Talk:Hero's Spirit/Archive 1

This page is an archive of an old Talk Page. The contents have been moved from another page to clear space and to preserve history, so this page is locked from editing. If you wish to ask about the corresponding page, or respond to an earlier message, you may direct any comments to the current talk page. If you wish to refer to a message on this page, link to Talk:Hero's Spirit/Archive 1.

Wolf theory

It should be noted that the Shade appears in the form of a golden wolf. In the story, it states that Link turns into a strange beast while in the twilight realm because he has the blood of the hero. The fact that the Shade is also a "strange beast" shows that he does indeed have the hero's blood. Would this be plausible to add? --The Game Master 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--The Game Master

Non-Mirrored Images?

These images are of Wii version Twilight Princess...shouldn't we get some from the GameCube version considering that Link is not actually right-handed, but left-handed?67.160.13.15 03:01, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

I kind of have to agree with this statement. --PrincessZelda TP 20:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, I believe it should at least be noted that the images were taken from the Wii game. --Mockingbird 21:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I've flipped the images horizontally for the sake of accuracy :) (Except now they don't display because of the thumbnail error...) --Adam 13:43, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Reason for undoing recent edit

So a new edit changed the phrase "some believe the Hero's Spirit to be Link from OoT" to "some believe the Hero's Spirit to be a Great Darknut". Now, I've never heard that theory, ever. But I HAVE heard of (and subscribe to) the Hero of Time theory. Maybe the phrase would be better changed to "some believe him to be the Hero of Time, or even a Great Darknut"? --Ando 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will be necessary. That "Great Darknut" thing seemed to come out of the blue from nowhere, and besides, that was the only edit on this wiki by the user who added this. I say we ignore it. Pel'marn Dakari 11:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Theory

It could also be links uncle from the The Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past because he is the only knnown relation to link who wore armour and there for would keep in with the fact that he says "My Child" to Link although A Link To The Past possibly happened after Twighlight Princess.Garadex 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious that he was a Link. The Hero's Spirit might as well said, "I am the Link of Ocarina of Time's Spirit, quote me on this." Besides, look at him, he's wearing a tunic and white tights. :P -The Keeper of Majora's Mask

Hey WAIT!

I remember Miyamoto saying that Twilight Princess is more than anything a spiritual sequel to Ocarina ... What other way to show it then having Link in TP be so similar to OoT right.

Both of them are shown as wolves....see what I'm gettin' at here. Could that be a Spiritual connection between the two?--Remo 21:38, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Link in OoT is the Hero's Spirit of TP? I'd like to believe that.Emma ^(Talk) 21:47, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it was fairly obvious, actually. Too many things say "this is the Hero of Time" or at least "this is also a Link". What makes you say nay, Matt? —Ando (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nay? I said I do believe it. The signs are obvious.Emma ^(Talk) 22:04, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

Well... "I'd like to believe that" typically means "Well, that'd be nice, but it's just not possible". Hence my confusion. —Ando (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to believe it, but it isn't possible to prove it.Emma ^(Talk) 22:19, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

Hence the I "Think" ...but im just saying its widley accepted like everything else in zelda is (since almost nothin can be proved thanks to Miyamoto) so I just would like to point that fact out.....no need to get defensive on an un-winnable argument...either of u.

Anyways my main point was that it was just one of the connections.(that I see)--Remo 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Master Sword

I'm looking at the image on the page right now, and the blade guard of the Hero's Spirit's sword looks absolutely nothing like that of the Master Sword, and the Master Sword's guard is one of its most distinguishing and recognizable features. I also find it interesting that the Magical Sword article says that sword looks similar to the Hero's Spirit's, which, although it definitely isn't a perfect match (so little so that I would disagree they look like the same sword), it does seem like a better match than the Master Sword, although I really think the Hero's Spirit's sword is its own sword. Jimbo Jambo 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

look at the blade they both have the "widening slimming" type bladeMedzel 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They don't look alike. Death Sword 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the blades do look alike, and I myself didn't even know that til the theorist pointed it out. The hilts don't look alike as the theorist points out, but the blades are very similar in style. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out, so please understand this is a THEORY, and please learn the difference between a theory and the main article. Link87 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says the blades are identical, when they are clearly not. This spreads misinformation. And a theory needs evidence. This is not evidence, because it is not true. I would understand if someone compared the Master Sword to the Seashell sword, but not this. Death Sword 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another theory that makes a lot of sense

