February 22, 2020

👿 Knight Challenge #4 👿

They don't belong in this world!
From writing, to research, to images, find your preferred way to contribute with our fourth theme: Demons!

Latest Announcements

Talk:Man from Curiosity Shop

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Same Guy?

I know that many think that the Curiosity Shop Guy runs both the Shop and the Trading Post. However, during the Kafei and Anju quest, it is possible to look in the Shop from the backroom and see the Curiosity Shop Guy in there. At the same time, the Trading post is being run by the normal guy. Since a person can't be in two places at once, the Curiosity Shop and the Trading Post are not run by the same person. This is not a big step for the characters to be different people. The Malon counterpart was split into Cremia and Romani.--Matt 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Start the Kafei & Anju quest. When Kafei gives you the pendent, talk to him again and do what he says. After nightfall, but before 9PM, you can look into the Curiosity shop and see the Curiosity Shop Guy there. Now run to the Trading Post and go in. The normal guy is in there.--Matt 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that the Trading Post Guy's absence still correlates with the opening of the Curiosity Shop, it's more than likely that they are one and the same. The Kafei & Anju evidence you presented is likely a development error. -- Fire Keaton 10:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely, Fire keaton. Though I'll have to look into it, I believe there is a man in southwest Termina field (as close to Great Bay as you can see) visible from the telescope, who stands (though he isn't itching) wearing the same clothes and with a similar appearance to the Trading Post man/curiosity shop man. This is visible on the second day (late in the day, probably about 4:30) and is near the vicinity of the area of the Takkuri. Coincidence? --Stalkid 03:18, 12 August 2010 (EDT) (I can't get a proper screenshot, but at the very least I can photograph the screen as proof. Sketchy, I know, but it should be sufficient at least for ZW members.)
A screen photo is sufficient for me ;) Jeangabin 07:53, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
I'll try to have it by tomorrow. --Stalkid (P T) 07:57, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

OK, he is in two places at the same time, but the third day you can also found the part-timer at the trading post and in the field at the same time, so this shouldn't be taken as a clue.(SilverArcher 07:54, 18 September 2010 (EDT))

Accuracy tag

Exactly what here is being disputed? I don't notice anything off about the article. --Ando (T) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the last edit was:
03:02, 5 May 2008 Matt (Talk | contribs | block) (1,817 bytes) (This article is written in a way that assumes an unconfirmed fact to be true, adding accuracy tag)
So... I dunno. maybe the thing with the link between the Curiosity Shop/Trading Post, maybe the connection with Kafei, maybe the reference to the Fishing Hole Guy in OoT... When the tag's added it should really be stated here what the issue is. --Adam 12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I said it twice in the above section. There is insufficient evidence to say that the Curiosity Shop Guy and the Trading Post Guy are one and the same. And as I said, it is not that hard to believe that they are different people. Cremia and Romani are different people, and they are both a Malon counterpart.--Matt 12:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Cremia and Romani are based on two different models of the same OoT character, Malon in the Child time and Malon in the Adult time. A better comparison would the three models of the Gorman Brothers which are based on Ingo, but they would still be vastly different variations from one another. One could argue that the Curiosity Shop Guy and the Trade Post Guy are based on two models of the Fishing Hole Guy in that one is bald and the other isn't, but if you were to compare the Trade Post Guy to the Fishing Hole Guy in Child time, one would take notice of certain variations that extend far past the graphical improvement from OoT to MM. The Trade Post Guy's hair was modified to look more like a wig than actual hair. Romani and Cremia are differentiated by time, the Gorman Brothers are differentiated by wardrobe, but the Curiosity Shop Guy and the Trade Post Guy are simply differentiated by a wig and a pair of shades. Though it doesn't outright show that they are one and the same, the game pretty much implies it to a fault. Anyways for them to be two separate characters would no purpose for any of the game's sidequests, in contrast both the Romani Sisters and the Gorman Brothers do serve a purpose. -- Fire Keaton 10:45, 2 June 2008

