Talk:Hero's Spirit

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 August 2021 by Mugenkagemaru in topic Merge
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives of Talk:Hero's Spirit


Is it realy a Stalfos? He isn't a skeleton like the other stalfos, just his face (which can be a mask or something)... maybe he is a ghost or something, but not a real stalfos. Is there any source, that say he is one ore is it just an idea of someone--Soran 07:41, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Despite what kind of species people consider him, I'm still pretty sure that he's a Stalfos.--Prince Ludwig 22:52, 21 February 2012 (EST)
I strongly believe that Zelda Wiki should not list this character as a Stalfos. His limbs are ghastly, not skeletal, in appearance. The Hyrule Historia refers to the character as a spirit (pg. 118). His spirit appears in the form as the white wolf, an ability no Stalfos have shown to possess. He does not look or act like a Stalfos, and no in-game source or reliable out-of-universe source refers to this character as a Stalfos. The Wiki should not list him as a Stalfos. --JCiLee 18:33 13 January 2019 (EST)
Page 103 of Encyclopedia states that he is a Stalfos, as mentioned in the citation. - Chuck * (Talk) 05:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not clear on what the policy is on covering "forms of a character", but if you guys usually cover all the forms on the one page, it would probably be best to merge this guy in.

Then again, I've always been a bit confused by covering all the Links in one article, so I don't really have an opinion either way on this.KrytenKoro 09:38, 3 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree. Although it IS Link, just like how Young Link and Toon Link get their page, I think this character also deserves its own page. Plus, that Link page is already way too big as is... Dany36 16:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
I say keep it separate, unless when we want to split all the Links into their own articles, then merge it with the Hero of Time's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedKitsune (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also am in favor of keeping them separate. — Hylian King [*] 21:34, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I'd be in favor of splitting up the main Link article for the sake of ensuring incarnation-specific information is not confused between them.
-Mugen Kagemaru (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since we know this is Link from the Hero of Time, and that he is Link from TP's ancestor...can we posit from that that OoT Link absolutely did not end up marrying Zelda? Since TP Link is some farmboy not even from Hyrule not only did OoT Zelda rip the universe into three separate timelines, dooming two of them and cursing Link to become an undead horror in the third, but she didn't even date him.

Ha.KrytenKoro 00:14, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Ha, that's an interesting point. Considering how much she screws up, she's probably doing him a favour. :P Ekim 22:50, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Common counters - Stalfos

Some common counters to the theory that the Hero's Spirit is a Stalfos are that the Hero's Spirit is physically a Golden Wolf and only exists in skeletal form in a strange white realm. All other Stalfos are reanimated skeletons but the Hero's Spirit is, as the name implies, a spirit. Furthermore, the Hero of Time could not have become a Stalfos directly after his adventure in Termina because he was a child at the time and children turn into Skull Kids, not Stalfos. Furthermore, Twilight Princess Link is his descendant so the Hero of Time must have started a family somewhere, most likely in Hyrule as that's where Twilight Princess takes place, before dying. Lastly, there is no good canonical source that states Majora's Mask's intro was even in the Lost Woods; all canonical sources just name it "a mysterious forest". Dekler (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that the theory is faced with fierce opposition and should either be edited or removed entirely. Dekler (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the theory can be removed. The fact that OoT Link must have started a family after MM is a major problem with the theory and it's not the only one, so.. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Isn't this the Hero of Time; why is this separate. Darre (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link's regret, not Link's soul

I have had to change this page a couple of times because people keep changing it back (all in the same day). The Hero's Spirit is not actually Link from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. The reason for this is that all Links (except from the adult timeline as the only person with the Spirit of the Hero in this timeline left it) have the same soul. They are reincarnations of each other. If we look at it logically then the Hero's Shade would have to be the personification and manifestation of the regret of Link from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, not his actual soul. The other option is that the child timeline no longer has any Link with the Spirit of the Hero, but since Ganon/Ganondorf keeps comes back in Four Swords Adventure, after he was killed, as well as Twilight Princess, which makes sense as he did not actually die in the child timeline, then that means Demise's curse on Link is still there, meaning that they do have the Spirit of the Hero. From this information we can see that the Hero's Spirit is not Link's soul, it is his regret. We should not be saying that he is actually Link's soul and instead saying he is the manifestation of Link's regret.