A member posted this in a topic in TP and it actually makes sense. He basically says this:

Also, about the songs. Okay, OoT/MM-Link knew all of them, or at least most of them, that much is true. But so what? Note that the Hero's shade does NOT teach Link the songs. On the contrary. Link as a wolf howls them first, and the golden wolf responds to these howles. Quite the other way around, isn't it? I look at it more like a wolf-kinda conversation. Link calls for someone to help him, and the Hero's shade responds. And even if the shade knew all those songs, that doesn't prove anything. Because then, there must be other people out there knowing them as well - unless you are claiming that it was the Hero's shade who ran through Hyrule and drilled holes into the gossip stones to make them play the right tunes. I don't think so.

Another thing. The Hero's shade seems to have failed with his mission, whatever it was. The Hero of Time did not, if I reckon correctly. Didn't Link in Ocarina of Time defeat Ganon? And save Termina in Majora's Mask? I don't see how he would have failed his mission then. And I also can't imagine what must have happened to Link to change his old tunics for some heavy armory and lose an eye, after fighting Ganondorf and the moon. It must have been something even more terrible...

The Hero's shade was the one who should have stopped Ganondorf before he was banished to the Twilight Realm. If he had succeeded and banned/killed Ganondorf or whatever, the Sages would not have had to interfere and risk the life of one of them. But for some strange reason, that Hero did not accomplish his mission - he failed and died.

I think this makes a lot of sense, so I was thinking of adding it to the theory section, but I wanted to get you guys' input first. The Hero's Shade DOES say that he took on the role of the hero long ago. Also, the techniques that he teaches to Link were NOT known by a previous Link, which means that these techniques were "made" by another warrior. Other thoughts on this? Dany36 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means add the facts out of this, They are excellent counterpoints to a common theory found on forums. If it isn't too much trouble for you, I have a format that on the Rito page that would bring clarity to the entire theory section.Axiomist (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hero of Time Shade?

Ah, somewhat perfect...I think I have an answer to the idea that it means he died/failed. Just my theory, but to me it seems to make sense as a possibility. When he said he could not convey those life lessons to those who came after he may not have meant he died before he could pass on his knowledge. If it's assumed he is the Hero of Time, Link, from Ocarina, it may refer to Zelda sending him back to his childhood. Perhaps he became aware then, or after his death, that this action created two time lines and he regrets that he was unable to teach the lessons he learned to those who have to suffer through Ganon's aftermath. They are, in that sense, on their own, as there's no Hero of Time to help them now that he was sent back to his childhood. He didn't die or fail. He did defeat Ganon. But there was precious little time, mere minutes, I'll wager, between that event, and returning to his childhood. No chance to pass on his lessons to that time line.

And another thought that came to me while working on the above is in regards to the songs played. While perhaps wolf Link howls them first and then the spirit responds, that doesn't necessarily mean that the spirit was unfamiliar with the songs. After all, if someone starts singing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star to me and I repeat it after them, it doesn't mean I don't know the song because I was second to sing it. That doesn't prove that he DOES know the songs, but that fact in and of itself is insufficient to prove ignorance in my opinion.