The Curiosity Shop Guy gives Link the Keaton Mask, and the Express Letter to Mama, and tells Link where to go to help Kafei. He is not a minor character.
Also, there already is concrete in-game evidence that the Curiosity Shop Guy and the Trading Post Guy are not the same person. Most-likely, it is a joke on the developer's part. Make strong suggestions that two characters are the same but they actually aren't. Developer jokes like that are a very common thing in video games.--Matt 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not battling here, just curious: What is this "concrete in-game evidence". I don't remember any. :O --Ando 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense Ando. But do you even read the talk page before posting? It's at the top. No, it isn't a development error. It has to do with the character scheduling. That is a very hard thing to mess up on a semi-major character, especially when there are only a couple dozen or so scheduled characters to work with.--Matt 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, not really. But in this case yes. :P I don't know, really it could go either way. I do find it a little hard to believe that they would have made a scheduling mistake considering the amount of detail that went into the game, but... I suppose a mistake has to be made somewhere. :/ Nothing's perfect. So this is one of those things that, without further evidence, I'd say is up to personal belief. Perhaps we should decide what goes into the article, though. Maybe a "it's strongly suggested that they're the same person, but given blah blah blah, they may not be"? --Ando 17:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason for the tag. The article was written assuming them to be the same. Even though it can't really be proven either way. I knew I should not have rewritten the article without an agreement here.--Matt 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if you feel like editing it with something neutral, go on ahead. Unless you want to wait for others' input? --Ando 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning both possibilities is probably the best middle ground to go with. But I'd still be willing to bet ten bucks that the developers would confirm them as one and the same. It's almost as unlikely as Beedle and the Rarities Merchant being two different people. --Fire Keaton 01:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot this! These guys have completely different personalities. The Trading Shop guy is nicer. He likes Goron Link and Zora Link. But the Curiosity Shop Guy tells them to come back "Half past never!" If these guys are the same person, then that is one serious case of split-personality.--Matt 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Running a pawn shop and a general goods store requires two different attitudes. A persona mask if you will. Just because the guy acts one way in the Trading Shop and another way in the Curiosity Shop doesn't necessarily mean that he has a split personality. It could just mean that he wears a different face for each part of his life. It's kind of like real life actually. You change your attitude depending on the context of the situation. -- Fire Keaton 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
While there is some truth in what you said, it does not adequately explain the personality differences. Those differences are far too extreame. Dissociative Identity Disorder (also known as having a split personality) is a condition in which a single person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment. Among the signs is having multiple mannerisms, attitudes and beliefs which are dissimilar to each other. This is an exact match. It is highly unlikely that this is one person "acting" like two different people. It either is two people, or one with a split personality.--Matt 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not acting, it's common social phenomena. You don't talk to your co-worker as you would your kid. I suggest you watch Nicholas Cage's "Lord of War" and read Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". People can have drastically different behaviors depending on the context. Shady business requires a shady attitude. You can't treat customers who comes to a pawnshop the same way as customers who come to common vending shop. The two businesses attract very different clients. You see those iron bars in the Curiosity Shop? They're there for a reason. The Curiosity Shop Guy and the Trading Shop Guy being one and the same is MM's further demonstration of the intricacies in these seemingly everyday people. I'd say it fits the whole mask theme of Majora's Mask rather well. -- Fire Keaton 0:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what your saying. But your taking the idea way too far. While this would be an interesting solution, it just is not the case. Nintendo would not waste time on making a person who acts like this. There would be too many conditional statements to write. Like if the character is here then he says this, and if there he says that. That adds up to quite a bit of waste, especially for a nonessential character. Making them two characters would make all the coding shorter and less complex. It is not hard to imagine what Nintendo did. This is a game, not the real world. Games made around the year 2000 were not that complex. Newer games might have something like this, but it just isn't Nintendo's style. Nintendo likes to save as much space for sounds and graphics on it's games as possible. They're not going to write an unnecessarily complex code for a nonessential character.