Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center/Archive 3

Theories
I have two questions about the theories that have been removed. Are they going to be placed on a ZU dedicated topic? All of them or some of them? Thanks in advance! Zeldafan1982 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Various questions + Contacting the Staff/Getting Updated
I was thinking that there should be (if plausible/reasonable, of course) more validation across the Wiki. For example, when uploading files, we could have a Placeholder attribute to example display the format required, or otherwise validation like the Pattern attribute or js validation like this (or the rest of that webpage). The idea is inline/contextual help and/or prompts for when blocks of instructional text or the help guide (of which the relevant sections might be missed, or even missing certain details itself). Some things I'm not sure if in the Help Guide include: In terms of contacting the staff, what's the best method? I also realise ZUF exists, but doesn't seem frequently consistently used, or I still haven't figured out where all the action is. Segueing, I also notice some "big" things were being discussed, but in the first place, I didn't know about it, though at that time I hadn't realised to use the Forum until recently. I was absent from ZW for a while, and noticed an update to the Wiki software or something, which included a title font change (I think...), Mobile site, and the "Online Users" on the Recent Changes page breaking (it shows )
 * Using capitalisation of the first letter of a template's name when using that template
 * Not using underscores in links
 * Using the Standard Initialism for (e.g.) "Cite manual" template
 * That NA is preferred over EU version of a game when it differs
 * Norms, e.g. User:Tony/Sandbox/ZW Norms

In summary: Thanks.
 * A question about validation additions, and
 * A question of how to best gather information useful for a ZW contributor.

-- 08:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time you've come up with good ideas for custom features for the wiki. The best answer I can give you is that you should join the Zelda Wiki staff as a developer. You would have the support of the Zelda Wiki/Zelda Universe development team and it would put you in direct contact with all the wiki staff. (Not to mention we have quite the backlog of tasks and could use someone with your technical skills.) Short of that, the forums are indeed your best bet.
 * About the upload form, I'd really like for us to have Extension:UploadWizard. Custom code is the first thing to break when we upgrade (case in point, the "Online Users" thing). If there's a stable MediaWiki extension that could do the job, it's better to start with that. The only thing holding us back is that the extension doesn't currently support generation of custom templates, which we would need for Template:FileInfo. There is an open task for this which I hope to get to in the near future. 02:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Thinking about it, joining as a developer sounds like a good idea; though in terms of technical skills (well, knowledge at least) I usually make it up as I go along, Google, etc., but if that's ok, I'd still like to join, or at least give it a try. -- 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We're all volunteers doing this for fun. A willingness to try things and learn is all we'd ask for in a developer. I'll send you an email with the details later this week. Is the email address in your preferences up to date? 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Yes, I have checked that the email is up to date. -- 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sent. 14:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Userpage Problem
My userpage has external links, so it asks me to check if I'm not a robot. Okay, click save page after that, and it says I've edited my page too many times (once). Thinking nothing of it, I hit save page again anyway... to be brought back to the "I'm not a robot" thing. Save again, says I've edited my page too many times. Infinite loop. Can someone fix this? Alex95 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

EDIT:Also, your  code on the Recent Changes is broken. Been meaning to say something about that for a while now... Alex95 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Alex, thank you for reporting this. We've since disabled the "too many edits" filter due to its bugginess. You should be able to edit your userpage now.
 * We are aware of the currentusers problem and it's on the to-do list. It's just not very high on the list is all. :P 02:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

New and unvalidated?
I tried adding a trivia info I came across few days ago, but it was removed. Why did it get removed? When I added the info, I did wonder where can I add my sources, but any other info didn't have sourcing. Just references to game quotes.
 * You need a source to validate that trivia point, specifically the part where the Fishmen actually say that word. Without it, there's no way to prove that it's true and not just made up or pure speculation. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). 08:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Judge the notability of this anecdote
I saw a anecdote about an interview with Aonuma on Twitter today and thought I would at least notify it, even though I doubt it's notable enough. The source is here, the tweet is in French and translates as “For the anecdote, I asked [Mr Aonuma] if The Witness could be considered as an “extreme Zelda”, but he didn't know the game :(”. Lunaramethyst (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed a completely unrelated game to the series is not notable enough. 17:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"GNU Free Documentation License" image link broken
At the bottom of every page is the "GNU Free Documentation License" icon (next to the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon), but shows no image.