Also thought that perhaps in response to the fact that the shade knows moves Link in Ocarina of Time was unfamiliar with, I may have a possible solution. It might be that Link created, or learned these techniques after he returned to a child. I find it hard to believe that after going through all that turmoil, chaos, and evil and having to defeat it, that after going back and informing Zelda of what was coming, that he'd sit back and become a farmer or something the rest of his life. I'd find it hard to let go of the memories at least. I'd imagine he would, as well, and probably want to keep honing his skills as he got older, perhaps after he enjoyed the childhood he sacrificed. Perhaps. He may pass on his skills to his offspring in the child time line, but still regret his inability to pass them on to those in the 'adult time line', assuming he was at some point made aware of this fact. Which is not impossible, as it seems that post Majora's Mask, there's not much said on the Hero of Time Link and what befell him. Perhaps a Light Spirit informed him? I can't say. Just speculate. But as for the unknown moves, they could have been learned or invented in that lapse of time, or maybe even created since his death. What else does the spirit of a great warrior do with that much time on his hands, after all?

And a final note, the fact that they both have a wolf form as it seems might be a hint that they are related. As stated, the spirit uses 'my child' and 'our bloodline' (especially the later) when talking to Link, which suggests strongly a line of descent. Perhaps the form of a wolf was meant to further draw links between the two of them.

This is just my theory, of course, but I think it's worth considering. That's all. Ragnarok 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to above?

Perhaps I'm going a bit overboard here but I did have another thought about whom this individual might be, and this time it's not Link. Any of 'em. I still think my above theory is probably more likely, but one thing that bugs me is the armor, or specifically the helmet, which Link, the Hero of Time, did not wear. Then I remembered a bit of Link's history that is revealed in the game, or I know I remember hearing that Link's father was one of the Knights of Hyrule, suffice to say they would most likely wear armor similar to that, and as a Knight of Hyrule during the Hyrulean Civil War it's likely that with the unification of the kingdom, those who fought (and died) were considered heroes for their part in bringing resolution to the conflict. It makes a looser connection to the term hero than does the theory of the shade being the Hero of Time, but it's not an impossible stretch. As such, perhaps the shade is really the FATHER of the Hero of Time, who was a Knight of Hyrule and fought in the war and perhaps did heroic deeds to earn such a title or recognition. And if, further, the Link of Twilight Princess is a direct descendant of the Hero of Time, then of course he is related to the father of the Hero of Time as well. It might account for the wardrobe differences presented. Though there are likely other explanations for that as well. I believe that Link's father is stated to have died in the war, or at least it's definitely implied by the fact that the Deku Tree Sprout only mentions the mother and not the father, then it'd also clear up what was meant about not being able to pass on the lessons learned, perhaps more specifically to his son, Link, who would become the Hero of Time. Just another theory, of course, but I think it's a rather interesting one. Thanks for hearing me out...twice. Ragnarok 05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a Stalfos/Darknut

I've noticed someone keeps putting up "resembles a cross between a Stalfos and a Darknut". The Hero's Shade looks nothing like a Darknut, and he doesn't even look like a Stalfos. Stalfos are all bone, and during Twilight Princess, have horn like protrusions. The Hero's Shade is mostly flesh and bone, except for his face, bearing resemblance closer to the soldier's spirits in Hyrule's graveyard. Unrelated, stop putting up the comparison between the Hero's Shade's sword and the Master Sword. They look nothing alike. --Death Sword 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash: This is a theory, nothing more. It is under a theory section, and there is nothing illegitimate about mentioning the blade of the Hero's Spirit. Your edits have been reverted by more than one person, so please be respectful of others' theories, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, and stop trying to start an edit war. If you would like to add onto it why you think it's not so, then state your reasons, but don't just completely remove a section just because you don't agree with it. Link87 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think you're removing my edits because you don't agree with them. You're both doing nothing to deny it or back it up. Besides, since when did majority = correct? People used to think the world was flat. Not only do they not look alike, but they're providing false information. Also, you're getting off topic. In this section, I'm talking about the faulty comparison involving the Hero's Shade. He doesn't look like a cross between a Darknut and a Stalfos, and this is insignificant information anyway, so why not replace it with something that makes more sense? I just provided information on why they do not look similar. If you want me to go more in-depth, then I will. Right now.