--Matt 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like character is something people program in games, when the truth is that it dictates what they program. Everything I described doesn't need to be programmed in the game, it just needs to be on the mind of the programmers. Everything you encounter in a game is basically dolls designed to give the illusion of a story. In fact that's all there is to a video game code. There's no actual value in losing all of your hearts, it just triggers when the game shows a death scene and a "game over" screen. All of the "characters" in Majora's Mask are dolls with scripted programming of what to display depending on the action or inaction of the player. There aren't too many "conditional statements" because it is all written down for each character of what to in the the three day cycle (the programmed device that in fact makes it possible there not be too many "conditional statements"). Ideas are conveyed by what the game is programmed to display. The Trading Post Guy is programmed to appear whenever the player enters the Trading Post before 9 PM, afterwards another character model with different dialogue but the same function is to take his place. Meanwhile at 10, the player has access to the Curiosity Shop, were by he encounters the character model of the Curiosity Shop Guy. Both models strongly resemble one another and given the time discretion in their assigned encounters, it strongly implies they are supposed to represent the same character. It isn't programmed that they are the same character, it is programmed to imply that they are the same character. Hence for them to be one and the same would be no more complex, program wise, than if they were different. But idea wise, for them to be one and the same places more emphasis on the experience of the game than if they were to be different characters. If the latter is the case, it never had any bearing plot wise in any of the side quests of the game, making it a non-essential plot device. Quite frankly Occam's Razor shreds the likelihood of it being the case for that reason alone. -- Fire Keaton 22:55, 7 June 2008
Okay, hold up here. I used to be all for the "They're the same dude" argument, but to test a theory I pulled up Majora's Mask just now. I thought "Hey, if the Trading Post guy IS the Curiosity Shop guy (...with hair), then talking to him should add him to my Bombers' Notebook, yes?" So I went and completed the challenge to get the Notebook. I went and talked to the guy and... nothing. He wasn't added. I'd say that that's pretty definitive proof (I mean, if they were the same guy, why would he only be added to the Notebook SOMEtimes?). --Ando 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A simple answer! Perhaps we could end this loop. It is streaching things to say that they are the same person now. I guess that there was concrete in-game evidence after all. Okay, not exactly concrete but really strong evidence anyway. Putting this together with the fact that they are both in their respective buildings at the same time from 6:00PM to 9:00PM and that they have different personalities, it is highly unlikely that they are the same person.--Matt 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
How is it "highly unlikely"? Because the programmers possibly forgot to change the placement of the Curiosity Shop Guy in a scripted event based on the time of day? I'm sorry but you can't audaciously make that claim especially when you haven't sufficiently refuted the evidence that I provided. The way I see it, either scenario is possible. Just edit the article to include them both theories and be done with it. --Fire Keaton 11:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make revisions. When I'm done, check it out and see if it is neutral enough.--Matt 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. The article is going to be much bigger. For reasons of being able to differentiate who is being referred to, I'm making a section for the Curiosity Shop Guy and one for the Trading Post Guy. After that will be a section explaining the possibility of them being the same person. There will be some references. It might take a little long for me to finish it. First I'll make the article Trading Post Guy and have it redirect to this article. The redirect won't work until I am done!--Matt 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fire Keaton is right. Common sense should tell you they're clearly intended to be the same person. There's a lot of evidence pointing this, whereas the only reason you have to think they're different persons (being able to see him in the curiosity shop while doing Kafei/Anju quest when he should be in the trading spot) is obviously a oversight on the programmers' part. I mean, it makes NO SENSE for him to be in the curiosity shop like that while it's closed. - Dere 14:41, 4 February 2012 (EST)

