Talk:Ganon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:45, 30 December 2006

Ganon received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Deaths

It occurs to me that the number of times ganon is killed is more than ganon is revived. By my count he is killed at least four times, and is revived once or an attemted twice (AOL). Is there anything that can explain this?

Two words; Plot hole. :p --Luigifan 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be serious, a lot of the times that Ganon is "killed", he's really only being sealed away. So, he wouldn't need to be revived, per se; the seal would have to be broken before he could come back. --Luigifan 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, the timeline in the Zelda series is quite loose, and the games don't neatly fit in a particular order. Also, some clearly occur in relation to others; for example, Link to the Past takes place after Ocarina of Time, so Ganon was still in the realm that he'd been sealed away to.

Deaths count. LttP, TWW (imo), OoA/S, LoZ. Sealed away count: OoT, FSA. Resurrected: Once in OoA/S, possibly reincarnated and later reunited with his consciousness in FSA. Either way, none of this belongs in the article because all of us are simply theorizing, which is OR.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miyamoto was quoted in an interview saying that it its not always the same link in each game. In that event it might not be the same Ganon or same reality even.

Putting it simply, Ganon is the combined essence of the Triforce of Power and Ganondorf. While it may not be the same GanonDORF everytime, whenever he gets his hands on the Triforce, he is basically reviving Ganon by giving his own soul up for the power he desires. And the Oracles Ganon was a mindless, raging beast, by no means the true Ganon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.192.18.12 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

68.206.251.137's recent edit

This change refers to details that probably derive from a timeline theory. Now Miyamoto confirmed that there may well be more than one Link, but he never said anything about Zelda, nor did he say which Link was in which game. Therefore, is this "wrong"? Master Thief Garrett 03:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking... If you mean to ask whether the stories of Majora's Mask -> Wind Waker are continuous, I was about to ask the same thing. Then after I wrote a long reply I remembered the intro to Wind Waker saying something about a "Hero in Green" defeating Ganon and leaving the world, but not returning when Ganon attacked again. Naturally it is implied that the WW Link is different from the previous hero since he has a family on the island and doesn't know about Zelda of Ganon or anything else really. But logically, if it is the same story, I think it could work (theoretically) for Zelda to be the same one as from Ocarina.

Again, I'm not sure on a lot this, but I bet any devout follower of the series could tell you this off the top of his head. So, uh... find one of those. Phort99 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two Zeldas, as AoL sleeping Zelda is not the same one as from the first game. Zelda in TWW could only be the same as Zelda from OoT by some very strange plot manipulation, like making her lose her memory, and her living for 100s of years. I'd say that's unlikely. There may be more, but I can't think of it at the moment. Setokaiba^✌_≝ 10:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sword can wound Ganon

Quick fact: any sword will damage Ganon, not only the "magical" sword. --Feitclub 00:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good work, I should've caught that one. –Andre (talk) 00:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe the manual says you need the Magic Sword, which is probably why you made the error. (Garrett, 17:33, Apr 12, 2005 (GMT)

Surely you mean the Master's sword? --Jpawloski 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Sword is required in A Link to the Past, but the Level 2 Sword (MS 1) requires you to perform spin attacks. Also, in Ocarina of Time, you can only deal the final blow with the Master Sword. In The Wind Waker, you have no option but to use the Master Sword to fight and finish off Ganon. --TSA 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like more of a plot arc to me though, since the giant blade is actually a way better weapon against him in all forms :p Tyciol 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganondorf Dragmire? Mandrag Ganon?

He's never called Dragmire in ocarina of time, that Mandrag/Dragmire stuff was added for the American version of "A Link to the Past and has no canonicity. -Unknown

The American Link to the Past predates Ocarina of Time and is canonical. Andre (talk) 21:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're both partly wrong, he's NEVER called Dragmire in the LTTP game text. This name ONLY appears in the manual, and was apparently a horrendous mistranslation much like Gannon with two Ns. -Unknown

And as for saying LTTP had no canonicity, what the?!? there's more to Zelda than OOT! The series was already rich and diverse before OOT entered the scene at its relatively late date. OOT is NOT the be-all and the end-all of Zelda, it didn't define was Zelda is, that had already been done, indeed many would argue that LTTP did that! I smell a fanboy... (Garrett, 17:33, Apr 12, 2005 (GMT)

I believe the original anon was arguing that it lacks canonicity because it was not present in the Japanese version of LTTP, although I don't know if this is true. Deco 05:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but how many fans actually know about that fact? And seeing as the comment refers explicitly to OOT rather than specifying any Japanese differences, I'd say that the main point is revolving around OOT as defining the "facts". Or maybe I'm just mistaken. Regardless, this has now been cleared up and worded in a fairly straightforward manner. Master Thief Garrett 06:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is true, Deco. Please see Zelda Legends' ALttP Translation Comparison: 'The names "Dragmire" and "Mandrag" are simply not in the Japanese text. Which explains why these names did not appear in OoT or TWW. It just says that "the man's name was Ganondorf, and his common name was Ganon of the race of evil thieves." The thieves are not "enchanted" either, so Mandrag is totally out of place.' Davogones 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth noting, though I doubt it: IMDB has the voice actor for Ganon in SSB Melee, Takashi Nagasano, credited for "Ganondorf Dragmire's" voice. (The game is listed under its Japanese name.) I was about to ask this question. Heh. Cernen 09:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the statement above^^^

SSB Melee isn't in the timeline. =P

Ganon or Ganondorf?

It's speculation. Consider the possibility that the change in form created a change in personality - while Ganondorf pre-OoT is evil, he's not nearly as evil as Ganon is. It's a similar situation with Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker - Obi-Wan said that he ceased to be Anakin and became Darth Vader. Consider that the Maiden was speaking that he was no longer Ganondorf, but Ganon, the King of Evil. Deleting for non-neutrality. -Unknown

Um, what? I'd like some more feedback before you remove that, please. After all, this is also your own non-neutral view. Master Thief Garrett 03:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You changed it?!? What the **** did I just say?!? You need more of an explanation! Master Thief Garrett 04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the whole statement was basically speculation that it's fact that Ganon is merely a nickname. And my view was neutral - I gave both sides of the argument. I've already heard both the arguments in a debate, so I know that both of them are accepted by others. The way it is now, people get both arguments without seeing one or the other as more legitimate.

--A Link to the Past 13:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that's OK then. As long as there's some rational thought behind it. Which was what I was trying to establish from the beginning, but you went and changed it *before* adding this longer explanation. Master Thief Garrett 22:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikidSmaht's edits

Thank you for the major rehaul, it did fix a number of problems I failed to notice. Even so, I have a couple of problems with what you changed (noticable since I had originally modified them):

Form in the sacred realm: In the Windwaker entry you reverted my alternative explanation to the critique of Ganon being in the form of an elderly Ganondorf. I think that it's silly to ask why it is unusual. Windwaker is obviously drawing on Ocarina of Time for inspiration (since that's what the shown form of Ganondorf is based on). Ganondorf has displayed the ability to transform into the pig, so it can be assumed he can transform back. I'd like to remove the 'original form' thing altogether, because last seen in OoT, he was in human form. If he goes pig in any of the future games, it can be assumed he (off-screen) transforms back, or that his ghost takes on a human form.
'Usual blue'. I think specifying this is useful, as saying 'peach' alone doesn't say much, since that's the normal colour warhogs and pigs have. I would like to add back 'usual blue' since it helps contrast it.
Fought only with magic and minions: This is true, unlike in the games where he also fighs in melee combat. Why was this removed?
Please add back as usual to the games, since the object of most games (including Ocarina of Time) is gaining the Triforce of Wisdom. The Power thing was a typo, I meant courage, the Triforce of Courage was not present in the cartoon.
Apparently a wizard is unneeded. Ganon is a wizard in every game, wielding magical force blasts and the like, similar to Link. What's distinctive is that he's only a wizard/summoner, and not also a warrior like in the games, which I clarify better in mentioning that he doesn't fight hand to hand.

Thanks and hopefully I can resolve this. Tyciol 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well:

No, he was still a large pig creature at the end of OoT, transformed by the Triforce of Power. How he regained human form is a mystery, as he didn’t show up human again in any other game.
The other sections mention or illustrate that he’s blue. In the context of the article, that’s already clear.
It just wasn’t good prose.
How could I possibly have known that you meant Courage? That does make more sense. I still don’t think it’s necessary to mention, though; because it’s the same as the game the cartoon is based on, it’s not a notable omission.
Then say it that way. “Ganon only fights with magic, or commands his armies to attack. Unlike the games, he never directly engages Link in combat.” Something like that, but a little less clunky. There’s enough terrible prose in the article already.