The image url says the first below, but probably should be the latter:

-- 00:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thanks! The fix is ready, we're just having some issues deploying right now. It should be up soon. 16:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of § for sections
I have recently noticed  used at Help:Glossary indicating a section in the following link:. Looking it up on ZW with a search, it seems rarely used, and am uncertain as to the policy regarding its usage (as opposed to e.g. ), and also how many instances of the alternative (with the hash) are currently present on the wiki (or if those in the search are the only instances of links to sections in that manner). -- 11:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That was my doing, although I made one little formatting mistake. We never collectively agreed to use the section sign and it's not widespread on this wiki; I just think it should be. It's used on Wikipedia and as far as I know it's the only correct way to refer to sections, from an editorial standpoint. The hash is a technical detail and it shouldn't be presented to readers in articles.
 * This is perhaps a matter of discussion for the Zelda Wiki forums... 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Deprecating wiki specific collapse JS
Hello together. I'm the tech guy from the Dota 2 Wiki and wanted to talk about the collapse function. I already pushed some changes which were reverted for now, because they lacked a bit of communication and I rushed things.

To quote MediaWiki:Common.js:

Would you be fine if I slowly phased out the deprecated functions? This would shrink down the JS by a good chunk and help to speed up the loading times. Molldust (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * By all means! As long as you make sure there are no regressions, of course. If you want to use AutoWikiBrowser for that, let me know and I'll add you to the list of authorized bots. HylianKing (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I will not use my bot until I have a bit more overview how the things are structured here. In case you want the Expand/Collapse text to be [show ▼]/[hide ▲], you have to edit MediaWiki:Collapsible-expand and MediaWiki:Collapsible-collapse respectively. Molldust (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Both the "collapse" and "NavFrame" sections can now be removed from the JS file: MediaWiki:Common.js -> Pastebin with the removed sections. Molldust (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

??? Page - Image Links Broken
There are several images on the character ??? page that are broken. My guess is that it's due to the fact that the image names contain question marks, but I don't know how to fix them. Please look into when someone gets a chance. Thanks. - Protokhal (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a known issue that we're trying to work through. Since the move to Gamepedia, we can no longer have question mark symbols or plus signs in file names. Please be patient while we sort out the best solution.Hylian pi (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Making Headlines More Readable
Hi everyone! I'm fairly new to editing this wiki but have been an avid user and reader for a long while. Now that I'm also participating I noticed that many of the subheadlines (h3, h4) aren't that easy to read on a PC web browser. They don't really stand out that much from other text and there's no special spacing for them in the layout - it's especially notable when dealing with shorter sections of text. Have you ever considered tweaking them to make them a little more discernible? On mobile view, at least a line is added beneath the length of a subheadline, which is a nice effect and makes sections stand out more. -- Tadayou (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Tadayou, thanks for the feedback! The header styles are something we never got around to improving, but there's no time like the present. :) The staff is on it. We'll try to figure out a decent design and get back to you. HylianKing (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up! Looking forward to your solution. -- Tadayou (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Tadayou, thanks for bringing this up. I was wondering if you could provide some notable/good examples of pages or sections you thought were hard to read? Thanks! -- 08:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there, sure thing: I think Zelda Timeline is a notable example of a page that is very hard to read on a desktop browser. It's really hard to tell where sections begin, which are headlines and which are subheadlines. The |Game Information section of the BotW article page also shows signs of this. In the end all pages seem problematic that feature many sub headlines and short text sections. While this could probably be solved by making vast editorial changes to articles like that, I think it's probably easier to implement a change to heading styles. Whether it's adding spaces, underlines, making them different colors, etc... The amiibo (Rune) is probably one of the more readable examples, but I was also very consciously checking for readability when I edited the page. Maybe as an inspiration let me link to two example pages from STOWiki, which uses different heading styles rather well (for the most part): Star Trek Online Canon and Earth. -- Tadayou (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I compare the two wikis, another reason for less-than-optimal readability may be that ZeldaWiki uses the entire width of a page in desktop mode, thus making individual paragraphs also stand out less. Compare this to STOWiki were the design has a fixed width for articles. But I guess this may also boil down to very personal preferences. -- Tadayou (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Natie Page
Can somebody please make a Natie page? I have some content to add, but the name is blacklisted. Thank you. - Protokhal (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disregard, the blacklist has been removed. - Protokhal (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Setting/Timeline Placement/etc.
I was curious whether an official policy exists for placing the section "Timeline Placement" in game articles? Currently, this information seems to be often (but not always) lumped together with "Game Information", where it exists alongside many and (mostly) unrelated topics, such as "Development", "Limited Editions", "Pre-Order Bonuses", "Speed Run Records" or "amiibo Support". Is it consensus to put this information there or was it placed because no other section was deemed appropriate? I was wondering whether a standardized 'Setting' section might not be more in the interest of presenting information in a coherent, and tracable way? As a rough draft, thi section could give a brief overview over the game's respective version of Hyrule (or other settings, of course), may address references to other games, and present the timeline information. This might actually help to make the large game articles a little more accessible. Of course, a "Setting" section might require a bit of editorial fine-tuning, in order to make its content not too redundant. But it sounds like a fun and interesting project - if the idea finds favor with you. -- Tadayou (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot of Oracle of Ages
Hi. I apologize for the trouble I caused recently. Indeed, it can be hard to understand why I keep exposing the plot flaws in, although I really enjoy the game. Therefore I will stop from now on, lest I get banned. You are the administrators of this website, but I am a professor of physics and mathematics; let us respect each other from now on. Please PROVE ME WRONG if I am, instead of getting mad at me.