But he isn't inside the curiosity shop all the time, he only appears there after 6. That isn't an oversight it's an intentional implement. If it was an oversight then he would have permanently been in the Curiosity Shop. If they wanted it so that he only appears there at a certain time then they would have completely prevented him from appearing when looking in from the other side Don Lark Kiin 15:15, 4 February 2012 (EST)

I haven't posted on here in quite some time, and this discussion seems pretty dead, but I really fail to see how any evidence of them being different people was presented. The fact that it didn't activate in the bomber's notebook is because they are coded as two different characters in the game, with different models, etc. It would have required additional coding to have the notebook trigger on either model, making it a probable oversight. In addition, it may even have been an intentional difference, due to the way in which the notebook lists the name for the character: If the player got the notebook updated from talking to either character model, it would have been confusing, had the player not run into/known about, the curiosity shop yet. Conclusive, hard evidence of them being different would be them in the same place, at the same time. This never occurs, and considering that people can all be observed to behave differently than they would have at those times if you use the telescope to view people, such as skullkid reacting ONLY to you looking at him through the telescope, and other similar scenes, the same situation can be extended to kafei's peekhole. In addition, the reason that you can view that he's in that shop at those times is so you can understand what you're looking at. It is possible that younger players may fail to make the connection to the curiosity shop being that particular location. The presence of the owner gives additional visual cues as to the location you're looking at, allowing you to figure it out. IIRC, you can only see the exchange between the thief and the curiosity shop man by being physically inside the shop, not from kafei's peekhole. The visual clue of the owner, lets you know where to go to find out who the grinning theif might be, if you haven't put it together yet, which is one of the routes that will be able to lead the player through to his hideout in ikana canyon, where he can be found prancing around at certain times. Being able to piece all that together may be possible without it being so overt, but, because of the nature of zelda games, they make it so there are several ways to figure out where to go next in the anju-kafei quest. This gives motive for the developer's placement of the models, and if you want an "in game" explanation of why they're in two places at once, merely observe that they could move back and forth between the locations as you do. The fact that people do behave differently depending on how you observe them in game throws out any credence to the idea that just because in two different run throughs of the same 3-day cycle, you can find the two character models in the different places, doesn't mean they aren't the same person. Based on his mannerisms, several other pieces of anecdotal evidence (things people say in reaction to various masks, times of day when he's working), and that the only difference between the two characters is a wig and shades, its pretty overt that the developers intended the two models to be the same character. In code, I have no doubt they are handled separately, but it seems clear that they were intended to be two different models of the same guy. Magnus orion 15:58, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Two different pieces of information regarding his dual personality.

I decided that I would do a little investigating myself on this subject, and I made some unmentioned observations. They are opposing observations, but they may be important. If you talk to the trading post dude while wearing Kafei's mask he says something like "I don't know that kid." That is interesting because only the Curiosity Shop Guy and possibly the mayor know he has been turned into a kid, while the rest think he is an adult. However, at the end credits you can see the Curiosity Shop Guy at the wedding. Now, if I were him I would probably be in my Trading Post garb so people wouldn't know I was the seller of stolen goods. I mean, wouldn't that be the point of his disguise in the first place? NintenJoe231 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Excellence!

The first point is actually pretty excellent -- not sure I ever noticed that. Regarding the second point, well, it's fairly clear he has no problem with letting you know that he sells stolen goods (he only mentions it every other sentence). Does the Trading Post guy appear in the credits as well, or is it just the Curiosity Shop guy? Because if not, well... It's not conclusive evidence, but it's at the very least another piece of something to suspect. User:Ando/sig 04:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. I talked to the part time guy with the stone mask on, and not realizing I was there, he said "We don't get many customers, so why does the boss have so much money?" This points to shop guy and curiosity guy being the same.NintenJoe231 19:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving this page to Man from Curiosity Shop

