Talk:Ikana Kingdom

Speculation
I'm seeing some paragraphs of a speculative nature in the main body of the article. Maybe they should be moved into a theory section or something? Ganondorfdude11 04:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All I know is that the stone tower origins section is part of the Anti-Goddesses theory. -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 04:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire article is laced with speculation, in fact. Because so little is revealed about the Kingdom before Link arrives, it's difficult to write a whole paragraph without mentioning what may or may not have been meant by a particular statement. I tried to keep it neutral throughout... I'm just worried about how it will look if we try to reorganize it into a theory and non-theory section, since half of the sentences that are theoretical have little to do with each other. What do you guys think?? =\ Embyr 75 13:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, when there is so little known about a kingdom, the only thing left to write about is speculation. However, given that it IS speculation, I think we should still give it the theory/no theory treatment. Most of it is VERY well-written and documented. I especially like the War section, since I didn't even know some of that stuff! I think that one should be left alone. However, I think some sections such as the one where it talks about the mirror and the Stone Tower should be noticed with a theory tag. Dany36 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could we just tag the entire article as containing fan-made theories and speculation (to avoid cluttersome headings)? Or does that make the article look unreliable? Embyr 75 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great article idea by the way! =) The thing with placing the theory tag at the top of the page is that readers will assume it is ALL theory, and take none of it as fact. With a topic that has factual and speculative elements like this one, it should really be separated into theory and factual sections to make it easier on the reader to distinguish the two. 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, true. So I made a new section for the theoretical portions; does it look ok with everyone? Embyr 75 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me! Nice job! :) Dany36 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sexy! 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha! Cool. 22:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)