Hope that clears those up. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganondorf Cult

There is a cult following and worshipping ganondorf - there are several sects in the uk and america. This is a valuable edit and shouldn't have been removed.

Cite a source or your edits will be removed again. Setokaiba^✌_≝ 20:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there's a cult following and worshipping Ganon? If so that is very odd. Who would worship a fictional character?

Anon

Might as well worship Satan

Wait a minute. There's a cult out there worshipping Ganondorf?!??!!!? OK... I'm just going to curl up in a ball and quiver in fear now... --Luigifan 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but you should see those other weirdos worshipping the wii- now THAT is scary! i highly doubt anyone "worshipping" him but he is a popular character...(not that I like him very much!)-user:EEVEE103

Really? There's a such thing? Where? Where is it? I love you Ganon!

What's the "wii-"?

Four Swords Adventures?

He's the last boss in that game. No one's played it?

I have. --Luigifan 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite encyclopedic.

SSB: Brawl

Someone added that most clones will be removed or given a new moveset. If no one can provide a source for this, I will remove it. Supermariorobot 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history

Shouldn't Ganon's history be expanded upon on the Ganon page? it stops abruptly at the beginning of TWW. I know,due to timeline theories, that you can't explain which happened first to Ganon after TWW, but you can metion it, saying that you're not sure of which event comes first.--Superbub

I'm going to change the section, so if anyone wants to change it back, inform me before doing so.--Superbub

I'm considering removing that huge portion about TWW in Character Background because no one knows for sure how it fits into the timeline. It doesn't make any more sense to add it than it does to add a longwinded recollection of the events of any Zelda game that Ganon was featured in except OoT Xubelox 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should surely discuss his role in a very narrow sense, with at best an extremely brief summary of surrounding events and setting. Deco 07:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganondorf's Sword in SSB:M

I always thought his sword was based on the sword he used in the promo video of the TWW (before it went cell-shaded); that battle were a Realistic Ganondorf and Link fight. Whereas in the article about SSB:M the sword just comes out of the blue.--84.27.22.112 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a promo for TWW. It was just something to show off the GameCube's capabilities. Xubelox 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony?

In this appearance, Ganondorf was voiced by Takashi Nagasako, who, ironically, voiced the SEGA character Big the Cat around the same time.

How is this even remotely ironic? --4.254.116.93 00:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the second part of the sentence for a conspicuous lack of irony. --4.254.114.225 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author was refering to the voice actor doing lines for a Nintendo and Sega game. Still, not very ironic. 83.151.197.97 16:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the irony's in the fact that the guy voice-acting for the wicked [wicked as in evil, and wicked cool] Ganondorf is also the voice actor for Big the Cat... who's rather infamous for being [arguably] mentally retarded. It's rather hard to believe that those voices, which are for two completely different personalities, could be provided by the same guy. --Luigifan 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though, now that I think about it, they sound somewhat similar... --Luigifan 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Ganondorfs voice is so deep and Bigs voice is so stupid...How can they be similar?-user:EEVEE103

Ganon and Agahnim

However, he was somehow able to manipulate the evil wizard Agahnim to fulfill his agenda in the Light World (Hyrule).

Doesn't this imply Ganon isn't Agahnim and thus conflict with the Agahnim article, which states: Agahnim's status as Ganon's second self is subject to some controversy, but both images and dialogue in A Link to the Past, which is to be taken as primary canon, shows that they were the same being.

Well, I think it refers to the fact that exactly how Ganon managed to be Aghanim doesn't make sense within the games own laws. Ganon was trapped in the Dark World and couldn't get out. That was his entire goal. There has been some discussion and speculation about this, on Zelda storyline debates, though. Some feel Aghanim could be an astral projection or a Phantom Ganon (same attack pattern too). Some feel he may be a wizard who Ganon possessed. Some feel the uncanon Soul Calibur II games try to explain that a wizard/priest fell from grace after affected by the Soul Edge's evil, giving Ganon an opening to control him. All these go with Ganon's dialogue, that he is Aghanim.

Exactly how, however, isn't the place for a Wikipedia article, which is why fan theories aren't discussed in the article. Perhaps it would be best if someone simply used the in-game dialogue to let the reader assume what they will. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganon as a single entity.

Can anyone cite an official source that states that the various Ganons are in fact one person? As of yet, I've been unable to find one, and am unwilling to assume that he is, nor that there are multiple versions in each Zelda game. As far as I know, it's never even been stated that every single one follows any sort of all-encompassing continuity, although many people editing this article seem to assume so. I'd like to know where people are getting their facts before I start another stupid revert war. Thus far I can only find a fairly good in-game implication that the Ganondorf in "The Wind Waker" is the same as the one in "The Ocarina of Time." So could someone cite some sources? -- Digital Watches! 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if there are official sources other than the games themselves, which do not explicitly state anything but seem to (especially with Four Swords Adventures) imply there is only one "Ganon", even if that game suggests there might be a second Gerudo who was named Ganondorf. A credible but not official source, which discusses whether it's one Ganon or many, is [1]. This was written however before a few more recent games which do tend to make this clearer still. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That source, however, is a fan-made argument, which in no way reflects Nintendo's intended canon. I'm not saying I disagree, but until there's an official statement, or something VERY explicit in the games, anything regarding the number of Ganons or any continuous chronology throughout the entire series (Things like OOT and Majora's Mask being directly linked are fairly explicit) is either original research or speculation. Also: Just because Ganon only gets a backstory in OOT doesn't mean it's the backstory for every game's Ganon. -- Digital Watches! 22:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what exactly do you mean when you say that newer games make it "clearer still"? I couldn't disagree more. -- Digital Watches ! 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since TWW, they've been trying. Ganon from TWW is referred to as the man from the legend (OOT) and makes references to the Hero of Time, and even tries to follow up his promise that he'll kill their descendents. In Four Swords Adventures, the game is quite eager when we first hear of Ganon to present him as having been of this generation, when geography alone would imply this game can't take place anywhere near OOT. Then, Ganon takes the trident and Zelda calls him an "ancient demon reborn". Also, in games like LTTP, they speak of the Knights and Sages and maybe the hero fighting this same menace before. I'm sure while not official, the people over at the discussion boards for these things can come up with a very airtight argument.

But fan-made arguments aren't and will never be an acceptable source of official canon. And yes, it's very obvious that the Ganon in OOT is the Ganon in TWW. That much is entirely inferrable. But then again, OOT and TWW are quite inextricably connected in the first place, so it really says nothing for the other games' Ganons. This "Ancient demon reborn" argument is heavy with speculation as to what she means by that, and a lot of the LOZ storylines have Ganon as being an ancient evil, so it's a huge stretch to use that to draw any connection to the Ganons of other games -- Digital Watches ! 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But no, Nintendo's never said "Oh yeah, there's only one Ganon" as far as I can tell. But I'm pretty sure the games make it very clear. For that reason, I think if you say "some fans think" you can always back it up with timeline articles by fans. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the games do anything but give proponents of the theory some obscure fodder for speculation. From what I've seen, all of these theories are, like the Four Swords "Ancient Demon Reborn" argument, quite a stretch, and so until Nintendo comes out with something official, I think we should leave the number of Ganons entirely unstated in the article, as no one knows if there are multiple or a single Ganon, and the Polyganonists and Monoganonists will have a fit should the opposite perspective be presented. If you'd like a detailed argument as to why we shouldn't put fan speculation, even when labeled as such, in an article, I would cite a similar situation at Dizzy (Guilty Gear) and its respective talk page. It's not exactly the same, but it's kind of similar in problem. Either way, Wikipedia:Original research should apply to this situation as well. But no matter what we decide, I mean you no offense, so please don't view these statements as being an attack or in any way malicious. Thanks for your time. -- Digital Watches ! 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Nintendo has not said that there is more than one Ganon, and until they do, we have to assume it's one being and treat the article that way. Since Nintendo has explicitly stated that there are more than one Link and Zelda, we can say for sure that they are not just one being. This is not the case with Ganon. So technically it could be considered original research and speculation to say that there may be more than one Ganon. I'll just use Mario as a random example. Has every single Mario game stated that the Mario in that game is the same Mario as every other game? Probably not, but that doesn't mean we should bring up the possibility on Mario's page of there being more than one of him. 199.126.137.209 11:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely arbitrary. There's no reason in any canonical sources to "treat the article" one way or another. Anyone could say the same thing going the other way. Like I've been saying the whole time, I think that we should leave the whole debate out of the article until something official comes up. We can only maintain NPOV by not leading readers of the article to believe one way or another. -- Digital Watches ! 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background story

I don't think this is nessecary as his history is already covered in ocarina of time. Also he never attackes Link's descendant. It's stated by the King of Red Lions when talking to Jabun that the Link in WW has no connections to the orginal Link. I think this portion should be replaced with something else. Maby his personality, his traits, nicknames, ect.. Not to be offensive, but it's also sort unorganized and not told well.