Could this page be moved to Man from Curiosity Shop instead? I tried doing it myself but it wouldn't let me, probably because the redirect page leads here. The Bombers' Notebook calls him the Man from Curiosity Shop, which is a more accurate and official name than "Curiosity Shop Guy." Thanks. Dany36 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Seems like this page was created under speculation that these two men were one and the same, which does not, under any circumstances warrant a merger. I say we consider the legitimacy of this page and opt for a split until there is conclusive evidence that they are one in the same.User:Cipriano 119/sig 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was made under that assumption. I brought this up before and changed it to about how it is at the time of this post. It was a compromise because it didn't seem people wanted to split then. I still stand by the opinion I had before. To sum it up I say split the article. There's nothing really proving they're the same. Best to go on the side of caution and split 'em up.User:Matt/sig 04:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yup, a split would be good. Go for it.User:Mandi/sig 04:25, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Childhood friends?

I'm not finding it likely that they were childhood friends, as his physical appearance is that of a middle-aged man of about Fourty. Kafei is probably the same age as Anju, seeing as how they knew eachother as children, so I would guess that (by Anju's physical appearance and the fact that she has a living Grandmother) he is about Twenty. I think that, given the above information, The Curiousity Shop Man is a sort of uncle-figure to Kafei. On the flipside, though, this would leave no clue as to the reason for the relation between the two. --Stalkid 14:36, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Yess, I think the same. Jeangabin 07:46, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

Name

Actually I'm not too set on this name anymore there are actually three references to this guy's name:

Quote1.png This Curiosity Shop guy's takin' advantage of me...I just want my fair share... Quote2.png
— Sakon

Which is the name we had it at.

Quote1.png Man from Curiosity Shop, buys and sells stolen goods. Open at night only. Quote2.png
— Bombers Notebook

Which is what we based this on. I don't like following this one because the notebook has horrible and clearly annotated grammar. The sentences aren't even complete.

Quote1.png The man from the Curiosity Shop was added to your notebook! Quote2.png
— Text upon first talking to him while having the notebook.

These ones are usually full descriptions and have good grammar.

I'm not sure which one we'd go with, whichever one it is though I don't think it should be what it's at currently.User:Matt/sig 03:31, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I like the last one best. "This Curiosity Shop guy" doesn't sound very legit. And the Bombers' Notebook entry info is grammatically incomplete. "The Man from the Curiosity Shop" sounds most accurate, to me. And it's narration, so it's probably the most specific we're going to get. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:16, 11 October 2010 (EDT)
Except, most of the time, we don't add "The" to article names, so it'd just be "Man from the Curiosity Shop." ;p Dany36 00:21, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Designing Error

I really don't see why people consider him appearing in two places at once a designing error. The fact that he doesn't appear before six means he is not found there the whole time. If the designers were taking a short cut they would of just made it so the model is in the shop all the time or that he is never in the shop when viewed from the spy hole (since you never can look through it during the shop's opening hours). The fact that they actively programmed it so his model appears there seems like it was intentional to have them in two places at the same time to me anyway. Don Lark Kiin 09:44, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

I talked to Trading Post manager with Stone Mask on...

...and he said something about thinking there was someone there. Then he says something like "Oh well... I've got to get ready for the night shift anyway". This implies that he is the same person as the Curiosity Shop guy. Avengah 05:43, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Also, the third day you can found the part-timer at the trading post and in the field at the same time. Development errors can happen. SilverArcher 07:52, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Ok, this is ridiculous

The Man from Curiosity Shop and the Man from Trading Post ARE the same guy. That's not a theory or an assumption, it's a fact. Playing the game makes this painfully obvious. They use the same model, have the same catchphrase, same clothes, the two shops are next to each other, and they're never both open at the same time. I know that people don't want to treat unconfirmed claims as facts, but sometimes you don't need the game to spoon-feed you info - the context in the game makes it rather obvious that they're the same person even without having someone outright state that they are. - Dere 19:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