It is undeniable that the plot in is contradictory: sometimes Ambi's age and Zelda's age are considered as separated by 400 years, and sometimes facts are considered as if they happened at the very same time in two parallel dimensions, instead of two different centuries.

Already the game translation team tried to hide away the plot flaws with expressions like "right now, in the past", that obviously means "right now, 400 years ago" or "in the present, 400 years before the present" (and written these two ways the contradiction becomes apparent), but the official localization sounds as if "the past" was another location instead of anoter time.

Said this, I would like to ask why the policy of this website is to deny any plot flaw in the game. Is it because you think it would be unfair to expose the flaws in a game that is anyway very enjoyable? Or is it because you are unable to see the plot flaws? Or some other reason?

I asked this question already, but all I got were angry answers. Therefore, I ask it again, as politely as I can, hoping for a polite answer. --Abacos (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Abacos. Thank you for your passion for the Oracle Series and your willingness to contribute to Zelda Wiki. Personally, I really appreciate that. However, let me try to explain Zelda Wiki policy and how we try to maintain things around here. We archive the game's information as presented by the game itself. We are an encyclopedia, nothing more nothing less. We also tend to stay away from subjectivity as much as possible. The example that you gave for instance is an assumed conclusion. Is it a valid, logical conclusion? Yes, absolutely. But it is not the only one. This is where personal opinions and arguments determine the facts and not the game itself. For example, one could argue that the past and future may have syncing time-streams. As a work of fiction, there are countless explanations for something unexplained. Therefore, to simplify things, and keep everything as delivered from the game itself, we tend not to cover any speculation or theory. Unfortunately, the Zelda Series doesn't always follow the same rules as reality or may not even be completely logical. This is something that we have to accept and it is not our job to "correct" the series as we see fit. This is best suited for discussion boards or blog posts, not a wiki. If you'd be willing to write about the Oracle Series and its inconsistencies with real life physics on another website, feel free to. (I would love to read it!) Thank you and I hope you understand. -- Hylian pi (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the answer. Still, as you wanted, I did stay away from subjectivity as much as possible. I just wrote facts in a different order. How could things that happen today and yesterday be synchronized? "Yesterday" happened strictly before "today". This is not my speculation, it is a fact, but I agree Zelda timeline breaks logic. The Zelda continuity officially forks in three. See my chronological analysis of  on a website where I am administrator, and see how I conclude that the chronology of  alone splits into several branches. I used logic alone, not physics: mixing real-science and fictional-magic is a wrong method indeed! Abacos (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