Another thing to add is that he actually was given a backstory in LTTP. In that game, he was a thief who led his army to the stronghold of the Sacred Realm, where he first discovered the Triforce. After that, he killed his own men and took the Triforce for himself, becoming Ganon, but was sealed away by the 7 Sages. He then escaped when his still loyal minions captured the 7 maidens, decendents of the Sages, and used them to release himself from the Dark Realm.

Why is "Gannon" a misspelling?

It's spelled that way in the first and second Japanese games, I would think they know how to spell their own characters' names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.218.70 (talk • contribs)

The first two games also had Link finding "All of treasures" and a guy named Error. It's just something that was retconned, like the spelling Hyrulian. --Sparky Lurkdragon 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the Katakana used to spell his name in Japanese does not place two "n"s next to each other. -Saturn Yoshi ^{THE VOICES} 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Error" wasn't really a mistranslation, actually. That's just his name. Panserbjørn 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think it's a mistranslation of Errol, which is a real male's name. Jeff Silvers 11:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

Hey, whoever did the personality section, Good Job! The whole section is very true and does a great job of depicting Ganondorf and his comparison to other nintendo villains. You should erase the background story and replace it with this section. Again, good job.

Might I recommend against removing the background section as it is an important aspect of his character. KEEP THE PERSONALITY SECTION AS WELL THOUGH.

Anon

Goofy pic

Just a quickie. Couldn't a more up to date profile pic of Ganon be used? The curreent one is *very* early 90s. Surely a OoT or WW would be better suited? 83.151.197.97 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same complaint. The currnent photo is from the oracle series. It deosn't show Ganon at his most evil state and deosn't accuratly depict him. I changed it a while ago to a more suitable pick; the one right before he transfroms into Ganon fro OT. But the person who put this stupid picture seems so attached and put it back. I' ll find a better picture of Ganon.

Really, I think the new picture looks better, but it's by no means any more accurate than the previous one. Don't confuse aesthetics with accuracy. (OOT =/= end all, be all of canon). -- Digital Watches ! 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the new one. I was talking about the picture before that. This is the one I uploaded. Your right that it's no more accurate than the other one, but that goes for all pictures since Ganondorf takes on a different form in each game. The other one though was not very menacing looking. This one is much more menacing and represents the struggle with Link he has in each game.

Let's make this article generally better.

I think that if the page for Link can get FA status, we can get this one up to speed as well. However, there are a few things we should consider in order to do this. Firstly, maintaining NPOV. I'm not just talking about the multi/single Ganon argument, it's also the entire personality section, which has a lot of obvious unnecessary commentary on the character {Stuff like "Manifestation of pure evil," and things that are entirely interpreted.), should be revamped, if not removed, and the storyline sections are far too long-winded and read more like a story than an encyclopedia article. One idea may be just to use the Link article as a model, as far as section layout, writing tone, and length/precedent of what warrants inclusion. We could also use some more real-world information about the character, as this article seems to focus exclusively on in-universe information. Either way, this article needs to be cleaned up. -- Digital Watches ! 23:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the sections on Ganon's depiction in the games telling a whole story. They are simply telling about his plans and his deeds in the games which do require alot of room. I can understand your point, but all the information in thoses sections is accurate and none of it is speculation. It shows all his evil deeds which are accuratly depicted and in no way exxagerated and speculative. The personality section could use some fixing, but it is pretty accurate as far as my opinion goes.

The personality section isn't speculated, but it's very slanted. And that's not my main gripe. Just because all the information is correct doesn't mean that it all belongs in an encyclopedia article. The descriptions of all storyline details, including all the in-game plots, take far too much liberty with the form of the prose, making it read more like some sort of epic than an encyclopedia article. Almost every section could stand some MAJOR trimming. Again, I think that we should follow the example of Link's article, as it was and still is a Featured Article, and being a character page from the same universe, will be fairly close to the ideal structure for this page. As it stands, the article is long-winded, hard to follow, and contains only in-universe information. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because the article is entirely factual does not mean that it shouldn't be modified. In this case, extensively. I need sleep. -- Digital Watches ! 06:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may seem like splitting hairs, but I think we need at least a few references for unsourced statements. -- Digital Watches ! 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop

Look, whoever keeps placing the oracle series version of Ganon as the lead picture, please stop. That is one of the most riduclous pictures of him. It's an insult to his name to have that as the first picture. I think I speak for alot of people when a say he looks like a complete and utter moron in that picture. We need a picture that shows his most evil version and I think that would be his human form from ocarina. This does not portray him well and is completly random. Why do like this picture so much? It's absolutly horrible. Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but this is really pissing me off. That is him in the oracle series and that is where it belongs. The picture we had with Ganondorf fighting Link was perfect and was much more menacing. This picture is a piece of crap compared to that one, he does not look evil. No, let me correct myself; It's a piece of crap in general. I cannot stress that enough, he simply does not look evil, menacing, indimdating or anything. He looks like an idiot so I'm going to change it. Look at the section on this discussion board; one says "Goofy Pic" So I'm not the only one. I'm going to change it and going to keep changing it if you do it again. You have to give me a good reason to keep, but this is a crappy ass photo.

Um, I like the picture of Ganondorf fighting Link as well, but thus far, you've given no logical reasoning as to why it's any better than the other one for this article. The point of an encyclopedia article is to provide information on the subject in a neutral and succinct manner. It doesn't really matter that he looks more "Menacing" or "Evil," as long as it's an accurate depiction. As far as I know, the Oracle series is just as canon as OOT, so I don't see where you're getting the idea that one canon image trumps another canon image because it "Looks more menacing." Also, I think that a declaration of intent to continue a revert war will serve this article poorly, and it would be better to discuss this issue with whoever keeps changing it. -- Digital Watches ! 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is much better for an encyclopedic article as it is a simple image showing the subject. Displaying both Link and Ganon is stupid for the lead in/infobox image. Also, canonicity and OPINION are irrelevant with regards to the character from an out of universe perspective. Futhermore, silliness has at times been a part of Ganon's character (for instance, the cartoons - canonicity irrelevant to the nature of a character from an encyclopedic standpoint), even if I personally do not find it to look "goofy" or "crappy ass". ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm all for you reverting it. -- Digital Watches ! 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the other pucture is good is because it shows Ganon's core. His back story is him always being a Geroudo, and theorfore a human. This picture does not represent him well, you yourself have not given me a reason for this one. Whenever I hear the name Ganon, the first thing that comes to mind is his human form. His full name is Ganondorf and that represents his human form. Ganon is another form that he takes, but he's still Ganondorf as a whole. Ganondorf represents both his human side and his evil side while Ganon just represents pure evil. That's why I like the other picture because it shows both his evil and his human form. That's the image want to introduce Ganondorf, his starting form and then how he transfroms into a creature known as Ganon. If anyone else agrees with me, please post.

You having played OOT first doesn't make Ganon any more human than he is a pig. That's entirely POV and opinionated. I agree with Zythe. -- Digital Watches ! 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since nothing about Ganon's multiplicity or lack thereof has been officially confirmed, any statement relying on Ganon having a consistent backstory throughout all of the games is both POV and Original Research. -- Digital Watches ! 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not assuming Ocarina is first. Almost every game had Ganon as human in his orginal backstory. In a Link to the Past he was a human in charge of a group of thieves until he obtained the Triforce and became Ganon. In the oracle series, the plot revolves around the withches completing GEROUDO rituals. That means he was a Geroudo once which are human. In four swords he was a Geroudo again until he stole the scepter of darkness and became a demon. Ocarina and Wind Waker have him as a human. The only games are the first and the second which don't give any backstory at all. Therefore almost every game have him once as a human then became Ganon. The only games which we see Ganon as a human is Ocarina and Wind Waker. Since ocarina came first, I think it's good to show a picture of him there. The picture of him fighting Link not only shows boths sides of Ganon; pure evil and humanity, but also represents the internal struggle he has with a "Link" in each game. The other one only shows one side of him; I don't view it as a complete characterzation, it merely shows one side of him. But I'm not assuming Ocarina is first, I am going by his history in all the games which seem to portary him as once human and then this demon called Ganon.