The Hyrule Historia outright says its the same Link, (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, as an owner of the Hyrule Historia, I can say it does NOT say they are the same person. It says that "The spirit of Link's ancestor, the Hero of Time, teaches him his secrets." Now, even though most people do not know this, spirit and soul are NOT the same thing.. In some cases they are interchangeable, but when the soul of Link is supposed to be in all the Links (with the exception of the adult timeline) then we must look at the other things spirit could mean. We then look into more than just current day uses and the uses in the area we live and we see that soul is usually in reference of life while spirit is in mention of the immaterial part of people. When we look at that we can see that the lamentation and regret are part of the spirit of the Hero of Time and not part of his soul. Then, when we consider that the soul is supposed to be in Link from Twilight Princess, and that Demise's curse is in effect on that Link, we can see that the immaterial part of the Hero of Time cannot be his soul, but something that the new Link does not have. What the new Link does not have that the Hero of Time did is the experiences, the memories, and the emotions. Those then must be the spirit referred to in the Hyrule Historia. When we see that, then we see that the Hero's Spirit is not the soul of the Hero of Time as many believe it to be, but is the emotions, the memories, and the experiences of the Hero of Time in physical form. Is it still the Hero of Time? In a sense, yes. Is it the soul of the Hero of Time? No. Soul and spirit are not always interchangeable, and that is where the misunderstanding comes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Mirror's Link 15:59, 30 January 2014

I'm just going to reply in points so you can address anything you like with ease and not have to quote.

  • A. This sounded like fan-fiction or fandom theory at first, until you got to your second reply.
  • B. Ganondorf in TWW says Link is the reincarnation of the Hero of Time and the King concedes this at the end, remorsefully.
  • C. Let's say he is the lingering after-image of Link's individuality or something because I follow what you're saying, what with two Links co-existing in the same time and space. What would he regret? It can't be that he wasn't lauded as a hero, because the people in Twilight Princess do just that and it contradicts Majora's Mask where he did the opposite and walked away from glory that would await in Hyrule. So what would he regret? Oh how about the very thing he tells you IN the game, that he hadn't found a worthy successor! So then, HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, what's to say the Hero's Shade wasn't the real Link and merely passed the torch on to a new carrier like Link imparted his courage unto Colin?
  • D. Following that logic or irregardless of it, you can't conclude Ganon's reincarnation cycle is contingent on the Hero's rebirth. That is certainly a unique way to look at it I'll give you that (oy, what a twist that would be to find out). But the phrase "As darkness falls a hero will rise" was used to promote of all games, Twilight Princess. And we can see from the root of the trope, that is the case in Skyward Sword.
  • E. You're right about the distinction between soul and spirit, and even as Fi says, the Hero's Spirit is unbreakable (I've even heard rumors its referred to as divine beast in the JP version), so death would certainly pose no hindrance to his task. I agree with you 100% on this and I'm glad you followed up with this new bit of insight. You have enlightened me to a possible view I hadn't seen before! God Bless you.

