, I am everything but convinced that Ganon(dorf) started his existance as a Gerudo. Considering the nature of Twinrova and some hints in FSA, I have the feeling he existed before OOT and was merely reborn in that game, making it 50-50 what his original form could be. Everything summed up, the name Ganon makes more sense. Give both their own infobox and it should be alright.213.17.22.115 07:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
 * That IS what I was going for. Give the article the more familiar name and the one that he made his majority of appearances in. And while I'm not so sure about the reborn bit, I do admit there are hints in that direction, though there are hints in others as well. But that's the thing about creating hypotheses- everyone's going to come up with their own, especially when there's not enough information to end that debate, and we might never know who's right or not.
 * Regardless of that, the point of my proposal is, I've seen this kind of solution work on similarly-contentious merges on other wikis (as mentioned before, that's the solution that Wookieepedia came up with regarding the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader merge/unmerge debate that had apparently raged on FOREVER), and I'm certain it can work here as well. Dinosaur bob 08:53, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
 * And also, getting the Merge templates up.Dinosaur bob 09:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)


 * I wanted to merge the two today, but I realized that would be rather respectless of me to do without proper confirmation that everyone (or at least, most):

So if anyone can give me that confirmation (or demand I leave the articles alone), please do so. If anyoen else wants to merge them, go ahead. I've already wrote a part about the naming issue, so that doesn't need (much) work anymore.IfIHaveTo 11:31, 17 November 2007 (EST)
 * 1) Wants to merge Ganondorf and Ganon
 * 2) Wants it to be Ganon
 * I'm for both. Dinosaur bob 11:50, 17 November 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, I'm of the opinion that they must be merged again as soon as possible. --Adam 04:44, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Why Ganondorf
Why is the bulk of the info under Ganondorf, when Ganon is treated as his primary form and the one the legends remember him as?128.211.182.105 16:23, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * See Talk:Ganon --Adam 18:04, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Woah, I thought everything was fine in this area. There should only be one article. thats the best way to avoid confusion. They may not be the same form but they are the same entity. One article is the way to go.--Samson W. 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * I agree whole-heartedly. Dinosaur bob 18:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Rewrite
The recent edits didn't exactly make the article more organized. I'm thinking about rewriting it and I need some advice. Should I try to get rid of the strategy section and try to incorporate its info in the appearances-part? It seems to me that makes everything more organized.IfIHaveTo 02:17, 29 November 2007 (EST)


 * Other than a few minor changes to sentence structure, the recent edits were pretty pointless. They effectively removed all the game subsections, and deleted the second infobox which had been discussed and agreed upon. So I've reverted the article back to undo them all. As for what changes should be made, I'd say that a good start would be what you've suggested, so we'd have just one section for each game, including a subsection for strategy in that game. Should be as simple as just changing the position of the info, with a few minor tweaks. One suggestion though, any improvements/changes you do make, try to be fairly conservative; I think this article's been torn apart with enough major/radical changes recently, and is now in need more of minor improvements than any kind of radical overhaul! --Adam 02:58, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I wasn't planning on anything too radical. "Just" getting rid of the strategy section, moving a couple of pictures to the gallery as there just are too many, adding a little info to Ganon's background story and...... hmm, this I might some advice on as well. Ganondorf did not appear in Four Swords, but it's implied in FSA that Ganondorf was already walking the earth once again and planning his usual attempt to take over Hyrule during the events of FS. Should I put up a FS section, or just put this info under FSA?IfIHaveTo 03:36, 29 November 2007 (EST)

What is Ganon(dorf)'s "default" appearance?
In his true form, is Ganon/Ganondorf actually a demon pig or a human? --96.229.171.49 07:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

No one knows for sure. Ganon at least is his most used form. IfIHaveTo 09:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Real Name
I've noticed that his name keeps getting the article moved around, so which is it? Ganondorf, Ganon, or it's current form "Gannondorf"? Shuldn't it be Ganon, which the majority of the games refer to him as? [correct me if I'm wrong]--72.203.165.185 23:42, 8 December 2007 (EST)


 * I don't know who did this, but it's definitely not Gannondorf/Gannon.--Green 01:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)


 * Link hero of light made the change. Obviously ignoring the whole talk page and the article itself.IfIHaveTo 04:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)

What do you mean the talk page and the article? I thought that if I changed the name of the article the talk page name would change to. I just thought that Gannondorf was better than Gannon. I don't mind if you change it though, sorry about that.--Link hero of light 11:27, 9 December 2007 (EST)


 * What I mean is that you didn't bother reading the article or the talk page. If you'd done that, you would A. never have moved the article and B. never renamed it "Gannondorf". IfIHaveTo 16:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry about that, I'll read an article before I move it in the future. --Link hero of light 23:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Theme Song
Does anybody think Ganondorf's theme is similar to Lord Voldemort's in Harry Potter? Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling probaly would have sued Nintendo, but does anybody think it's similar? --Link hero of light 13:13, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Considering that Ganon's theme is a lot older than Harry Potter or Lord Voldemort, I think it's Nintendo that should be doing the sueing. The first time I remember hearing Ganon's theme was in A Link to the Past, which came out in 1991, and it may be older than that. That's about 10 years before Lord Voldemort's theme was even thought of. --Farewell to Gibdos 19:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)


 * LOL! You sure can't argue with that logic ;) --Adam 13:15, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Picture in the Info Box
Why are we cluttering the info box with an image of both bestial Ganon and his human form? One or the other, please.