Sign your posts. Not the original game. And he only looks like that in OoT. AND the Oracle Ganon shape is a great pic of Ganon's most common form (LoZ, AoL, LttP, LA, end of OoT, Oracles, FSA...) whereas as he looks in OoT is only OoT, TWW is only TWW etc. Plus! It's a terrible pic, which has poor use on an encylopedic article about Ganon. By your logic, Jack Harkness' picture should be him kissing The Doctor cos that's part of his character. You simply dislike an image, which is your POV, and you've made that clear. Please refrain from adding the picture again unless a concensus of valuable points (subjective terms like which you prefer notwithstanding) - without the use of sock puppets, thanks, is able to form.

In summary: no matter how much you want that picture - it's bad because it doesn't picture only Ganon, it uses a form shown in only one game. The concensus at the moment is in favour of the Oracles picture, or any other fair use official art which shows Ganon in his pig form I'd imagine. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Oracles Ganon was a mindless, raging beast and therefore not the true essence of Ganon. A more recent picture IS a plus, but the Oracles Ganon is just plain goofy. As a Zelda fan, Oracle of Ages was one of my favorites, and Seasons was pretty close behind. But I didn't like what they did with Ganon. Now, I know opinion is not a good reason for one person to change the picture. As such, can someone get a screenshot (a GOOD one) of Dark Beast: Ganon from Twilight Princess? It's an awesome depiction of his pig form, and as such it may be a better pick for the main avatar of Ganon being presented. It's just a little annoying that this debate has gone on for months now and there is no resolution in sight, and this will satisfy both sides; a picture of Ganon's most well-known form that doesn't look Disney-ed up.

Dracokanji 3:13 19 December 2006

Which one is his Oracle picture, is it the pig-form or his human form? Might I just say that the pig-form doesn't really depict his character or personality very well which is one of the things the encyclopedia article aims to convey so maybe we should use the human form. It is after all the one most people associate with him. I agree with you that we shouldn't use the one that depicts him fighting Link as that doesn't just show Ganon, it shows two people, one of whom is Ganon but we should put it in somewhere down the page as it is very good. Who removed the sentence saying that he was arguably Nintendo's most evil villain because that is a fact.

Anon

Well, you picture is bad because it only pictures Ganon. His real name in Ganondorf, that's his full name and therefore him as a whole. Ganon stimulates from his personality and therefore represents that. Ganondorf represents everything he is becuase Ganon orginates from him. Ganondrof represents more of his personality than this picture does. Thanks to whoever wrote the post above this one. That's what I saying, is that Ganondorf's human form is the most assocaitive while Ganon is a monsterous form that stems from his human form. Ah, forget it, I doubt I'll convince you. I don't unerstand why you don't get it. Ganondorf's first backstory was introduced in Ocarina and I believe that's an iconic moment for the series, we should start with that then stem to his transformation as Ganon. His full name is Ganondorf and this article should be changed to that. C'mon someone else post, I'm defiantly not the only one here. I hate this picture, but mainly because it's a poor description. And wtf is the big deal, I'm not eliminating your picture, I' simply placing it in the oracle section of the artical. People can still see that form of him. Well, you have not given me a valid reason other than it's a form he is usually in. That's not a good reason and ONCE AGAIN, it does not describe him well at all. It's from the oracle games in which he was a mindless beast. That's not Ganondorf at all.

I'll give you a very good reason: Wikipedia has two policies that conflict with this. First is the Neutral Point of View policy. Simply put, valuing Ganon's depiction as Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time over other games violates this policy, which calls for a lack of bias. Giving more weight to one game's depiction of a character than any other equally canon games is a very biased move to make. The statement that the human-form Ganondorf represents the character better than any given canon form is a statement of bias. Secondly, there's a policy against original research. This covers any and all statements inferred by the editor instead of taken from a credible (in the case of fiction, that pretty much means official or nothing) source. Delving into Ganon(dorf)'s personality/whatever you want to call it beyond what is explicitly stated in the games or by Nintendo/Miyamoto. To say that a piece of official art does not well depict Ganon's personality falls within this, since I don't think there's been any press conferences in which Nintendo has declared Ganon's appearances in games other than OOT/TWW non-canon. Lastly, the image you would like to use depicts both Ganon and Link. While this could be labeled to show which one is which, it makes more sense to use a picture in which Ganon is alone, and depicted as he has appeared far more often than the other, if nothing else, then for the sake of those unfamiliar with the material. Please do not revert it again. -- Digital Watches ! 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we should leave the name of the article as Ganon as it really doesn't make any difference if it says Ganon or Ganondorf as they both refer to the same person. It's rather like trying to decide what to call the evil doctor from Sonic the Hedgehog, Robotnik or Eggman. You can't really come to a final agreement on it. That's my opinion anyway.

I'm going to have to agree with others in this instance that the pig pic is better, if for no other reason than that Ganon takes that form at some point in every game in which he appears, and in many of them appears only in that form. Deco 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He never showed up as a pig in The Wind Waker. --Luigifan 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose technically in the intro. His WW portrayal doesn't match his OoT one anyway. The game isn't "Ocarina of Time, sequels and spin-offs" it's "The Legend of Zelda". No one cares which incarnation you prefer. For the quality of the article, a standardized and more common depiction is preferred. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, actually:

Ganondorf is human in OOT. He becomes Ganon. He gets trapped in the Dark World. Ganon escapes the dark world as a pig in WW. He reverts to human. He dies. In the Oracles, Twinrova revives him from the dead (though it is not specifically his death in WW) he gets sent to the dark world. He possesses Agahnim. He fights link in the dark world without actually escaping, and gets severely crippled and the seal is strenghtened. He escapes the Dark World in the original game (check the official website). As for four swords... well, who knows. So, he doesn't have a new backstory of changing to a pig in every game. Just Four Swords Adventures. Bly1993 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, thanks. Zelda noobs. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not original research. Its from official sources. The only time i mentioned something that wasn't confirmed I said it was not confirmed. Bly1993 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the games are official, your interpretation of how they interconnect isn't. The Zelda Timeline is in some places FIERCELY debated. For example, to play Devil's Advocate, one could argue that Ganondorf is a time traveller and so none of it is in order. Whatever. The only way to do an article like this is to present all the facts in the order the games were released and use the modal incarnation of Ganon to represent it pictorially, with an image for each different looking version (OoT, TWW, TP). It also breaks fair use legislation to put more copyrighted images than is necessary to illustrate the article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really agree to this. If Ganondorf isn't portrayed as "evil", than peaople might have to read! Ugh!

Might I suggest that we use a picture of Ganondorf (in human form) from Twilight Princess? Ganondorf looks better each game, doesn't he?

Images are really beginning to clutter

We have 4 pictures of Ganon from Ocarina of Time in this article, and the recent Ganon picture change should really be reverted. Also, that TP image really sucks. 199.126.137.209 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's some persistent editors and their sockpuppets that stick a whole load of images of OoT Ganon everywhere because they have no concept of fair use images, or how an article should relate to a character. No one canon depiction is more important than another. I removed some of the unnecessary (albeit pretty) official art for OoT Ganon and that HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE n64 graphics Ganon picture. Just because OoT is a lot of people's favourite, does not make it the "main" Zelda game. Bah. I suppose I'll be monitoring the article extra closely. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TP Ganon Picture

I just deleted that picture which supposedly portrays Ganondorf in Twilight Princess. The picture cannot be proven to actually be from TP, and was of poor quality, so I should think it won't be missed. General Aurum 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganon in Ocarina of Time

Do you all know how Ganondorf transforms into Ganon at the end of OoT? Well, I hear that the only time that Ganondorf's shape would change is in the Dark Realm. After all, Link turns into a rabbit there. Please respond!

The Triforce of Power is what allows Ganondorf to change shape at the end of the game. At the time of Ocarina of Time there was no Dark Realm. The Sacred Realm became dark due to Ganondorf being trapped there by the Seven Sages. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But, well, I was WRONG? Yes, I thought I was. It's just that my friend told me that Ganon and Link transformed in the Dark Realm, and so, you're still right.

Who snaps who`s neck?

On the Ganon TP section of the article, It says Zant snaps ganondorfs neck, but on the main TP article, it says Zant snaps his own neck. Like most people, I dont know the ending but this should be sorted out. Also I think the HUGE SPOILERS!!!!! At the beginning should be removed, or at least changed...- user:EEVEE103

aah, it doesnt matter, its been changed...-user:EEVEE103

I like the LOZ:TP section.