Servantofgod (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me get this right: You're stating that all Links share the same soul, and the spirit is just the emotions and such of Link?
If so, and if we're going to stoop to nitpicking similar (and colloquially indiscernible) words, can you identify when it says that all Links share the same soul, then? As far as I can tell, the word "soul" isn't mentioned.
In any case, I must point out that the Skyward Sword manga is ambiguously canon, not concretely so, so arguing in its favor is a moot point. - TonyT S C 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to back this up even further: you're nitpicking between the meaning of "spirit" and "soul" in the English translation of a Japanese book. I can't begin to tell you how, well, not just shaky, but nonexistent the foundation for your argument is.KrytenKoro (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus, the fact that Demise calls it the "Spirit of the Hero", anyway, makes this nitpicking kind of ludicrous. I mean, he's basically calling this guy out by name, lol.KrytenKoro (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First I would like to address Pakkun. I am saying that the words SPIRIT and SOUL CAN mean the same thing, but DO NOT ALWAYS mean the same thing. When we get to a point in which there is a conflict within the games we must decide which type of SPIRIT it is referring to. Before I continue, however, I must point out that the manga in the Hyrule Historia is just as canon as any other part of the Hyrule Historia. If it is ambiguously canon, the whole book is. This is because there is no mention of the 2 parts being indifferent from each other, and when they are both in the same book, without mention of one being any less canon than the other, then they both, by default, are equally canon or non-canon. In the Hyrule Historia it mentions nothing to separate the Manga from the rest canonwise. Other manga are separated from the series, and that is why we can say they are not canon. Now we decide if the manga is canon and that the Hero's Spirit is the Hero of Time, or we decide if the manga is not canon and then the Hero's Spirit's identity remains unknown. This wiki has chosen to say that the Hero's Spirit is the Hero of Time, so we should then take the manga as canon. Now that we have that addressed we must look at the mentions of SPIRIT about this subject to decide what is accurate and not.
To start with this we must look into the Hyrule Historia's manga, which is just as canon as the Hero's Spirit being the Hero of Time, and what mention of SPIRIT exists in there. Here we see the Goddess Hylia say, "I will ensure that your gentle, heroic SPIRIT will live on eternally." When we look at the meaning that spirit can have when it does not mean soul we can see that adding the worlds "gentle" and "heroic" are not needed if she was not talking about the soul. Because of that we see that it must mean the SOUL will live on eternally. We now move onto the first incantation of Link in Skyward Sword where Demise curses him by saying, "Though this is not the end. My hate... never perishes. It is born anew in a cycle with no end! I will rise again! Those like you... Those who share the blood of the goddess and the SPIRIT of the hero... They are eternally bound to this curse. An incarnation of my hatred shall ever follow your kind, dooming them to wander a blood-soaked sea of darkness for all time!" This is implying that whoever has the SOUL of the Link that Hylia made eternal would be an enemy of Demise (and Zelda would also be an enemy) and that they would have to face the incantations of Demise (Ganon/Ganondorf). When we look at Twilight Princess we see that Link as wandering a "blood-soaked sea of darkness", more-so than almost all the other incantations of Link, showing that he has the SOUL of the original Link. We must finally see what the Hyrule Historia says about the Hero's Spirit, "The spirit of Link's ancestor, the Hero of Time, teaches him his secrets." Now, if we consider that the SOUL of the original Link is in the Link of Twilight Princess we must then either change the definition of the use of SPIRIT from Hylia and Demise or choose a different meaning for SPIRIT for the Hero's Spirit. As said about what Hylia said when making Link's spirit eternal, if it didn't mean soul then the words "gentle" and "heroic" would not be needed as that is already implied by SPIRIT. That means we must look at the definition of SPIRIT in terms of the Hero's Spirit, and we see it cannot be talking about the SOUL. Because of this we then have the Hero's Spirit fitting my original statement.
Now to Servantofgod, I do not remember that part. It is certainly interesting, and I will look into it even more as it explains the Link from Spirit Tracks.
KrytenKoro, you make claims without knowing if I have access to what the Japanese book says or not. That alone shows that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I also said that soul and spirit are NOT ALWAYS interchangeable, but they sometimes can be.
No, the Skyward Sword manga is not officially canon. It was developed independently and was added in as a bonus.
At this point, you're just trying to use what the words could mean, instead of what they are at face value. When it comes to that, we can simply argue ad infinitum of what we think it means, so there's no point. - TonyT S C 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet Minish Cap is canon when it was developed by Capcom? Granted it had Nintendo overseeing it, but that doesn't make it any different than the manga. The manga might have been added to the Hyrule Historia book, but did it have to be? Just like did Nintendo have to accept Capcom making a Zelda game? The answers are NO, but here is the part that makes them canon. They accepted them and included them WITH their canon material. If that manga differed to greatly from the rest of the Zelda series, would it be in the book? No. The sole fact that it was put into the Hyrule Historia WITHOUT anything saying it is not canon does not make it just another bonus, it makes it a part of