Because those are pictures of both his forms. It makes sense to have both pictures.--Link hero of light 22:02, 5 January 2008 (EST)

It makes sense to have both on the page, not in the info box. It's pointless to put two pictures in there. I moved the human form picture to the 'Backstory' section because his human form is a part of his backstory, and that is where Ganon's human form is first mentioned in the article. --Farewell to Gibdos 12:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)


 * Fine by me, that's how they were arranged originally! The only reason I placed both in the infobox was because there was a (minor) edit war over which should be in there. --Adam 13:29, 6 January 2008 (EST)


 * Do you mean to say that originally both pictures were in the infobox or that originally the article was arranged in the manner that I have arranged it? --Farewell to Gibdos 12:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)


 * Yes.


 * (Sorry, couldn't resist!) - I meant that the way you've put it back now (Ganon in the box and -dorf in the backstory) is how it used to be. --Adam 14:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)

It's look better when they are both in the Info Box. Anyway, it's a comromise.--Link hero of light 15:50, 6 January 2008 (EST)


 * It really doesn't, and it's out of format. No other page has two pictures in the infobox. It's like placing a picture of Adult Link and Young Link in that article's infobox. Pointless.--Farewell to Gibdos 22:00, 6 January 2008 (EST)

No it's not like placing an Adult Link and Young Link picture in Link's info box. AL and YL are the same person, just the child and the adult. Ganon's pig form and his Gerudo form are almost not the same person. But that doesn't really matter, what matters is, is that by placing both pictures in the info box is a compromise to users who argue about which picture should be in the info box.--Link hero of light 23:36, 6 January 2008 (EST)


 * We decided a while back to merge the Ganondorf and Ganon article into one Ganon article, because it was agreed upon that the two were the same being (or at least, intensively bound together throughout the series) and because Ganon was the more dominant form that represented the being the best. Walking that path, it makes sense to have an image of Ganon in the infobox and not one of Ganondorf. Agreed, there is a difference. A page can only have one name, so choices have to be made. An infobox can have multiple images, so we could theoretically thrash every single image in there. However, that looks incredibly ugly. One image per infox looks good, multiple do not. It may be a "compromise", but I think the term is getting more credit here than it deserves. Sometimes, picking one is better than compromising. And this is one of those cases.IfIHaveTo 03:30, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Well, because nobody except me wants both pictures in the info box, I supose we could vote on whether to put Ganon or Ganondorf in.--Link hero of light 19:22, 7 January 2008 (EST)


 * The title of the article is Ganon, so the title at the top of the infobox is Ganon, so the image inside the infobox must be Ganon. To put just Ganondorf in there would be confusing and misleading. The only other solution is to have both, which nobody seems keen on. It should stay as it is. --Adam 02:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * Agreed. One picture. Two is excessive.--Farewell to Gibdos 22:00, 8 January 2008 (EST)

A Link to the Past

 * "Later, when A Link to the Past was released, Ganon's alter-ego Ganondorf was introduced." (The Name Issue)

what I don't recall that at all. I only saw Ganon. What's the story here? --Ando 13:32, 28 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ganondorf was introduced as a "Desert Thief". It was stated that he was the one who obtained the Triforce, and the one who made his wish (apparently, this caused him to become the King of Darkness, Ganon).  He never appeared once in the game in human form, just his name in a single phrase.  It might of been Sahasrahla who said that, but I'm not sure. --Douken 13:42, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Video
The Vs Link video no longer exists, leaving it to take up meaningless space on the page. I propose either removal of the video or replacement of one that works.--Magnus orion 20:26, 17 March 2008 (EDT)


 * This is exactly the issue which I predicted 5 months ago here. By all means replace it if you can find an equivalent, or remove otherwise. —Adam (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

It works for me.--Link hero of light 16:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Are you sure you're looking at the right one? -->
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0rC1sC9vYU says removed by user.... —Adam (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes.--Link hero of light 19:20, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


 * What? So you're saying that this link doesn't take you here: [[Image:Removed_vid.jpg|70px]]
 * But that you actually see the video on the right instead? >


 * I really don't want to get into an "are you sure"/"yes I'm sure" thing going on here.

So I want to merely point out this --> This is a wiki. It is supposed to be a source of information for everyone. Using that logic, 'It works for me' really doesn't cut it. If it works for one of three people, this part of the wiki is pointless for two/thirds... And thats assuming that other people besides Link hero of light can see it. I'll wait a week, but this non-working video is really bothering me, so I'll delete it after that unless there are any objections.--Magnus orion 17:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, we just got 2 new computers and that video doesn't work on either of them. It's really strange.--Link hero of light 18:27, 29 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, I found a better video anyway... so I'm going to retract my previous statement and replace the video now. I actually like this one better: its got more of the cinimatic of the fight AND it is done by someone who isn't trying to beat ganondorf while taking no damage or flaunting their skill, and it isn't done by someone awful at the game either, like other videos i found!--Magnus orion 20:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Speaking of videos...do we really need all these videos? --Mr. Mystery, 16:10, 18 June Two Thousand and Eight, EST

There's, uh, only three videos. I think that perhaps the Ganon's Theme video could be removed (or perhaps have the song inserted into the page in a different manner?)... We really have no official policy regarding videos and which ones are and aren't appropriate. --Ando 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Split
I didn't add the template, but thought that I would start off this section (since no one else did) and show my support for the proposed split. 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought that the gallery was a little too large. So I thought it would be appropriate to split it off onto its own page. Other splits have been done before. This is the first time we have a template for it. Any one else up for this? 22:08, July 11, 2008 (UTC)


 * THIRDED. 14:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
I saw  the notice  on the  Page of this article and I can't find the thread discussing it, so  I'll remake one here, so yeah, Itshould  have another  page  for its  gallery. There's wayyy too many photos, this ain't Uncyclopedia! Or Encyclopedia  Dramatica.

there is to many --Rapido 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)