"What?! That raw patch of

darkness, deeper than the blackest night...

Is... Is that Vaati?

No, it's not the wind sorcerer..."

"This was all there was to the wind sorcerer Vaati, eh?"

"This palace was built on the power of Vaati's magical strength.

With its master gone, it can no longer retain its form."

"You've defeated the wind sorcerer Vaati."

It's made QUITE clear that Vaati is completely dead - he is shown exploding, his magic is gone, and his own master ridicules him for dying. Other than that, ZELDA SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE DARKNESS IS NOT VAATI!KrytenKoro 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. It is obvious to me know that a character with more knowledge than all the other characters who has no desire to want Vaati dead would lie about Vaati being dead. Also obvious to me is that every indicator of Vaati's death would occur (such as the palace crumbling), even though he wasn't actually dead, and that Zelda, one of the characters that usually has significant knowledge of what's going on (and would at the least be able to recognize someone dying), could be so easily fooled by a minor boss that does not possess subtlety.

Also obvious is that even though the game's various authors have never employed the technique before of being ridiculously circuitive and trying to trick the player (unlike FFVII, which is based in part on that), it's obvious that in this one case, for a secondary boss, they did.

Because, they held the secret of Ganon being behind things so well for TP and FSA - they were only revealing it by about the fourth level in each, yeah?

Now, I'm not saying that Vaati won't come back - how many times has Ganon been killed? - but it is pretty clear in this case that he is, in fact, dead. This series doesn't use suspense and trick endings anywhere near to the extent that games like Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or even MegaMan do. Zelda is about immersion - such sudden twists disconnect the player from the narrative, and that's not what Zelda is about - while the series does have revelations, they are almost always gradual, and if you are familar with fantasy settings, you can see them coming a mile away. What you are asking for (that every indicator pointing to Vaati's death is not certain, and that Nintendo set it up so that they can bring him out later and say "booya! I wasn't really dead", when it would be easier, less assholey, and more epic for there to be a grand ressurection ceremony) is just contradictory to logic - besides, Vaati was less powerful than Ganon - he's lucky to have even gotten the three games, and the fact that Ganon is the danger in LttP instead of Vaati seems to further point to his disappearance from the stage - the only thing that kept Vaati in the series was the four sword, and after that, he has no real presence or dangerousness.KrytenKoro 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"for one the four sword is still there" - The Four Dark Links came out of it. not Vaati, and Ganon shattered it

"Vaati probably would want revenge on Ganon(dorf) in some way" - WTH? Vaati was working for Ganon - Ganon didn't betray him in any way. Vaati failed, but it was in no way Ganon's fault.

"i've seen about 80+ people who named their user name after Vaati" - You're joking, right? I mean, you don't honestly think that that is a reason for them to bring him back, right?

"to put it simply, can Vaati die? Yes." - So what's the argument then?

"Will it be permanent? Most likely not." - has it been impermanent yet? If you interpret TMC to have Vaati dying, then maybe, but the backstory for FS implies that he was sealed in the Four Sword (this would explain why it has his symbol on the Four Sword, and how it became cursed). In any case, the permanence is not the issue - it's whether he died this time, which the game all but verifies (it shows him being killed, it has the death animation instead of a sealing or disappearing animation it uses for returning bosses, and Zelda, the tower, and Ganon all note his death).KrytenKoro 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I played through the game and I never got the idea that Vaati has been working for Ganon" - I don't know, maybe Ganon saying that Vaati was supposed to distract the Hylians while he syphoned off their power? Or all the Dekus saying that Ganon is behind everything, or that Ganondorf is said to be behind obtaining the Dark Mirror that was responsible for precipitating Dark Link and thus Vaati's release?

"as for my mention of his fans, remember that This bastard was suppose to die but he became so popular they made him come back...constantly." - that didn't bring back Dethl, and they did decide to make Phantom Hourglass instead of the Four Swords game they originally planned...KrytenKoro 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About venom - those comics had a much wider fanbase than the four swords games did.

"Dethl was never popular" Even now, quite a few years after he was allowed to pass - http://www.google.com/search?q=dethl&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"If we get another four swords game" - probably, but they decided not to make the four swords DS game, remember?KrytenKoro 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does point to Four Swords not being quite as overwhelmingly popular as you "remember" - they had the perfect opportunity and hardware for a Four Swords game, one that would have gotten over the horribly frustrating requirements of playing multiplayer, and they decided to make a completely different multiplayer game.KrytenKoro 07:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the first one? And how the second one could only get half the functionality as single-player (Shadow Battle, Tingle Tower, the basic shape of the game changed in multiplayer) - both Four Swords games were meant to be Multiplayer. The single-player mode on FSA was a concession because many consumers wouldn't be able to afford multiple GBA's.KrytenKoro 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And was backstory to the Four Swords game, and not a Four Swords game itself - the subseries can only have so many backstories.KrytenKoro 05:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually disputing it or are you using "discussion is required" basis of the argument? The later isn't an acceptable reason to revert. TTN 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't dispute it, leave it; see WP:BRD. If someone who does disagree reverts it, then it will be discussed. TTN 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So anyways, I'm going to revert it again. Unless you actually disagree with it, please don't undo it. See this and this for why discussion isn't to be forced without actual reason (e.g. people disagreeing with something). TTN 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you answer no to the first half of the above question? You stated that you just think "edit summaries aren't good enough." TTN 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it clearer next time. It just appears that you were using the pointless discussion point to keep it. TTN 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't disagree with the merger, could you please revert The Prince of Darkness to show him that it's not just me? TTN 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:LEAD, the first paragraph(s) are supposed to be a sort of miniature article of its own, essentially summarizing the article below, not to mention the current lead is too short for an article of SSBB's size. Please do not revert, as the addition is following policy and also the result of discussion and some collaboration. -TwilightPhoenix 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported your other account (and by extension, this one) here for sharing your account password with other people, which is forbidden. If you want to give your side of the story, just follow the link.--Atlan (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:List of Mega Man Zero characters#Merger. Discuss there before reverting (though it has been over for a bit now). TTN 00:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like people who do this to me for personal amusement. Vilerocks 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you like me, who disagrees with TTN's actions? Angie Y. 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to always disagree with what TTN is doing, what with all the merges. Vilerocks 19:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs to have encyclopedic information. If an article isn't encyclopedic on its own, it is merged into a larger topic or deleted. It's a natural function of the site that, if not done by me, would eventually be done by someone else. If you value plot synopses, you should probably use Wikia to fill those needs. TTN 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad excuse, real bad excuse. Vilerocks 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• high-fives Vilerocks* Come to my talk page and back me up. Angie Y. 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once this block is over i'll be there. Vilerocks 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3RR violations, disruptive editing practices, and an unwillingness to follow consensus. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--MZMcBride 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Angie Y. 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]