The sub-section in the "Biography" section which goes over Ganon's role in "The Twilight Princess" is pretty much how each game's section should be. A short, concise description of Ganon's role in the game without flowery wording, minute details, or giant chunks of text. If we could make each game's section read like the Twilight princess one currently reads, we'd be a huge leap closer to FA status in my opinion. -- Digital Watches ! 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't agree. I love reading long articles, but if you want them to be shorter, then that's fine with me. Tpganon 11/26/06

Well, I guess "I like" is horrible wording on my part. I meant to say "That's how the article should be." Because really, it's not about preference. -- Digital Watches ! 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Someone put this in the article: Ganondorf is really a nice, elderly woman whom goes around patting small children on the head and handing out freshly-backed, warm, chocolate chip cookies. She loves to go skipping through the park and chucking bird seed at the pigeons, and loves to watch as they flock around before she gets out her bazooka and eliminates them all!!! Now I'm no genius, but I think this is incorrect. Roxyr 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

To whoever keeps putting this in, Ganondorf has NOT been confirmed for Brawl. If anyone sees him being in Brawl edited into the article before he has been confirmed, be sure to remove it right away. Thanks! Comrade Pajitnov 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide?

Why do so many people believe Zant commited suicide by snapping his own neck? This has been placed in the Twilight Section of this article repeatedly. I don't know where you're getting that idea. Zant's neck snapped because Ganondorf was dying and therfore his magic directly connected to Zant dyed too and Zant was killed because of that. He stated that he would live as long as Ganondorf lived. If Zant snapped his own neck, we would've seen his hands wrap around his neck and then twist it until it cracks, but all we see is him on screen for a few seconds until his neck snaps. This was no suicide, why would he kill himself anyway? He still believed Ganondorf was a god and still wanted power to control Twilight. The scene with Zant was put in there as proof that Ganondorf is dead, not for good, but at least temporarily.- Darknessofheart

Stop adding so much information

I was the one who made the background information, but some of you people are adding too much. First of all, making compasrisons between Ganondorf and other nintendo villains in pointless, also this is his backgorund in the series, not his background as a nintendo villain. We all know he's one of the baddest of the bad ect. but, don't put such an underlined suggestion, it sounds riduclous and written very poorly. "Ganon is unique as being one of the more darker ones", that does not belong their and is simply an opinion. Ganon is a great villain, but adding all this is making this section sound horrible and is a waste of space. If anyone is going to add anything, make it short and something that is revelant to the section. Listen I'm going to change it to make it shorter. No more Ganon is nintendo's #1 villian or he's more evil than this villain bullshit.- Darknessofheart

Reverted way back.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but please let me make the Portrayal section a little bit more eloquent. It is is sooo clumsily written. I lost count of the amount of times it said the word 'evil' and it actually at one point says "intelligent and clever" which both mean exactly the same thing.

Alright, sure I see your point there. I just don't want to make this an artical that looks like it was written by a bunch of upsessed fans who worships this guy. You can change that if you want.-DarknessofHeart

Problem is, overly creative adjectives are inherently POV. I would never describe Ganon as "psychotic". ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't? Why not?

Umm. More on this image dispute...

Whose brilliant idea was it to use the image that

A. We're already were using for Twilight Princess,

B. Does NOT need to be that big, and

C. Barely shows any of him

As the main picture for the article, and in doing so, also removes the only image of pig-ganon (As represented in the majority of the games) we had? I've had it with this bias for post OoT Ganon. -- Digital Watches ! 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back, but perhaps the pic will heve to be protected to prevent this from happening again. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the picture the same user changed the picture again. it has already been restored but I agree that it need to be protected and maybe the user that is changing it blocked. This is getting redicious. --67.71.76.49 01:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anyone know of a mod that responds fast and will check this out? -- Digital Watches ! 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to contribute that I have a newer pic of Ganon (from Twilight Princess) that I'd like to put in, if that's okay. It's right before the name and subtitle for him appear, showing his face while roaring. -Chao9999 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Someone keeps changing the picture of Ganon back to the Oracles' pig form and it's starting to bug a lot of people. There is NO REASON to use it. Just because everyone knows about his pig form does NOT mean that another picture is inappropriate. Also, IF you use a pig form picture, try using a more current one, like Twilight Princess. Anyone who's played Oracle of Ages and Seasons knows he's not really Ganon, just a resurrection of his body without his true spirit. That aside, it's ugly and not the best artwork, so even using his sprite from the first game would work better.

2 paragraphs per game?

I find over-contraction makes each section as useless as the run on game summaries. Should we perhaps establish a consensus on how much detail each section deserves so that the decision can be more effectively enforced and so also there is consistency and viable information?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3 paragraphs per game should be a MAXIMUM if we're going to set it down as something. Digital Watches ! 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think TWW section was better when it was slightly longer. Otherwise I look at it as, "How about we leave it at 'Ganon appeared and Link killed him'..."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Princess

Okay, I'm not sure why, but will the people who keep saying that he died, and lost the triforce of power, please stop. That is completely speculation, and doesn't belong in the article. It should and will be kept neutral until this can be further elaborated upon. Until then, please stop saying that he died. -Chao9999 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

porky pig

get rid of that god forsaken picture when (most) pepole think of ganon(dorf) they think of the evil king standing tall not porkey the pig its just wrong to say his the king of evil and have the main pic so crap its like a 5 year old put it there Sailor cuteness 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. As discussed above. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I couldn't agree more with Sailor Cuteness. All in favour of changing the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.83 (talk • contribs)

One "nay" vote from me -- Digital Watches ! 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one problem: NPOV. Just because you like the Ganon in OoT most doesn't mean it's the most common portrayal of the character. There's no reason to weight any one game over another, regardless of the all-too-apparent fact that the majority of the outspoken fanbase of the series came from OoT. An encyclopedia article has no obligation to live up to fancruft-esque perceptions of a character derived from bias towards a single portrayal of the character. I couldn't disagree more. -- Digital Watches ! 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To weigh in, I prefer the Ganondorf look over the Ganon look, and Ocarina is still my favorite game in the series. That said, however, the Ganon look has appeared in far more games than the Ganondorf one and is thus more representative of the character. Stop making us Ocarina fans look unreasonable. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, Wikipedia isn't about appealing to fans of any form. Hell, I'd say yes, if this was a Zelda site for Zelda fans, the humanoid picture would be "cooler" or generally better - but to fairly represent the character across the series to non fans it is best to use the most neutral (and therefore, modular) representation of the character. OoT Ganon is very specific to OoT and likewise TWW and TP Ganon are largely unique to those games, and as such the pictures belong only in the sections for that game. Unlike say, Link, who since OoT has been consistently (and now, predominantly across the series and spin-off media) blonde-hair blue-eyes. I'm more than willing to go to RfC over this. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to quote myself above