They're in the same place at the same time though. Don Lark Kiin 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I got to say, I think this needs to be brought up.... AGAIN. Yes, I think it's supposed to be understood that they're the same. The man working at the trading post says "That's weird! I thought somebody had walked in here. Ah, well. I have to get ready for the night shift, anyway," and the part-timer says, "We don't get many customers, so why does the boss have so much money?"
I mean... I don't think it gets much more plain than that. And of course talking to the Trading Post man won't add the Curiosity Shop man... Link isn't supposed to know they're the same. No one is supposed to know. It's for the player to find out on his or her own. The comment above by "Magnus orion" also makes a few excellent points; that should be examined, especially concerning the "two places at once" argument. Honestly, it seems like in all the conversations above there was a single individual heading the fight against them being the same person. I think this discussion should be reopened and, if we get a consensus for it, the article should be reorganized to reflect that these two personas are just different identities worn by the same person. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 23:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's the part time guy who's in two places at once. The Curiosity Shop man is never in more than one place. I think the part timer can be found in Termina Field and in the Trading Post at the same time, due to a little oversight by the programmers.
This whole discussion brings to mind the "Whom was Link searching for at the beginning of MM?" debate. They're both being perpetuated by those who refuse to believe something unless it's explicitly stated, even though it is not only alluded to, but made pretty dang obvious.User:Justin/sig 23:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can observe the man from the curiosity shop inside the closed shop from six until ten o clock. The Man from the Trading Post works until nine. Don Lark Kiin 23:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, so if we say they're the same person, then we have to assume that Nintendo made a mistake there. That makes me a bit uncomfortable... How can Nintendo be wrong about something in a fictional universe that they created?
Pretend you're Link or another character in Termina. You see the Curiosity Shop Man at his post, and the Trading Post Man at his, both at the same time (as is possible from 6 to 9 PM on the second day, as Don Lark Kiin said). Automatically you accept that they're different people—despite their uncanny resemblance to one another—because you saw it with your own eyes. You would not think this was a mistake any more than you would think it was a mistake for the sky to be blue. From a strict in-universe perspective, Nintendo is always right; everything is there because they intended it to be, regardless of what common sense might tell you.
If you guys want to reorganize the page, I'm not going to go against that. I'm just saying it goes our policy of in-universe writing. Plus... I just find it weird for us to say that Nintendo got it wrong... when it's their game. :P — Hylian King [*] 00:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the official Nintendo Power guide outright says that they're the same person. — Hylian King [*] 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
In reply, I'd point to a sizable chunk of the comment made by "Magnus orion": ...Considering that people can all be observed to behave differently than they would have at those times if you use the telescope to view people, such as skullkid reacting ONLY to you looking at him through the telescope, and other similar scenes, the same situation can be extended to kafei's peekhole. In addition, the reason that you can view that he's in that shop at those times is so you can understand what you're looking at. It is possible that younger players may fail to make the connection to the curiosity shop being that particular location. The presence of the owner gives additional visual cues as to the location you're looking at, allowing you to figure it out. IIRC, you can only see the exchange between the thief and the curiosity shop man by being physically inside the shop, not from kafei's peekhole. The visual clue of the owner, lets you know where to go to find out who the grinning theif might be, if you haven't put it together yet, which is one of the routes that will be able to lead the player through to his hideout in ikana canyon, where he can be found prancing around at certain times. Being able to piece all that together may be possible without it being so overt, but, because of the nature of zelda games, they make it so there are several ways to figure out where to go next in the anju-kafei quest. This gives motive for the developer's placement of the models, and if you want an "in game" explanation of why they're in two places at once, merely observe that they could move back and forth between the locations as you do.
Personally, I find all of that extremely logical. I mean this IS a game. The developers can take liberties for the sake of the player or the story if they want to. I don't really see how this goes against our "in-universe" policy when this single instance could be classified as an error, an intentional "mistake" for storytelling purposes, or the characters moving around/behaving differently based on the player's actions (One could argue that since the Moon's Tear falls a different time and day depending on the player's actions, perhaps the Moon of each 3-day cycle is a different Moon O_O. Ok, I'm taking it too far, but you see the point). If anything, I'd say there's massively more in-game evidence FOR them being the same person, not against them being the same. Those are my two Rupees! Embyr 75  --Talk-- 06:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware that it makes much more sense for them to be the same person. As I said, if you guys want to change the article to reflect that, I'm not against it. I'm just saying that however we decide to explain Nintedo's "mistake," we're going to be