Talk:Gustaf

Gustaf....king? Well He's not the first king unless he's the Ocarina's Zelda's fathe considering the civil war was unified by the Ocarina's king. reference by the hero of time's origin told by the new deku tree --Legend 03:12, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

---

Hrm... Maybe we should make a category for characters like Gustaf, Spookter, and Spekter, kind of like "Spirits" or "Ghosts", as a subcategory of "People". Would that be overdoing it? Just a suggestion. Dinosaur bob 09:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

No that's a pretty good idea since many characters are spirits or ghosts.--Green 10:05, 6 November 2007 (EST)

So how would one go about creating a category? I don't think I've ever gone over how to do that yet... Dinosaur bob 10:24, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Just decide on a name for it, and add that category tag to all the pages you wanna include. --Adam 13:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Just wondering, would such a category only cover ghosts, or also be used for just anything that's dead (like stalfos indivuals).IfIHaveTo 14:46, 6

November 2007 (EST)

If it were titled Undead, that should be broad enough to include all possible entities. --Adam 15:53, 6 November 2007 (EST)

All righty, I'll get 'er up! Dinosaur bob 15:56, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Now I could use some help making sure I don't miss any. Getting Captain Keeta or Skull Keeta or whatever we're calling him these days next.Dinosaur bob 15:59, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Timeline Significance

Christopher, it is speculative because it assumes that Hyrule was created just before OoT. I removed it because it relies on a theory which you made based on this quote. "Some time ago, before the King of Hyrule unified this country". However, as you would notice, no were does it state Hyrule was actually created just decades ago. The King of Hyrule unified Hyrule,

yes. But that does not imply the creation of Hyrule. Its equally likely that the King already was king of Hyrule when he unified Hyrule, bringing an end to war, which this quote seem to imply.

Also, as told by Lanaryu in Twilight Princess, Hyrule existed long before there ever was any wars in Hyrule. "The lands where the goddesses descended came to be known as the Sacred Realm. For ages, the people lived at ease, content in mind and body… But soon, word of the Sacred Realm spread through Hyrule, and a great battle ensued" As you see, Hyrule was not created after a long war. It existed way before then.

I suggest that we either put this 'Timeline Significance' under a Theory Warning or just remove it seeing how insufficient it is.

Sorry that it does not agree with your theory, but the facts are the facts. It's very very sufficient as it has quotes to prove it. Link87 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I never once said "creation", I said "as a kingdom", so that argument you make is invalid.Link87 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The King of Hyrule could equally likely have been King before he unified Hyrule, as the quote seem to imply. No were does it that 'Hyrule then became a kingdom' either so it is still speculation at best. Unification does not mean becoming a kingdom. That you refer your own theory as a fact is staggering. Nerushi 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry once again, but you are trying to protect your own theory against actual facts. Let's put two and two together:

1. Hyrule is unified into the kingdom it would become around the time of Link's birth in Ocarina of Time. (This is a fact)
2. In The Minish Cap, King Gustaf states that he "ruled" Hyrule "countless ages ago". (Again, this is a fact)