The other one is much better for an encyclopedic article as it is a simple image showing the subject. ...canonicity and OPINION are irrelevant with regards to the character from an out of universe perspective. Futhermore, silliness has at times been a part of Ganon's character (for instance, the cartoons - canonicity irrelevant to the nature of a character from an encyclopedic standpoint), even if I personally do not find it to look "goofy" or "crappy ass".
— User:Zythe, Zythe, Re: Please Stop, at 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an image (kinda muddy, but eh) of Ganon from TP, I was wondering if we could use that (despite it's being from a game, and not the best quality). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ganon.GIF Thoughts? -Chao9999 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read anything we've written? Most consistent portrayal. Also, the image as you said is poor quality.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i didnt relise that ...pig was his most frequnt form i didnt meen to be povish Sailor cuteness 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. It's fine. Sorry I was so harsh. -- Digital Watches ! 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's his most consistent portrayal, that's why I brought up that picture and not one of Ganondorf. And even if the picture isn't the best, we NEED to replace the picture, no matter what. Although it's his most common portrayal, the picture is almost 6 years old, and NEEDS to be replaced. And now I bring up the old "Ganon= Ganondorf?" debate. Although it's speculation, every portrayal of Ganon/dorf has portrayed them as the same character, just a different name and physical appearance. In Twilight Princess for example, we quite clearly see Ganondorf's body (blackened) transform into Ganon, who, when defeated, shows a giant image of Ganondorf's head. Whenever referred to by Nintendo, they're refferred to as the same character ("...Links old nemesis Ganon, well, let's just say we've prepared more than you could ever, ever..." slight paraphrasing possibly added). Although still speculation, there is nothing to say that he's NOT Ganon, besides physical appearance. The speculation behind this is as stuipid as the old debate a long time ago about whether or not Super Sonic was Sonic, just because of the yellow spines and whatnot. My point is that the arguement is pointless as it there's no actual specific evidence for them to be different entities. As the article stands, it shows them to be the same person. And, to be fair, he's Ganondorf in three games, and Ganon in four. I think that that's not a very good reason to not replace a 5 year old picture with one of someone who's quite possibly the same person. Because they may or may not be the same, and due to the article's lack of ability to adapt, I suggest we split Ganon and Ganondorf into seprate articles, this would leave the arguement neutral, and allow for the Ganon article to keep it's picture, while the Ganondorf one has a different picture. This, I believe, could satisfy both parties, and allow for the reader to draw his belief as to whether or not they're the same character. I'd say this'd be the best course of action, allowing a neutral point, different articles to reduce size, and possibly allow for elaboration on different versions of him (CD-i, cartoon, etc.). What do you think? If they're in the same article, due to the fact that they'd be the same character, due to the lack of blue pig appearances to humanoid appearances, it'd be okay to show him as Ganondorf. Then again, whatever. -Chao9999 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No? I fail to see how your point does anything but back up the fact that if they're one character, the most consistent portrayal is best. We do not split articles, that's horrible, horrible, horrible. Ugggggh. One of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Not to mention WP:OR.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, that's a really bad idea. First of all, we know for a fact that Ganondorf and Ganon are the same. We see him transform into Ganon twice and it's outright stated that Ganon was once Ganondorf. Bad idea. As for the picture I'm tired of discussing it. I hate this picture as much as anyone, but that won't convince anyone to change it. I started the "Please Stop" topic where I wanted to change the picture to another one. It's an old picture and Ganondorf's human form has been getting alot more popular than his demon form. I think when the hear the name Ganondorf, you immediatly think of his human form. I can see the others point in keeping this picture, but I really don't think it gives the character an accurate portrayel. This is probably a bad idea, but maby we should post two medium sized pictures of Ganondorf and Ganon side by side, then put text under them where one says "Ganondorf prior to his transformation as Ganon" and "Ganon, the demon of Ganondorf". It sounds bad, but it's one of the only ways to satisfy people who want a Ganondorf picture and the people who want a Ganon picture. I won't change the picture, but I think this is the only way to stop these stupid agruments.-Darknessofheart

Bah! That is a bit ORy. "Ganon in his two forms" would be best, as one image, a bit like on Image:Sonics.PNG. But are you advocating Wikipedia policy give in because of bullying/vandalism/opinion? Tut.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I still agree with Zythe on this issue. We've had one - count-em - one game in which Ganon has appeared solely as this humanoid form you guys seem to like so much. We've had three games in which he's appeared that way at all. And as the article here itself would tell you, there have been eight canon games in which Ganon has appeared, meaning seven appearances of pig-shaped Ganon and three of humanoid Ganon, not to mention non-canon materials such as the CD-i games and the cartoon. The argument that the humanoid Ganon is a more "accurate" portrayal simply holds no water, and it just plain makes more sense to keep the humanoid Ganon pictures (of which we have three) in their respective games' sections. -- Digital Watches ! 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not proposing to change the picture as Ganondorf. My suggestion was to put two pictures of Ganondorf and Ganon. The fact is that even if Ganon has been in many games they look exceptionally different savior a few games. You say that Ganon has appeared in eight games, counting Ocarina and Twilight. Does this picture even remotly look like Ganon from Ocarina and Twilight? So if you're counting those games, then this picture is a horrible portrayel. But, I'm not counting those because he was in that form for 5% of the games, the rest he was Ganondorf. All I'm saying is having both pictures at the top will give people a clear idea of every form he can take. Ganondorf's appaerances as Ganon only outweighs his human forms by one game. You can't count Link's awakening, he was not even real, and Adventure Link you can get through the whole game without seeing him if you don't lose. Also, note when he is Ganon, he usually only appears once and that is the final battle. His human form is in numerous cutscenes and many more appearances. Ganon is not a seperate character, what is he? He's another form. And of who, Ganondorf. This is like his alter ego, Ganondorf is the full character. Alright, I'm just saying why I think Ganondorf is more appropraite, but I'm suggesting that we put two pictures of both sides of him. Suppsoe someone only sees this picture and plays Ocarina, Wind Waker, or Twilight, they're going to say "Whoa this must be another villain with a similiar name, because he looks nothing like that picture". If we have both though we elaborate on every aspect of him, human and demon, and this will give readers a true prospective on his characterization. This site has to be not only accurate but true in roots, and doing this will give Ganonodorf a good portrayel.-Darknessofheart

What? So you say that later games, with their larger memory and a tendency towards storytelling, are more likely to expand on the villain's background before the end of the game? I'm well aware that Ganondorf is a large part of the character now, but we already have THREE PICTURES of the humanoid form of Ganon in the article. There's no need to further clutter it with more images, as we only really need one lead image. It's made very clear in the beginning of the article that it refers to the villain of the Legend of Zelda series, and I'm sure no one will be horribly confused. In the meantime, image clutter is something we definitely don't want. Also, what do you mean by, and I quote: "This site has to be not only accurate but true in roots, and doing this will give Ganonodorf (sic) a good portrayel (sic)." Specifically, I have no idea what you mean to imply by "True in roots," or how it has anything to do with Wikipedia's policy or mission statement. Care to shed some light on that? -- Digital Watches ! 06:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article split was to remain fair, as I personally believe them to be the same character, but it's been debated against, that's why.
Anyway, although he appears as Ganon in six games, he appears as Ganondorf in three. And, if you don't count the Ocarina and Twilight Princess iterations as part of common character portrayal, then he's only appeared as Ganon in Four games, and, as in most Wiki articles, because of this, we should use the most RECENT portrayal of the character as possible. We can just take the Twilight Princess pic, and keep it on the Twilight Princess article. That'd be pretty good to me. If we were to use this idea, we'd rename the article Ganondorf, to stay consistent. BUT, because this isn't the only option, I propose, as an alternative, we use a screenshot of him to replace the current one, if we can do it for the Twilight Princess section, we can for the title. The screenshot I made seems good enough, although it's far from perfect. This is almost completely unacceptable for an article to have such an old picture for such a commonly appearing character as the MAIN VILLIAN of a series. I like the picture, but, if we're going to follow this correctly, that isn't even technically Ganon, as he doesn't have his mind. Anybody agree? -Chao9999 09:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a more recent screenshot, then move the Four Sword pic to the top and the Oracle pic to its section. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---Choa9999 I completely agree. If we are going by the argument that whatever charecter appeared in the most games than the Link picture should be one of the Windwaker Link, am I not correct? That pictured form of Link has been in Four Swords and the FS Adventures, Twilight Princess, Minish Cap and Phantom Hourglass far more than any other pictured Link.

It is apparent after reading the above paragraphs pertaining to the Ganondorf pictures that Digital Watches and Zythe who appear to be some of the main watchers of this article are in fact biased themselves towards use the pig form of Ganon. The picture should be the most recent portrayal of the charecter that is related to the series. A picture of Ganon from Twilight Princess is necessary. Regardless of weather that is true or not, I believe that other non-biased credible wikipedians should be brought in to moderate this issue. They should not have familiarty with the LOZ games. That way this issues can be solved once and for all in a way that cannot be disputed. I might suggest having multiple credible third party wikipedians.

To: Digital Watches and Zythe. Finding a third party wikipedian is fair is it not? If your arguments for the current picture hold up with other wikipedians than this indeed a correct picture. If not, you should yield to whatever conclusion this group of people comes up with.

I will later on when I am not studying for finals come back and state my points why it should be the most recent portrayal, but it would be better to bring in the non-biased credible wikipedians to solve this issue.

User Mrobinson587 contact at mjr@indiana.edu

Hello. I don't actually have an account although I write under the pseudonym of Anon. I might not be registered but I could just be the third party you're looking for. I'm an avid watcher of this article and personally I don't think the pig-picture outlines Ganon's personality very well which is one of the things the encyclopedia aims to convey. Whoever wrote that this article is incapable of adapting was absolutely right. It has the potential to be a feature article but as long as it's got tyrants (no offence) like Digital Watches and Zythe lording over it it's not going to get very far. The bottom line is DOWN WITH THE PIG PIC! (no offence).