First of all, the Hero's Shade is wearing light armor that only conceals his upper torso and legs. Darknuts wear full body armor and reveal no part of themselves during Twilight Princess. In the toon styled games, they look like jackals, and in earlier games, take the same route in concealing themselves with full body armor. The Hero's Shade leaves his face and limbs quite wide-open to be compared with something like Darknuts. Maybe Lizalfos or Dinolfos, but you've got the wrong enemy.

It is also hard to compare them to Stalfos. Stalfos are all bone. During Twilight Princess, they have a horn on their head. If the Hero's Shade was a Stalfos, then his spine would show, seeing as his lower torso is exposed. The only slightly bone-like part of him is his face. The rest is withered flesh.

This is why he compares better to the dead knights' spirits you see throughout Twilight Princess. Not only do they wear light armor, but they're also fleshy everywhere except the face. It makes much more sense to compare them to the Hero's Shade. Also, thanks for getting rid of the image that explained all of this easily and thanks to whoever abused your powers because you're butthurt. It was such a cool thing to do. Death Sword 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Sword, let's be reasonable here. We understand that you don't believe the theory, but just because you don't doesn't mean it's unworthy of being mentioned. Everything that is there now is true and legitimate to mention as far as evidence goes. Please understand that just because you don't agree with a theory doesn't mean it's unworthy of being mentioned in the theory section. Link87 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling it a theory. You don't know anything of theories, apparently. What theasdlfasdkl' This is a faulty comparison. One sentence (That is insignificant to begin with) that I tried to fix because it is incorrect. This is in no way anything that involves making theories. Think of it like this. Someone just tried to compare Octoroks to LikeLikes, and said they are similar. But they're not. So I stepped in and deleted it because it's simply not true. Start reading things. And if not, then come up with an argument that makes them similar somehow. :/ You told me to give you reasons, so I did. But you backlashed and got butthurt and started crying and sucking your thumb and locked the whole editing process. Good job. Death Sword 21:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Go suck your thumb and learn the difference between a theory and what's not. I've tried to be reasonable with you, you're the only one to blame for baseless arguments that have no merit to them.Link87 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Go suck your thumb and learn the difference between a theory and what's not. I've tried to be reasonable with you, you're the only one to blame for baseless arguments that have no merit to them"

" You told me to give you reasons, so I did. But you backlashed and got butthurt and started crying and sucking your thumb and locked the whole editing process. Good job."