the Hyrule Historia. I will agree that we are arguing what the words COULD mean, but if they all meant soul, it would be impossible. If they all meant spirit, it does not make sense. Because of that we know that they have different meaning in each context of the word. To ignore that FACT and put up information as fact without anything supporting it outside of something that could EASILY be out of context is not proper. I did research into this, does that mean I am right? No. Does that mean I am wrong? No. The difference is that the information being provided is information taken without an understanding of what it means. Do I say we should have what I have concluded on the wiki page? No. What we should do is look at all the claims that are canon, including the manga in the Hyrule Historia, and come up with a conclusion from all the evidence and have that be what is on the wiki page. Until then, however, we should not have confirmation one way or the other. So for putting my information in, I am sorry. I am not sorry, however, for taking the other information out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Mirror's Link 18:11, 30 January 2014
Zelda Wiki policy states that the manga is not confirmed to be canon. This isn't negotiable.
Media that has been confirmed to be canon by Nintendo is considered canon in our policy. Media that has been confirmed non-canon is met equally so. The Skyward Sword manga has neither been confirmed nor denied as canon, thus it is ambiguous. This relegates anything within it to a "maybe" status, thus the events depicted maybe happened. Until Nintendo states where it falls, it cannot be taken as hard fact. The non-manga portions of Hyrule Historia, however, have been confirmed by the developers to be canon. That is why canon and ambig-canon media may exist in the same book. Your logic that it is all treated equally as canon falls short for these reasons. - TonyT S C 01:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument, and your attack against me, are attempts to finagle the issue rather than to just rely on sources. Wikis deal in sourced fact, not "this is probably true" arguments. So:
I have not once attacked you, I have merely supplied sources for information you asked, supplied definitions to understand the stated "facts", and then asked questions. If those are attacks, then I feel as if we need to bring up a different issue altogether. You also say that wikis deal in facts, yet the Hyrule Historia says on page 68 that what is in the book is BELIEVED to be true AT THIS TIME. That means that it is temporary canon, and as a result is not FACTS as facts do not change. The book says the entire thing past page 68 is "probably true", you you say wikis do not deal with "probably true" arguments/statements. This is a clear contradiction.Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It really doesn't matter if you have access to the Japanese book if your argument still totally depends on the (possible) connotations of the same word in the English localization. But I digress. The Historia, in Japanese, calls the Hero's Spirit a "亡霊", or "Ghost", and Demise uses the term "魂", or Soul. In Japanese, the only distinction between these terms is that Bourei is the soul of a dead person. It's still a soul, and there's no overwhelming reason to assume that the Zelda series is beholden to modern (Western) pop culture's treatment of ghosts as "spiritual echoes" rather than the actual soul.
  • Don't rely on your assumptions of how souls work, which are emphatically incorrect -- we have multiple games showing that, similar to the Triforce of Courage, the spirit of the hero can be split into pieces and inhabit multiple bodies. Furthermore, Link time travels, like, a lot, seemingly implying that it could be very possible for two Links from separate eras to coexist in the same world at the same time. Rely on what the series actually says, and only claim things as fact if you can cite them to the canon fiction.
  • In summary -- there's nothing to say that TP Link doesn't have the spirit of the hero, no canon explanation for the mechanics of the split timeline or immortality of the spirit that would demand that he lacks it, and plenty of examples (or outright statements) within the series to believe that every Link has the spirit of the Hero. In other words, it sure as heck ain't a citeable fact that either TP or TWW Link lacks the Spirit of the Hero.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not use just modern day western culture for the definition of spirit and soul, but some eastern cultures and even historical meanings to come up with my definitions for the words spirit and soul. You also say that we have many games where the Spirit of the Hero splits into multiple bodies, you are probably referring to the Four Swords games. Here is the flaw, in those games, what happened if one Link would have died? Did he stay dead? No, as the Spirit of the Hero was in multiple parts. We now are to assume that the Spirit can split and the bodies with them can die? Then why did that not happen in the Four Swords games? Because it would not work that way. The "citeable fact" is only obtained if the manga in the Hyrule Historia is true, which it should be considered as such, because if it is true then the Era without a Hero COULD NOT have happened. I do appreciate your guy's comments though as I am stuck in a city where almost no one plays Zelda so I have no one to discuss these things with except online, but that does not mean I don't do my research. I might be wrong, I am not denying that, but then again you might be wrong, and you are not accepting that.Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am curious then, how did the Hyrule Historia become canon? I see no reason for it to be canon outside of personal opinion. You say it is not negotiable, but it makes me wonder why. There isn't any reason for the Hyrule Historia to be considered canon and the manga not to be. I do not mean any disrespect, but how can you make a partial claim? You claim what is in the Hyrule Historia is canon while denying the last pages of it that have just as much evidence for being canon as the rest of the book. It allows for there to be many flaws in the wiki if you use the same amount of evidence to promote one thing as canon but deny something else, with just as much evidence, from being canon. Isn't it fair to choose they are both ambiguously canon or they are both canon? Again, I mean no disrespect, but it seems absurd to me that a choice like that would be made and declared non-negotiable.Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here for the Historia sections being canon. As far as the manga...I personally believe it should be treated as canon, but it is called out as a "special comic", and unlike the history sections there's been nothing specifically stating it as canon. There's also the fact that...well, one is an encyclopedia specifically introduced as the official chronicle of the series, and the other is a bonus comic. We're not talking about arguing whether p. 117 covering the Twilight Princess stuff is considered canon or not, we're talking about something that is clearly a separate story, one that isn't even included in what Nintendo has emphatically stated is the official timeline.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People always seem to forget about page 68 of the Hyrule Historia where it pretty much says that whatever is in the book is subject to change. Doesn't that sound like it is saying that the Hyrule Historia is only temporary canon, which is about the same thing as saying it is ambiguously canon? So, by looking at the information provided, Hyrule Historia is subject to change (meaning it is NOT true canon but a temporary placeholder) and the manga is in said book (which people keep saying doesn't make it canon). What is the real difference between temporary canon and ambiguously canon? Only fans attitudes about them. The manga SHOULD be considered TEMPORARY CANON just like the Hyrule Historia. You also say that it isn't put into the timeline, but why does the mentioning of this Era in Skyward Sword include a Hero that served and protected Hylia from harm? It almost implies that there was a Link in that battle, and that goes hand in hand with the manga. If it fits in so well with what is canon, is in a book that is temporary canon, why not name it temporary canon as well?Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long prior to the release of Hyrule Historia, the Nintendo developers stated that they were wary to release the official timeline because they would rather have the option to handle the story more freely. An official timeline existed at the time, but they preferred to keep it hidden as to not limit themselves. However, as is the case with in-game canon, new releases may contradict this information. One example is at the end of ALttP, where it says that the Master Sword sleeps "forever," which was proven false with later installments to the series, like Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages or ALBW. One of the more notable examples is the creation of the Master Sword. There's at least something like three or four origin stories, but the most recent confirmed story is that Hylia created the Goddess Sword, which Link then tempered into the Master Sword.
Since you've switched to the side of trying to discredit HH's canonicity, your logic would then consider any given titles at the present to be ambiguously canon, as this information could change since through your reasoning, they're "temporary canon."
The text on page 68 only affirms that the information found in the pages 68-135--which is information found within the games itself--could change, not a guarantee that it ever will. Just as the games have established their canon, Hyrule Historia acts as the thread to bind this canon together.
So, in short, the pages 69-135 are on the same level of canon as the titles in the series, but it's been explained multiple times why any information page 240-onwards isn't. This notion of "temporary canon" can only operate the same as before. It isn't the same as being ambiguously canon. In any case, we've long veered of the topic of whether the Hero's Spirit is the same Link from Ocarina of Time, since now we're discussing what the writers could have possibly meant in context from different situations and why our canon policy is the way it is. - TonyT S C 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to think that everything I stated was to discredit the HH, but that is not the case. The book states that EVERYTHING in those pages is subject to change. That does not make every game ambiguously canon because we can see in our own world's history we have had many contradictory "facts". Same can be true throughout time in Hyrule in the games. Different origin stories of the Master Sword can be made because the interpretation of the history of Hyrule can change over time to the people that live there. Does that mean that that origin story is wrong? No, as it is the interpretation of the people who live there. That is the same for ALL games that are canon. We can now ask which games are canon, and the answer, as of now, are the games listed in the timeline of the Hyrule Historia, since Nintendo recognized them, and any non-spinoff game made directly by Nintendo. The reason is because Nintendo recognizes those games as the main part of the franchise. Is the Hyrule Historia a main part of the franchise? No, it is a SPECIAL, just as the manga at the end was referred to as a SPECIAL. Nintendo states in the Hyrule Historia itself that the information provided is BELIEVED to be accurate. That does not mean it is accurate, butit COULD BE. What does this mean? Anything mentioned in the Hyrule Historia that is NOT mentioned in the main part of the franchise is subject to change on the whim of Nintendo. What does that mean? It means that the Hyrule Historia is nice to have as a COLLECTOR and FAN of Zelda, but is not meant to put things as solid fact. The timeline is subject to change as long as it does not affect direct sequels, meaning that is TEMPORARY. Any information about Eras not mentioned in games or even information about the games themselves that were not mentioned in the game are all TEMPORARY. Temporary information is only true as long as nothing apposes it. What about ambiguously canon information? If nothing contradicts that information it can be seen as accurate, ESPECIALLY if it also fits in with already released canon. Page 69, "Changes that seem inconsequential, disregarded without even a shrug, could evolve at some point to hatch new legends and, perhaps, change this tapestry of history itself." This even states that the Hyrule Historia can change EASILY by adding new adventures, which we all know are the GAMES. The book itself puts it as temporary canon and nowhere near as canon as the games. This is information you can find just by reading the book, yet you still have it at the same level of canon as the games.