Few things:

1. Opinion - no.

2. We're not tyrants, simply enforcing policy.

3. A third party should be an admin, a la RfC

4. Brilliant argument. You should be a lawyer.

5. It can only reach FA if it complies with policy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few more things

1. Fair enough

2. Maybe I went a bit OOT when I called you tyrants.

3. I see.

4. Why thank you. I was actually thinking Media entrepeneur.

5. Oh well, never mind.

PS: I still abide by what I said about the pig pic.

Yours sincerely - Anon

Here's my opinion on the matter: Calling in moderators or some other third party to judge this issue is definitely the best idea I've heard yet in this debate. While I still maintain that my actions (and presumably Zythe's as well) are merely attempting to adhere to policy, I recognize that at this stage, it may be a biased argument, and either way, no harm can come of bringing in an objective judge. Familiarity with the series, however, may actually help the decision be more informed, but I think that it should be someone that does not in any way watch this page, and that it should be a respected moderator who has experience in dealing with this sort of conflict. THAT BEING SAID: I think Anon is exactly who we DON'T want to call in as said judge. He has already stated his position multiple times, which falls well within the bounds of one side of this matter. If you'd like, I'll find a moderator to mediate this. -- Digital Watches ! 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon I am sorry you don't sound very neutral and you have already commented on this article. Digital Watches you are welcome to find a moderator. I do not think familiarty with the series is necessary, but if you can find one that is fine. I think it would be easier for them to stay neutral if they are not familiar with the series. I also suggest as soon as this moderator is found we discuss this is a new topic section.

    Sincerely
           Mrobinson587

Very well, you're right of course. I stand down.

Anon

Hey guys, I read you arguement, and I think that we should use a Ganondorf pic. Although he's Ganon in more games, this is the way I see it:

If you count the cameos and non blue pig appearances, then he's been in 8 games. This is the more ridiculous one.
If you only count the appearances with him actually fought, he's been in 6 games.
If you only count the appearances as with the non cameo blue pig appearances, he's been in four games.

Number one is completely ridiculous, number two is fairly reasonable, but against your arguement, and your arguement uses number three. By wikipedias normal standards, although that's his most common appearance, you should use the most RECENT appearance, which is that of Ganondorf. I think we should use a pic of him from Twilight Princess, since he would be the most recent portrayal of the character. Besides, the one we use now is not only really old, but in that game, Ganon didn't even have his mind at the time, he was just a violent mindless beast. Anyway, just my two cents. By the way, I'm at my dads workplace, and don't have a computer anywhere else, I probably won't be able to get on later, so this might be goodbye. Anyway, see ya. 128.255.138.60 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we...

Add a picture of Drawn Together's Ganon parody and the animated Ganon? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should. That character hardly warrants a mention on Drawn Together's character page. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Lead Picture for this article.

This is a dispute as to which of the two predominant portrayals of Ganon should be shown as the lead picture for the article. 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

I think that while the humanoid portrayal of Ganon is important, the image belongs with the games he appears in, and as the predominant version of the character, the pig-form should remain the lead picture. This both avoids image clutter and remains accurate in my opinion. -- Digital Watches ! 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

better ganon

if pepole are complaining about the pic of ganon being "goofy" and others saying its his most common form why ot get a diffrent ganon thats not so "goofy" but still ganon (im only saying a ider im not trying to be pov-ish) Sailor cuteness 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's called Ganon in every game and Ganondorf in about half. It's like Prue vs. Prudence - same name, same person. Also, you don't want to be implying any connection between the games - that would be OR.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i know there the same im just saying use a diffrent ganon picture as the main one because pepole are saying they dont like that ganon but others want a ganon picture Sailor cuteness 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is already being resolved as we are calling in a third party moderator to resolve the situation. If one isn't found within a few days, I am personally going to try and find one. Mrobinson587 06:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cool hopefuly that will solve the problem once and for all Sailor cuteness 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To those who are saying that Ganondorf has died and Zant died due to the life connection.

That's speculation. Leaving this ambiguous until it can be elaborated upon is the best course of action, so please stop. -Chao9999 05:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Princess

This section is far too big, because it seems as soon as someone plays it they rush to Wikipedia to add everything they know about it. It needs shrinking lots, so I added the {{plot}} template to it. The plot of Twilight Princess should be covered there. May I also direct everyone's attention to articles such as Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#Ganondorf, Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess#Ganondorf, Characters in The Legend of Zelda series#Ganon.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you don't mind I've shortened the Character Depiction section a little, keeping it on a need-to-know basis. Might I add that Ganon is not only known as the King of Evil as the opening paragraph states. He is known as the Prince of Darkness in the first Legend of Zelda game or the other way around (King of Darkness, Prince of Evil) I've put in a note on this but someone keeps removing it.

Anon

Thank you so much, Digital Watches (talk · contribs) I didn't want to do it myself since Play.com is being a bitch and have delayed my Twilight Princess. Anon, considering registering! Also, I'm taking your edits to the depiction sentence, might tie in somewhere. They don't work for the lead in. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough.

I don't care if the picture should be pig-form or human-form. The fact of the matter is, that picture is not Ganon. As much as the debate currently leands toward having a pig-form as the main image, unless some one provides a valid pig-form image, a human-form would be more efficient. I know you're trying to get a 3rd party moderator for the main debate, but for now just change it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.132.100 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Clearly that picture is Ganon. Who the hell else would it be? Leave it alone. 199.126.137.209 04:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source please, dude. -- Digital Watches ! 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually played the game that thing is from, you would know it wasn't Ganon. But thanks for trying.

I've played the Oracles through more than probably a majority of the gaming population, and I can safely say that the OoA/OoS Ganon is indeed Ganon. Twinrova says "Our rites have failed, but by sacrificing this body, Ganon will return!", while Zelda also says "Since they could not sacrifice me in their final rite, the powers of darkness could only revive a mindless, raging Ganon." In other words, that is Ganon, just "mindless." It is the SAME "body." They did revive Ganon, and that picture illustrates him just fine. EllipsesBent 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically zombie Ganon. It IS the same body, but it's not the same character. It's kinda like saying that Riku is the same person as Ansem Riku (Though not quite the same, since that's a case of possession). 68.161.140.186 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi! I'm AMIB. I understand you have something of a dispute over the image that's being used in the lead. I'm here to mediate this dispute, and rest assured that I personally couldn't care less about whether Ganon is a pig or a guy, or if it's properly Ganon or Ganondorf, or any of that. This doesn't mean I'm not familiar with these arguments, just indifferent.

To kick things off, I've removed the image entirely. I feel this may be the best solution; Ganon's appearance changes a great deal from game to game. Without an image in the lead, it elimiate the dispute entirely, and all of the images are with the text explaining that particular incarnation.

One of two things will happen. This solution will find consensus, and the dispute will be resolved. Alternately, this solution will be universally hated, in which case everyone has a good motivation to get this dispute resolved so we can put a single, non-contentious image in the lead, because there isn't going to be any image while it's a matter of revert wars.

How does this sound? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having no image is better than that God-awful, not even really Ganon image that was up before. Hopefully this whole thing will eventually get resolved, though this does make a good temporary solution. 65.12.132.100 07:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pig picture is a better portrayal of Ganon throughout the series. A lot of fans want to associate the character only with his recent home console humanoid depictions, and seem to even argue that the "pig form" isn't even the same character. There is, what some see as an OoT bias or perhaps now since this month a TP bias, where people want the article to reflect their favourite game. A lot of (mostly unregistered) users seem to feel that a human Ganon is the "original" or "actual" form (OR, this article should be free of timeline theories) or that his Ocarina of Time depiction is the "best" or most accurate. I feel that for a character who from game to game changes quite a lot, and is depicted rather differently, the most common depiction of the character serves the article better when taking into account that all the games are equally "canon" and whatnot.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read that post right. He never said anything against your usual debate, he was noting that that particular picture isn't Ganon. 68.161.140.186 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise: a picture that shows him in his Ganondorf and Ganon forms (with each labeled as such). Jeff Silvers 16:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just lurking around, but I'm guessing at least part of what 65.12.132.100 means is that the Oracle Ganon was a fairly strange situation. Just the same, even if the character was crazier than usual at the time, the image accurately reflects his look.

That's probably what he meant. However, we shouldn't just throw in pictures that "accutrately reflect" the character's look. We should have pictures of the actual character. 68.161.140.186 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm giving my $0.02, I personally like the idea of a dual picture. I'd also point out that the lead Link and Princess Zelda pictures are currently taken from the most recent official art depictions of the characters, so perhaps we can draw some inspiration from those articles? --Sparky Lurkdragon 18:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link and Zelda have one appearance, adapted to fit the style of the latest artist and the latest game. Ganon has two different appearances, each of which is reinterpreted for each game in which it appears. Link and Zelda are dissimilar.

