Talk:Monkey

I want to rewrite the sentence:

"Otherwise, Link will have to fight him where he will escape until he does have the bananas."

But I'm not sure i understand it fully. Is it true that if Link speaks to Kiki without the Bananas he will be attacked? —Adam ^(talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (EDT) thats a silly sentace--Zanramon :) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I really don't think so. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he says that he's hungry until you show up with the banana's, then he thanks you and rewards you by building the bridge. He doesn't do anything until then, just tells you that he's hungry. ~HelmarocKing

Disputed section

"it is said to be the remains of the Great Deku Tree.." Is that said in-game? I don't remember it. Or is it merely theorized. It's an interesting theory to chew on, but to keep the facts straight, does anyone know?Axiomist 04:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not said in-game. It is fan speculation. --Yuvorias, 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EST)

Yeah, that's such an annoying piece of quasi-fanon theory! Just because some kid somewhere is convinced that Oot Deku Tree = WW Forest Haven = TP Forest Temple, doesn't make it fact. Hyrule is covered in forests. No real revelation that there is more than one large tree ;P --Adamcox82 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that part should be removed. It's not really that integral to the article. Just because the Kokiri weren't in TP, that doesn't mean they automatically evolved into monkeys. Kokiri aren't in any game except OoT and TWW (though evolved) anyways. And in that game, it actually says that Fado is bloodkin to Makar. -Aerostella 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are theories on other articles. We should leave this theory here. However it should be clearly stated that it is only a theory.--Matt 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. We can't go around and delete every fan theory that pops up, no matter how silly it may seem. Many times in history there have been theories that were dismissed as nonsense, only to be later proven to be true. I'm not saying that this one is true. We just have to be a little more objective when it comes to fan theories.--Matt 00:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

True, I was an outsider up until WW. I really didn't see OoT Link having anything to do with any of the others. Now 'Multiple Links' is the norm, even the old games aren't dumped all on the same young lad anymore. But still some theories really stretch logic, I suggest all fan theories be colored bright Orange until proven.Axiomist 01:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It would probably be better to make a template. One similar to the spoiler warning. Also we need to distinguish between theories that are proven to be true, those that are commonly accepted to fact, and those that are not accepted. A warning template should be only be placed on theories that are both unproven and not commonly accepted. --Matt 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Point. Someone put a neutrality template here, I suppose for the lack of a more appropriate template. I could probably find up to 10 unlabeled fan theories to place such a template, if you or anyone else makes one, please notify my talk page. I don't even know where to begin making a template.Axiomist 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The theory of the Links in LoZ/AoL and ALttP/LA being different people is an example of a theory that has not been proven, but has been accepted by the majority of the Zelda community to be true.--Matt 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the template. I'll start placing it in articles. To use it just type, {{Theory}}.--Matt 03:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea!!! so then why do u erase my theories???!!!