Therefore, you cannot have Hyrule being established as a kingdom just shortly before Ocarina of Time and having existed for generations in The Minish Cap without The Minish Cap occurring LONG after the foundation of Hyrule as a kingdom. Sorry, but there's just a major contradiction in your theory. This is not a theory, these are facts, and never once do I say they are official, I say they "cast doubt". So sorry, but I just don't see your view here. I find it "staggering" that you continue to defend a point of view that has clear evidence against it and that makes no claim to official status. Link87 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But it is not a fact that Hyrule was established as a kingdom just 'decades' before OoT. That is something you completely made up based on a single quote refering mentioning unified This has absolutely nothing to do with me defending any theory, as much as it is making you realize that you are just forcing your own interpretation on everyone by falsely labeling them as facts. Nerushi 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is, it's stated by the Deku Tree Sprout, and Link was born shortly before that time. The quote is there, and to say that I "made it up" is a blatant and heinous lie. He was around 10 years old in Ocarina of Time, therefore it can be generalized that Hyrule has only been an established kingdom for about the same length of time. I am "forcing" nothing, I am casting doubt upon your preferred theory and rightfully so apparently. It is you that is trying to bolster a theory here, not I. I am merely pointing out some valid discrepancies in your theory. Please understand that I respect everyone's theories and understand that not all people are going to agree, even when faced with valid evidence to the contrary apparently. Sorry that these facts do not agree with your theory, but you cannot say that I am "making things up" or that I am "forcing" anything upon everyone else. I'm merely pointing out the fallacies in the idea that TMC precedes OoT. I have stated that these facts "cast doubt" upon your theory, not that they dictate that it is false. For you to try to depict otherwise only discredits your cause. Link87 18:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't you pointing out any discrepancies in any theory, particulary not mine, since I haven't suggested any. And it is not rightfully so, as you would have noticed if it weren't for you begin completely full of your so called theory, "the kingdom of Hyrule is confirmed to have only been established for about a decade at the time of Ocarina of Time" Just HOW is this confirmed? It just a theory based on this quote. "Some time ago, before the King of Hyrule unified this country" This, in no way whatsoever confirms anything regarding Hyrule actually being established at all. If anything, the quote seem to say that Hyrule already was established as kingdom seeing how it is implied that the King was King before he unified Hyrule. Your so called fact is just speculation, a theory among many, but it is anything but a fact. Nerushi 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are only trying to shift conversation away from the point here: no claims are made, two very valid quotes are pointed out, and it does not constitute a theory. This only casts doubt upon a theory that I've seen that you support, and that's really the only reason you're making any kind of stink here is because it does create a problem for your timeline theory. The "kingdom of Hyrule" (meaning the entity that governs the entire country) was established around the time of Link's birth in Ocarina of Time, that is made clear by the Deku Tree Sprout. Whether or not the king ruled his tribe before that is moot because he did not rule all of Hyrule obviously prior to the war. This discussion is closed, I will not waste time debating with someone who is unwilling to accept that there could be problems with their theory. I appreciate your passion in defending your theory, but this discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned. This is not a forum either, so I suggest if you have any further questions to take them there. Link87 19:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well look at who is trying to shift the conversation here.

"the kingdom of Hyrule is confirmed to have only been established for about a decade at the time of Ocarina of Time"

This is a claim, and it is not justified by any quote or source by either Ocarina of Time or a developer. However, you interpretated another quote as saying this, while it in fact doesn't even nearly resemble that. So there, you should rightfully remove your "claim" that it is "confirmed" or else maybe I could do you and everyone else that favor.Nerushi 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is you making a claim in your timeline theory and protesting anyone that presents evidence to the contrary. You should withdraw your unwarranted words and accept that there could be potential pitfalls to your point of view. When quotes are presented and it is made clear that no claims are made one way or the other, the information is considered suitable for mentioning on a page according to certain staff members I have worked with in the past. Link87 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DUDES! Let's chillax, here. It is speculation somewhat because interpretations can be different, but it's worth keeping. It just needs:

1. A little rewording
2. A {{Theory}} tag

So let's just all relax and think of how to rewrite it so that it describes the theory and doesn't state it as a fact.—Justin^(Talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This page has been locked to prevent further un-constructive edit warring. Chris, your history regarding causing issues and counter-productive edits is very very bad. If you continue, I will temporarily block you. I suggest you just give it a rest now before we get involved with a messy banUser:Mandi/sig 19:29, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mandi I have returned at the request of other staff members, and if such action was taken against me without warrant, I would permanently leave this site as I have a lot of other things I can do besides trying to help this site get what others don't. And with all due respect, you as administrator are supposed to be unbiased in these situation and address both people involved, which is not a good practice. Considering the past history you have with this issue though, it's not unexpected. I have done nothing to merit a ban, I put the information where it was supposed to be, with tags and with quotes. There is no reason for its removal. If the information is not restored (as it met requirements), I will seek action from more unbiased staffers. Link87 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've come up with a more neutral version of the theory. Take a look here to see it.—Justin^(Talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it, and the only change I would request is the last bit about "concrete proof" because the king's words are a sort of proof. I would say that his words are "disputable", that is a good way of putting it, but it would be untrue to say there's no "concrete proof" at least to me. The rest I am very much supportive of. Also, the page protection, once all is settled, should be lifted before it's forgotten to be done. Link87 19:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection will expire tomorrow, which I think would be best so no one attacks the page. In response to the bit about concrete proof, it's the view of the people who see TMC as the first in the timeline. I didn't say it as a fact, but as an opinion of those people :P—Justin^(Talk) 20:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)