You also say that we are no longer talking about the Hero's Spirit being Link, but that is a false statement. We are talking about the sources that were used for the conclusion about the Hero's Spirit and Link being the same. If the sources are wrong or are misinterpreted then the conclusion that was reached is wrong. If we then look at the right information and proper interpretation and come up with the same conclusion, then the new conclusion is correct. It is the same in ANY situation. If you have a choice to buy one of two cars, same model, same exterior look, same price, and you knew one was made in a factory that made sure they were making the car right and the other factory just opened up and started making the cars without checking if they were doing it right or even accurate, which car would you buy? Obviously the first option would be preferred by pretty much EVERYONE. That is what we are discussing right now. Is the conclusion we have come to the right conclusion? To find that out we must look at the sources used to come up with the conclusions. Okay, let's look at the sources. Now we have different sources for each side of this debate, and one side has declared their source as correct and the other as wrong with no evidence to support they are not both equally correct or equally wrong. Since we have different sources that may OR may not be correct, we must find out if the sources are accurate. That is why we are not off topic right now. It is directly related to the conclusion we are discussing.
Even if we decide not to look at the sources, which automatically makes the conclusion wrong (even if using the right sources comes up with the same conclusion the original conclusion is wrong since it would be a baseless conclusion), then we have to still look at what the conclusion means. Is the Hero's Spirit the real Link or simply a part of him that was left behind? The term that was used, spirit, can mean either of them. How do we make a choice of which is right without checking the sources? We can't make an accurate one, we can only post the persons OPINION on what it means, post both of them and say they are equally likely, or we post neither of them. Option ONE makes this wiki INACCURATE, option TWO and THREE both work in a way to keep this wiki ACCURATE, BUT option THREE makes this wiki INCOMPLETE. This leaves us with TWO options to make this wiki ACCURATE. We either discuss the sources, which you have not been open about, OR post both conclusions as equally likely in the wiki. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion has gone so far off-topic that it isn't even funny. Let me make a few things very clear, here:
  1. Hyrule Historia is considered to be canon until such time as contradictions arise with the facts put forth by the games.
  2. The Skyward Sword manga is not officially confirmed as canon, and therefore, according to our policy, it cannot be called such.
  3. This argument seems to be over the finer details of what was meant when Hyrule Historia said "... the spirit of Link's ancestor, the Hero of Time..." I honestly find this to be more theoretical than anything, and there's no merit in prolonging it because no proof has been submitted toward your theory, while plenty has been submitted to the contrary.
Pakkun was trying to get you to understand that we cannot accept what you are saying because it is theoretical, and you have little solid evidence, as everything you are trying to use to back your claim is circumstancial and shaky. This discussion needs to end, now. It has degraded into a back and forth between yourself and multiple editors. I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but if there are this many people who do not accept what you are saying, then the community consensus is to reject it. Continuing to push your point and argue is not going to change anything. Let this be the end of it, with no further comments from either side. You're all taking potshots at each other, and I'm putting a stop to it right here, right now. Any further insults will result in a temporary ban.Justin(Talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to add that while he reiterated too much, DML was not wrong and he brings up a good point this wiki where would do best to keep an open mind. Hyrule Historia isn't published by Nintendo for one, in either Japan or anywhere, and its canonicity is as disputable if not more than the manga series. E.g. when it claims that Kaepora Gaebora is Rauru which is blatantly false. If the content is refutable, so is the source in totality. That's the crux of this issue. Servantofgod (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's published at Nintendo's request, and the creators of the series specifically said that they, in writing the timeline section of the book (not the comic, which is clearly delineated to the point of being printed in the reverse direction), were researching and compiling the canon details of the series. The manga series, however, blatantly contradicts the games in almost every chapter. As for Kaepora Gaebora...the owl form is the form he takes in the Light World, like a reverse Wolf Link/Bunny Link. It's pretty straightforward, and there is no justification whatsoever for claiming it is "blatantly false".KrytenKoro (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Golden Wolf