If you two do not sort out your differences and stop this petty arguing, I will be forced to temp-block both of you.Mandi ^Talk 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have tried to be reasonable with Death Sword, if he chooses not to negotiate or be reasonable, that's his problem. I'm done talking to him, as I have seen no merit to his arguments and I have other things to do than try to act as mediator here when that job belongs to others. Link87 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"It looks like a cross between a Darknut and a Stalfos" is not a theory. I apologize for my previous behavior, but seriously. I explained why it does not look like either a Darknut or a Stalfos, but your posts seemingly ignore everything I've set forth, and called this one line a theory. Opinions are not immunity for being told you're wrong. 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Sword, I understand what you're saying, but the whole section is a theory, hence the title and the label. The entire section, not just that one point, is a large theory with different points of evidence. And what I'm trying to say is, to you perhaps it may not look like a cross between whatever the theorist said, but that's your opinion and may not be shared by everyone else. You need to be understanding that just because you may not feel it is as it's stated, others obviously do. And truth be told, it does indeed look like a possible cross between some kind of knight and a Stalfos from Ocarina of Time's incarnation of the Stalfos, not those seen in Twilight Princess. But it does look like some kind of Stalfos to me personally nonetheless, but I'm not the one that formed the theory. So all I am asking is that you please be reasonable with us. If you don't agree with the theory, that's just fine, we're all entitled to our own views and free to voice our minds. However, simply because you may not agree with the theorist's points doesn't mean they aren't worthy of being mentioned. The whole section is the "Hero's Lineage Theory" and possesses the theory tag over it, so it's more than clear that the whole thing is a theory, there's no mistaking that. Link87 01:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am being reasonable. You just confirmed you were the unreasonable one. Because as I have been telling you all this time, you never even read the part you undid. "hence the title and the label". Hah. I hope you feel ashamed. It's not under the theory section. It's under the "Golden Wolf" section. :| Death Sword 02:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now there you go again, making a you-know-what out of yourself and revealing the opposite here. I've been more than reasonable, but you don't even want to admit that what you've been removing is beneath the theory section. Please understand that you're not going to be taken seriously unless you start acting maturely and try to remain civil. Link87 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But you seriously just proved you didn't read a bit of what I erased. :/ And you're getting off topic. The Master Sword comparison is above and I'm discussing it up there. You're still looming over that in the part where I'm telling you the Hero's Shade does not look like a Stalfos-Darknut because of reasons I've stated above that you didn't read at all. I didn't even erase that part, merely, I changed it to, "Resembles the dead soldiers found in Stallord's sand pit and the spirits in Hyrule Castle's graveyard", because the Hero's Shade does resemble them more. I'm not taking you seriously because you don't even know what we're talking about. This part I've been discussing with you all this time is under the Golden Wolf section, and you just said it was under the theory section. I can screenshot it for you. As proof you didn't even read what you undid. I don't think you saw anything I typed for you. Please go to the third paragraph and read what I said. For real read it this time, instead of putting up your opinion barrier and calling it a theory when it's only one sentence under a description section. :/ Death Sword 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't know what we're both talking about, I'm talking about you completely erasing an entire section of the theory, which you did. No questions about that, it's in the history. And you're right, I'm not going to bother reading something written by someone who's not even acting rationally and whose arguments don't appear to have any real basis or merit. And denying what you did under the theory section isn't going to help make me take you seriously any quicker. Now if you wish to change something beneath a different section talking about what you saw in TP, that's fine, but quit trying to completely erase the last section of the Hero's Lineage Theory. Link87 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was never talking about erasing the theory, because this section of the discussion page is about the small irk I had with the comparison of the Hero's Shade to a cross between a Stalfos and a Darknut. We were never talking about the theory. And if you were, you just started a huge back and forth argument because you were off topic the whole time. Look at the discussion section's name we're in. It says "Not a Stalfos/Darknut". That's what I've been discussing this whole time. Above this section, there is "Master Sword", where I'm discussing about how I erased that certain part of the theory section. I don't care at all if it's in the history, because you erased everything I revised without even looking at how I changed anything, and now you're focusing solely on the fact I erased the part of the theory section, in the completely wrong section of the discussion page. Death Sword 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, you know good and well you erased an entire section of the theory simply b/c you don't think yourself that the swords are the same. I could care less what else you do, but quit tampering with the theory section if you have no grounds to dismiss any part of it, which you don't. And trying to shift focus and thus shift blame from yourself isn't going to get you anywhere here, especially not with me. If you wish to state a different comparison in the main article, go for it. But leave the theory section alone, as I see nothing you've presented that merits its removal. This discussion is closed. Link87 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I told you like eight times, I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE THEORY SECTION. I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE THEORY SECTION. I AM DISCUSSING THE THING YOU OVERLOOKED BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO FOCUSED ON THE THEORY SECTION. I EDITED ANOTHER PART OF THAT ARTICLE, YOU KNOW. THAT IS WHAT I AM DISCUSSING.

Please, PLEASE, I am begging you, read the things I have taken my time to type to you. I will be as specific as I can.

This is what I edited that I am talking about, RIGHT NOW.

(Golden Wolf) [...]The true form of the Hero's Spirit resembles a cross between a Stalfos and a Darknut. [...]