As for two images, no. There's no reason to have two fair-use images to identify this character in the lead when zero suffice. (Resolving an argument isn't a sufficient fair-use rationale.) One or none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that zero doesn't suffice, and really, neither does one. If only Ganon is shown, you're neglecting an important half of the character, and the same is true if only Ganondorf is shown. What I'm proposing isn't technically two images; it's one image that represents both equally-important sides of a single character. Jeff Silvers 08:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero suffices just fine. We can put an appropriate image with the discussion of each different appearance. No need to duplicate in the lead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the Dragmire surname

I added this passage earlier today:

The American A Link to the Past instruction manual gives his full name as Ganondorf Dragmire, though the Dragmire surname never appears in the game or any later work.

After another member added "It is probable that Ganondorf Dragmire was his human name before he became the King of Evil," the full passage was removed without explanation. I've re-added the original sentence as I wrote it, as it contains no speculation or misinformation, and merely presents a relevant fact about the character (while acknowledging that it was never again referenced). Jeff Silvers 15:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. It was the second line I had a problem with. Sorry.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images we could use for main image

Opinions? Also, I really think this page should be moved to Ganondorf Dragmire. Ganondorf is his real name, A Link to the Past states Dragmire is his last name. -- Bly1993 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not still using it, I don't see why we should move the page to something less recognizable. I think if we're to use any of those pictures, it should be the last one, but only as a new image for the Twilight Princess section. We don't really need a lead image if no one can agree on what it should be. -- Digital Watches ! 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All those images are awful. Sorry. In-game stuff... blech. Also? Ganon is his name as much as "Ganondorf Dragmire" is. Ganon is ALWAYS given as his name. This is not a tv show - Zelda continuity doesn't work like that, it's very disputed, even down to if every portrayal of a character is indeed the same person.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed countless times that all the Ganons are the same person, and that there is a conuity (The continuity doesn't make sense IMO, but that's from Miyamato's mouth). Not saying that we should change the article to that, but just letting you know.68.161.140.186 01:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that a Ganondorf/Ganon combo image is the best way to go, as it not only solves the debate, but also effectively illustrates both sides of this dichotomous character. As far as moving this article to Ganondorf Dragmire, the Dragmire surname is only used once: in the American A Link to the Past instruction manual. It isn't mentioned anywhere else, including the game itself. Ganon, on the other hand, appears in every game Ganondorf does. I think it's best we leave it here. Jeff Silvers 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First backstory?

The intro says that Ganon/Ganondorf first received a backstory in Ocarina of Time. Shouldn't this actually be A Link to the Past, where his being sealed away and his former life as a thief are mentioned? Jeff Silvers 11:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. It was only heavily elaborated upon in Ocarina. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 11:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional dictators

Ganon was the dictator of Hyrule for a while and aspires to be sole ruler of the world so whomsoever keeps removing him from this category please give a reason as to why.

(Sign your posts). I think it's fairly hard to assess that, and massively adding categories to a page does more harm than good. -- Digital Watches ! 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the categories are actually relevant. Jeff Silvers 00:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad

What the hell is happening to this article. Now, there is no picture at all, the picture of Ganon in the A Link to the Past section is in accurate and not how he appears in that game, the information, is confusing and not told well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What information is confusing? Jeff Silvers 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas

I see you people have a problem finding an image for this article. Well I say we should do it a fair way and vote. First we have to vote to see if you want ganon, or ganondorf. Please post(and say why).

Doesn't work that way; Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jeff Silvers 12:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with a vote. I personally think we should have the Ocarina picture at the top. Whhich one do you people think we should use. Then we can chose the main two contestants for top spot at the end of the week.

Anon

The problem is that we don't reach decisions based on majority rule at Wikipedia, we reach them based on general consensus. There is already an active discussion (a few, actually) on this talk page concerning which image should be used; if you wish to express your opinion, you should do so in those discussions (and don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Jeff Silvers 15:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a thought. I can't do that four tildes thing because I'm not registered, I never saw the point.

Anon

If you aren't registered, it just prints your IP address, which is still useful as identification in discussion pages such as this one. Jeff Silvers 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pig image

I'm sorry, but I have a question: I've added the image back to the article as his image of A Link to the Past. I went to ZeldaDungeon, the source of the image, to confirm it was from LttP, but I didn't find it in any of the games' sections. Now I've seen people refering to it as his image from Oracles, although he looks exactly like the Ganon from LttP. Can someone please confirm from which game it is? And I apologize if I got it wrong.

A Google image search returns this as the first result for Ganon "Link to the Past". It isn't the same image that is currently described in the article as being from LttP, but the design is nearly identical. Jeff Silvers 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Would anyone mind me [the great Anon] adding a section for memorable lines that Ganon has said. After all the fella has said some quite dramatic things in his time. I added a Memorable quotes section but someone removed it.

the aforementioned great Anon— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.105 (talk • contribs)

It's called Wikiquote. So, no. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but Wikiquote doesn't have an article on Ganon.

Anon

q:The Legend of Zelda series~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not one on Ganon himself.

Anon

He doesn't really need one. Just add the quotes to the proper game sections in the Zelda series article. Jeff Silvers 12:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, I suppose you know best.

Anon

Ganon is Ganondorf

Someone was debating the possibility of Ganon and Ganondorf being one person. I think someone might have already said this, but I agree with that statement in some respect. I would think that people who played through Twilight Princess would be able to realize that Ganon is the alternate form of Ganondorf. Link turns into a wolf (A sign for bravery and courage) in the Twilight realm, a sign that he is one chosen by the gods (Triforce of Courage). Would it really be that hard to believe that a boar (A sign of greed and power) would be the animalistic image assigned to the one who was chosen by the Triforce of Power? That would explain where Ganon came from and where he falls as far as characters are concerned. I know a lot of die-hard Ganon fans might be upset by this, but it seems that is how the plot falls. The only reason the name Ganon is used anymore is because up until now, Ganon was the only form Link ever fought. Calling Ganondorf Ganon would be like calling Wolf Link "Skippy" and saying Link is really Skippy in the guise of a human. If my viewpoint is accepted already, maybe some changes should be made in the sections where Ganondorf is reffered to as "Ganon." Commander Regulus 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 618: / Line 618: @@
 [[Anon]]
+== Ganon is Ganondorf ==
+Someone was debating the possibility of Ganon and Ganondorf being one person. I think someone might have already said this, but I agree with that statement in some respect. I would think that people who played through Twilight Princess would be able to realize that Ganon is the alternate form of Ganondorf. Link turns into a wolf (A sign for bravery and courage) in the Twilight realm, a sign that he is one chosen by the gods (Triforce of Courage). Would it really be that hard to believe that a boar (A sign of greed and power) would be the animalistic image assigned to the one who was chosen by the Triforce of Power? That would explain where Ganon came from and where he falls as far as characters are concerned. I know a lot of die-hard Ganon fans might be upset by this, but it seems that is how the plot falls. The only reason the name Ganon is used anymore is because up until now, Ganon was the only form Link ever fought. Calling Ganondorf Ganon would be like calling Wolf Link "Skippy" and saying Link is really Skippy in the guise of a human. If my viewpoint is accepted already, maybe some changes should be made in the sections where Ganondorf is reffered to as "Ganon." [[User:Commander Regulus|Commander Regulus]] 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:45, 30 December 2006

Deaths

68.206.251.137's recent edit

What sword can wound Ganon

Ganondorf Dragmire? Mandrag Ganon?

Ganon or Ganondorf?

WikidSmaht's edits

Ganondorf Cult

Four Swords Adventures?

SSB: Brawl

history

Ganondorf's Sword in SSB:M

Irony?

Ganon and Agahnim

Ganon as a single entity.

Background story

Why is "Gannon" a misspelling?

Good Job

Goofy pic

Let's make this article generally better.

Please Stop

Category

Images are really beginning to clutter

TP Ganon Picture

Ganon in Ocarina of Time

Who snaps who`s neck?

I like the LOZ:TP section.

Vandals

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Suicide?

Stop adding so much information

Umm. More on this image dispute...

2 paragraphs per game?

Twilight Princess

porky pig

Should we...

Request for Comment: Lead Picture for this article.

better ganon

To those who are saying that Ganondorf has died and Zant died due to the life connection.

Categories

Twilight Princess

Enough is enough.

Mediation

Mention of the Dragmire surname

Images we could use for main image

First backstory?

Fictional dictators

This is bad

Ideas

Pig image

Quotes

Ganon is Ganondorf