Isn't it called that in-game?

"Call the golden wolf at howling statues. The map will show you where to learn a new skill." (paraphrased)

Would that supplant supplementary material such as Encyclopedia or not? -Mugen Kagemaru (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, for two reasons.
  1. The usage in-game does not fit our Terminology Guidelines and so it is not recognized as a true name in that instance.
  2. With how we handle Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Guidelines), the names derived from it are used in place of any names from in-game. (Note: any recognized names from in-game aren't erased, we just use the latest one available.)
I'm not a fan of how they decided to name the wolf, but these are the policies in place which led to us accepting that name. TriforceTony (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Encyclopedia, on page 31, he is called "gold wolf" and "a wolf of shining gold [appears]". Maybe, "white wolf" name from page 277 is just one of the many errors in this book? zelda64rus (talk) 10:27, December 1, 2019‎ (UTC)
What's mentioned on page 31 of Encyclopedia also doesn't fit the Terminology Guidelines, so we should use what appears on page 277, which does. - Chuck * (Talk) 01:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those of us who haven't read Encyclopedia for one reason or another, would you be opposed to clarifying what is different about "white wolf" on page 277 that gives it more clout over "gold wolf" and "wolf of shining gold" by the Terminology Guidelines? -Mugen Kagemaru (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are not capitalized nor are surrounded by differently-colored text. Besides, "gold" is simply used as an adjective, while White Wolf is used as a name for the character. - Chuck * (Talk) 21:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]