It is not under the Hero's Lineage Theory, it is under the description of the Golden Wolf the Hero's Shade turns into. Now, seeing as I actually pay attention to monsters' anatomy in Zelda, I changed it to the more suitable, "The True form of the Hero's Spirit resembles the dead soldiers you find in Stallord's sand pit, or the dead soldier spirits in Hyrule Castle's Graveyard." I admit I tampered with the theory section, but I'm NOT DISCUSSING THAT. I am talking about the Golden Wolf section you changed without reading it. If you WANT to discuss the Master Sword so bad, then scroll up and find the section, but PLEASE just open your eyes a bit and actually read and digest what I'm telling you. Death Sword 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, as I've said from the beginning, I have no problem with you changing the comparison, what I have a problem with is you just wiping a whole section of the theory simply b/c you didn't agree with it. Now, in final resolution, if you want to change the comparison in the main part of the article, that's just fine if you have the evidence to back it up. However, leave the theory section alone and we won't have any problem. That's a good compromise here. Now as I said before, this discussion is at an end. Link87 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been to add opposition points to the theory. Even ones you don't like. :p Trust me, I've hated several theories here. Axiomist (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely what I told Death Sword earlier, not to just wipe the section but add to it of why it may not be so and the evidence of why. There are several counterpoints to the points of the theory. And as I said, I could care less what you compare the Hero's Spirit to, but I do not agree with just wiping an entire section of the theory simply b/c of not agreeing with it and no real concrete reason to counter it. Link87 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saying, you've been off topic, this WHOLE TIME. Fine, I'll suggest something. How about we change the part of the theory that says it's identical, to saying it's similar. Because I've already presented information on how it is definitely not identical. And then let me change the Stalfos-Darknut comparison, because it's insignificant anyway, so it should be more accurate in terms of comparisons? Death Sword 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we've both been at cross-purposes is more the term. And if anyone's been off-topic here, it's you b/c I've been very clear from the start what my beef with what you were doing was. But that aside, I see no real differences in the blades of the two swords, b/c they really do look identical down to their markings. The picture you showed of it is also a poor-resolution distorted picture of the HS's blade. It actually does have the exact same shape as the Master Sword's if you look at a high-resolution picture of it. Now if you want to change the comparison, go right ahead, I could care less about that. Link87 02:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I stayed on the original topic the whole time. You were off topic. :/ There is a discussion above where I've posted a picture of both blades, and outlined how they are not identical. The picture I got the blade from is on the page, and it looks just like the distorted picture, and it's pretty detailed. Please take a look at it. Death Sword 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol, we'll have to agree to disagree on who was off topic, b/c I've never been of the topic of what you did to the theory section. If you've been bouncing back and forth between both topics, that was you not me. And as I said, you have still presented a distorted picture of the HS's blade. The Master Sword blade is clear, the HS's blade is distorted, low-resolution. I just don't see any real big differences between them and they look near-identical to me personally. But that's just me. Sorry but I still fail to see what you hope to achieve here, besides changing a few words for a comparison. As I said, you want to change the comparison, that's just fine and dandy, but to avoid any further disputes, the theory section probably needs to just be left alone. If nothing is being added to it and nothing concrete is being presented in favor or opposing it, there's no need to bother with it in my estimation. Personally, I think the efforts could be put to far better use on articles that actually need it. Link87 03:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I was always always on the topic of the comparison between the Hero's Shade and a Stalfos/Darknut. I never strayed off the topic which the title of this section declares. If you, you know, actually read what I typed, then you'd see I didn't even mention a sword except for the unrelated sentence at the top which I immediately dropped. But since we're on the topic now: No, look: http://zeldawiki.org/File:Herospirit.jpg That's where I got the picture for the blade. If you look at the Master Sword (http://zeldawiki.org/File:Master_sword.png), the bases of the blade are extremely different. While the Master Sword has a blunt base for extra leverage (Which he never uses) the Hero's Shade's sword has a rounded, sharp base that makes gripping it look impossible. Death Sword 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time arguing with you about who's right or wrong here. You have not offered anything of real consequence as far as the sword goes, at least to my expectations anyway. Bottom line: go ahead and change the comparison if you like, leave the theory section be. That will be a fair way of defusing this pointless argument and avoid any further disputes. End of story, end of discussion, the end. Link87 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know I haven't offered any proof when you haven't even looked at anything I've given you? Stop trying to end what you started and blow it off like nothing happened. I'm being more than reasonable. I even gave you proof that you've yet to disprove or even acknowledge in any way. Once I can, I'll change it, but at least admit where you went wrong. Death Sword 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll unprotect the page. DeathSword is right to add "bears resemblance to" rather than "IS a Cross between...." Even though I'm no fan of the theory, Since it's in the Theory section of the article, we can leave it. This is bc it keeps popping up on forums and will do so here too, normally we find it intermixed in articles. So the logical solution was to allow the theories and counterpoints against them so people can bring the info to a forum and hash it out. Axiomist (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep calling it a theory. :( It is not an official theory. It's just a comparison. But it's a faulty comparison, so I changed it to something more suitable. He was arguing about the Master Sword-Hero's Shade's sword comparison this whole time, which is discussed in the "Master Sword" section of this page, which was also a faulty comparison. I provided evidence for both of them, but he took out the picture of the comparison between the Hero's Shade and various NPC's. Death Sword 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no faulty comparison when looking at them together, crossed against one another. And I did nothing of the sort, I took no picture of any kind out of anywhere. And I agree wholeheartedly with Axiomist. Link87 03:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a faulty comparison in a serious discussion. http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/17/compar1.png There are no Triforce etchings on the blade, from what I can see. Unless you want to say one of ZeldaWiki's sysops likes to Photoshop Triforces off swords. Also, it has a diamond shape at the base of the blade, rather than the hexagonal one the Master Sword sports. Do you still want to say they're identical? Incidentally, it should be noted that, in the actual proportions, the Hero's Shade's sword is much larger than the Master Sword. Death Sword 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I still do say they look almost identical, b/c the picture you're looking at is not of good resolution, and I even saw the Triforce emblem on the Shade's sword as well. It's not "diamond-shaped", it's also hexagonal in a proper image of it, if you looked at those presented. However, we're not here to debate swords. The discussion on this topic is at an end. Link87 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

