Tsuchinoko[]
Going by the fangs and the anatomy, this is based on the mythological tsuchinoko. It has the same basic shape as that one Pokémon based on a tsuchinoko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KairuHakubi 00:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- You would need an official source that confirms it in order to add that information. Also, you have been told countless times to sign your post with
~~~~. - Chuck * (Talk) 03:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- If we removed everything unsourced, there wouldn't be much left. And excuuuuse me. KairuHakubi (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps my phrasing was too ambiguous. I wasn't suggesting we add "this enemy is based on..." to the article. I was only suggesting something along the lines of "this enemy resembles..." which dozens of other articles have without any source (even if sometimes they're flat-out wrong). Observation, not speculation. We don't need a citation for Gleeok being somewhat hydra-based. Actually I wasn't going to add anything to the article, I just noticed something and put it on the talk page. Thought maybe someone else could dig up some research. KairuHakubi (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously? You're advocating removing the fact that Gleeok looks like a hydra? You're not going to find a source for that kind of thing. The bare facts are pretty bone-dry, you have to allow people to use their brains. KairuHakubi (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- To be specific, if something is so obvious that it does not require a citation to support a comparison, we do not require citations. Hydras are often referenced throughout the series (and even named on page 206 of Encyclopedia) so citing a correlation between Gleeoks and Hydras is largely unnecessary. However, a comparison between Eye Slugs and Tsuchinoko is definitely contentious on the grounds of Eye Slugs being slugs and not snakes, having one eye, etc. There are enough differences to require a citation. TriforceTony (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's kind of my entire point. If you allow people to use their eyes, it becomes obvious this isn't a slug, but a snake. It has little fangs for god's sake. We have a lot of kinda clearly wrong observations throughout the wiki saying "this is an insect-like such and such" when it's obviously something else, but that's why we have talk pages. We can discuss these things, and collectively use our brains. Something the localizers don't always do. KairuHakubi (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of how it appears and how we perceive it, we still defer to what the series calls things. This doesn't appear to be a slug but multiple sources refer to it as a slug, so it is canonically a slug, as far as The Legend of Zelda series is concerned. TriforceTony (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Look, I realize that an irrational clinging to the localization is the norm around here, and I can't win that fight (even though it would take very little effort to illustrate why localization changes are non-canon), but by your logic, we ought to change the article on 'rope' to reflect that, rather than reptiles, they're twisted bundles of hemp fiber. Or we could accept that names (especially localized names) are not more important than graphics. Just like how the "Hardhat Beetle" article acknowledges they clearly aren't beetles, and the "Spiny Beetle" article points out that they do not appear to have any spikes at all. KairuHakubi (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Aside from your fallacy that ignores that ropes (objects) are not actual creatures that Ropes (the monster) can be based on and reasons that as the only possible explanation for its name, we have evidence of Eye Slugs being called slugs specifically outside of the capacity of their name on page 176 of Encyclopedia. TriforceTony (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)