making an assumption. — Hylian King [*] 11:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was done intentionally unless they wanted to intentionally say they were the same person. If it was an intentional visual clue to indicate the area then he would be there at all times, not from six onwards. Waiting around until six is completely optional in the sidequest as is actually witnessing the conversation with Sakon. The main indicator of where you have to go is by visiting the shop on the third day where the owner outright tells you where Kafei has gone. Everything else is just flavor text. I think either it was done intentionally to show they are different, or the person who coded the Curiosity Shop owner was not aware they were meant to be the same person and just placed the model inside the shop at the changing of day to night instead of at nine. Don Lark Kiin 12:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of this theory. There are tons of facts that directly point to them being the same guy, and they are put there so the player can figure out that they are the same character. On the other side there is only one single con against the overwhelming number of pros, he is in two places at the same time. But this is a videogame, this situations have to happen, like all the events that casually happen only when link is present. For example, in Skyward Sword it doesn’t matter how many days Link spent sleeping, he will always arrive at the dungeons while Girahim is there. And the same goes for A Link to the Past when Agahnim kidnaps Zelda. The Curiosity shop guy could be there only while Link is looking. Heck, it could even be a development mistake, the part timer is also in the field and in the shop the third day. How can you explain this from an in-game perspective? Does he has a twin brother? No, it’s just a little mistake. A little mistake against a ton of facts. They are definitely the same man.SilverArcher 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I'm OK with assuming that it was a mistake or intentionally done for the player, because that is very likely the case. But we need to keep in mind that it's still an assumption. — Hylian King [*] 14:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Its a video game argument might work for other games but Majora's Mask was designed to have an in game timer made specifically for events like this. In Skyaward Sword you always arrive at the right time to see the right scene but in Majora's Mask you can miss a scene if your not there at the right time. Sakon and the Curiosity Shop owner aren't speaking the whole time. They only speak once late at night on the second day and if Link's not there they still speak anyway. Don Lark Kiin 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. Instead of trying to justify this single "instance" which could potentially shatter them being the same, consider justifying the opposite. If they are not the same, what "Night-shift" is the Trading Post Guy headed for, and why mention it? If they are not the same, how does the Part-Timer's boss "have so much money," and what's the point of mentioning it? We need to consider the congruity of the rest of the storytelling, instead of focusing on a single aspect and dismissing how everything else will hold together in light of it. Instead of "assuming" it's an error, let's look at what we'd be "assuming" if we go with the idea that it was on purpose.
We "assume" a lot of things here - like that all characters with pointy ears are in fact Hylian. Most of the characters we list as "Hylian" are never explicitly stated to be so. But we're comfortable assuming that because of available in-game evidence to suggest it. And, as I sit here prattling on endlessly, I muse that no one's really actually opposed this idea, so... maybe a reorganization is in order? The page looks pretty sloppy with most of its content in a theory section. =\ Embyr 75  --Talk-- 23:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
As I've said twice already, I'm not against reorganizing the page. I would be loath to hinder progress. Embyr, if you're itching to work your magic on this page, I'm with you! I've was just trying to point out things that I thought we should consider. The more we work things now, then surely there will be less to say later about it later? It would just be nice if we could settle this one for good after five years of on-and-off discussion. It's like a never-ending cycle that repeats itself every year or so. :P — Hylian King [*] 00:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... I may work some magic, I may... lol, sorry if I came across as too impassioned. I don't think anyone would disagree with me that you're the standard around here for the voice of reason; I never thought you were even really disagreeing, I think I just enjoy a good debate too much! This may be one of those things that's never really put to rest, but it would be nice if this discussion brings it a little closer in some way. :P Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I suppose I'm the voice of insanity and rage? (I kid :P) But you're right, Embyr. By assuming that they are not the same person, we're also assuming that all of the references and hints towards the contrary are just pointless chatter. I'm all for reorganization, considering that there's no need for that much of the page to have a theory template slapped on it. I'd like to see what you have in store, here, because you almost never disappoint!User:Justin/sig 11:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No, no, not rage. Just insanity. :P Well I gave it a try, let's discuss! O_O Embyr 75  --Talk-- 03:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My memory is fuzzy, but doesn't part of the Kafei quest rely on them being the same person? And in regards to him staffing both shops at the same time, we don't actually see him in two places at once...he could easily be pulling a Mrs. Doubtfire, especially if the Running Man is allowed to get away with always beating Link to wherever Link goes.
Plus, y'know, the official Nintendo guide explicitly states it, so yeah.KrytenKoro 15:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Name II