However, we're not here to debate swords. The discussion on this topic is at an end.

Way to do exactly what I was doing like two days ago. Also, that is a perfectly acceptable image, that is large enough to make out anything that can be considered a Triforce. Death Sword 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you've been beating a dead horse here Death Sword. This could have been over long ago if you just would've admitted you wrongfully removed the section about the sword, and asking for every little detail in pictures of the sword is not going to help you prove or disprove a theory, that's why it's a theory. And I beg to differ on the image, the image is very distorted and cloudy to be honest, you can't even see the detail on the sword in the picture you presented. If I were you, I would quit wasting my time trying to prove small points that don't have much relevance and actually try helping some of us on the articles that need it. As I said, the discussion about this page is at an end, there is nothing more to discuss here. It's time we quit wasting time on things that are just pointless arguing here. It's over, the end, that's all folks. Link87 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I still say you're butthurt for being wrong. I didn't wrongfully remove it, because technically, it's not a theory. It's a faulty comparison. Theories need proof, and since it's just a faulty comparison, it's nowhere near it. It's more fan fiction than anything. It (the argument) is not pointless, either, since the point of a wiki is to provide the most accurate information it can. Users arguing like this to get to an end agreement is what keeps the fountain of knowledge clean. And so it ends. Thanks, Steven. You're the coolest. It's like Christmas. Death Sword 06:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Due to the "edit war" this page has been protected for one (1) day to prevent further editing.Mandi ^Talk 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Link87 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)