Apparently, there was previous discussion as to what the subject of this article's name should be. Three in-game phrases referring to him were brought up, and it sounds like the last posts were in favor of having his name be referred to as the "Man from the Curiosity Shop." Of the three quotes, the below one was said to be grammatically incorrect:

Quote1.png Man from Curiosity Shop, buys and sells stolen goods. Open at night only. Quote2.png
— Bombers' Notebook

The below one also was rejected, because it "doesn't sound very legit":

Quote1.png This Curiosity Shop guy's takin' advantage of me...I just want my fair share... Quote2.png
— Sakon

The remaining in-game option seemed to see no opposition:

Quote1.png The man from the Curiosity Shop was added to your notebook! Quote2.png
— Text upon first talking to him while having the notebook.

So, is everyone okay with me making the necessary changes to put this name in effect? —The Sackinator (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Just reposting to help get people to notice: Is everyone okay with me changing the subject of this article's name to the "Man from the curiosity shop? —The Sackinator (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Name III: The moving of the article

Hylian King requested to move "Man from Curiosity Shop" to "Man from the Curiosity Shop"; I tried to find the "thank" link, but I was unable. Are there any objections to the move? —The Sackinator (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In foresight, I can see arguments in favor of both the following positions and the "Man from the Curiosity Shop" position, but could either "Man from the Curiosity Shop and Trading Post" or "Man from the Trading Post and Curiosity Shop" be an even better option? What do you think? —The Sackinator (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Zelda Wiki doesn't have the thanking system at the moment but we're looking forward to upgrading our software so we can add it! (For the record, I wouldn't call that a request. It's really more of a reminder/notification for other users to get involved.)
You make a good point, but I think such a long winded title as "Man from the Curiosity Shop and Trading Post" isn't really necessary or worth the trouble. The Curiosity Shop man is the prominent persona and I don't think we should put the Trading Post guy on the same footing. — Hylian King [*] 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so is it that it's not a permission request but more of a volunteer request? If so, does that imply that few know how and/or are unable to do it? Or is it letting people know before the move is made, so that the move won't happen before people recognize it?
Okay, "Man from the Curiosity Shop" it is! —The Sackinator (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving the article

Long time no see! For a while now, there's been a request for this article, "Man from Curiosity Shop," to be moved to "Man from the Curiosity Shop." Seeing that such is his name in-article, shouldn't we make the move? —The Sackinator (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bombers' Notebook refers to him as "Man from Curiosity Shop", and most recently, Art & Artifacts also calls him that, so the page should be edited to reflect that name. - Chuck * (Talk) 03:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, no! We already discussed this above and concluded that, based on the fact that Man from the Curiosity Shop is used in-game and is grammatically correct, this should be the name. Although we made the tedious changes in-article, we never actually moved it to "Man from the Curiosity Shop." —The Sackinator (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)