with  (almost one per page = almost 64000). Unfortunately, my knowledge of computer programming is oriented towards different fields. I have to leave the duty of creating the bot and correcting this mistake to Zeldawiki staff (or I can wait for a faraway day when I will feel I might be interested in learning how to make a bot for wikis). ---Abacos (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it might've been my idea to employ "etymology" a while back. Not the best idea, I agree.
 * I'd like to point out that the staff members are also volunteers. Although our contributions are more structured, we're still mostly doing what interests us. So if we go the route that you suggest, it might not happen until a faraway day anyway. It would depend on the dev team's interest in it versus the other things we have on the backlog. HylianKing (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I know that staff members are volunteers. I just hoped that someone by chance knew already how to write a program that automatically browses Zeldawiki and corrects the error. If some hackers create similar programs for vandalism, then a honest contributor who is by chance a computer programmer could do the same for a good purpose. That would have been great, right? ---Abacos (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If it was just a text replacement, it would be incredibly simple for us but we cannot just replace that line of text as the Etymology section does at times contain etymological information, some of which is actually an etymology of a translation. Obviously, it would be wrong to have this in a section called Translations in other languages so the placement of the text would have to be changed if we used the heading you suggest.


 * Personally, I think the section should be called Etymology and Translations but ultimately, this is something the staff would need to discuss before implementing changes.


 * One thing I should also mention is that you vastly overestimate the amount of pages needing fixed. Template:Names and Names Table are used on ~4% of the wiki's >65,000 pages and <49% of it's >5,000 content pages (the vast majority of the Wiki's pages are redirects, User/User talk pages and File pages). 15:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. A bot would be unable to do such job automatically. I checked the Template pages and the "What links here", and I concluded there are about 2200 content pages to check. Still too many for a single person. What if all contributors were invited to check and correct a few pages (maybe starting from those that share the first letter of their user name)? It might be bad public relations, though. The title "Etymology and Translations" might be the best idea, and a bot could probably implement it. Anyway, I agree there are more interesting things to do. ---Abacos (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: since we are talking about English language, I just noticed someone did a recurring mistake (it allows me to identify native English speakers, as they are the only ones who fall for this error :P ): many people often swap "it's" = "it is" and "its (thing)" = "(thing) belonging to it"; same for "you're/your", "he's/his", "they're/their/there".


 * After some discussion about this among staff, we have decided that as neither "Etymology" or "Translations" fits, we will be using "Nomenclature" instead. A text replace will take place shortly to fix the section names. TriforceTony (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I like "nomenclature" more than "etymology", but it is still incorrect. I will expand one of the previous examples.


 * Both translations and nomenclature are list of words indeed, but nomenclature is list of different words (about a common subject) in one single language, while the translations of a term are words with the same meaning in different languages . Anyway, "nomenclature" is better than "etymology". ---Abacos (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature section of BotW with British English
While I was trudging through the different languages of Breath of the Wild, I couldn't find any differences between the NA English version and the EU English version. No spelling differences occur, even where they should ("armor" vs. "armour", "honor" vs. "honour", "defense" vs. "defence"), so I'm not sure if we should include the UK section in Nomenclature on BotW-specific articles (e.g. Dark Beast Ganon,, especially since the European translation uses solely United States English spelling standards. Langswitch (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're aware of the fact that there's no difference in localization for the UK version (except for error messages, I believe), so no articles should have the EnBr portion filled for BotW. This is something we'll get around to fixing once we've fully updated the Translations pages for BotW. TriforceTony (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Misko's EX Journal Page
Why is making this page banned? If it's banned, there shouldnt be link of it to a page that is waiting to be made. -- Wolfgerlion64 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because "Misko's EX Journal" forms a word banned from the wiki, so we'll see what can we do about that. 03:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow like it's Nintendo's fault they have 3 letters in line of each other. -- Wolfgerlion64 (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In case you misunderstood, it's an automatic filter against spam/vandalism (Extension:TitleBlacklist), which like most filters aren't perfect. -- 15:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Boss Pages
For quite some time now the top five wanted pages have been Dodongo (Boss), Gleeok (Boss), Digdogger (Boss), Gohma (Boss), and Manhandla (Boss), each with 200+ links. What confuses me is the fact that each of these five enemies already have pages. After looking into it, I noticed that most (if not all) of the links to these missing pages are in the related-links-type section at the bottom of Zelda enemy pages that talks about bosses. Did these links simply never get updated to the pages, or are the pages missing information that is needed for them to be a "boss" page? In general, how does one tell if a wanted page is actually needed in this situation or how can it be fixed? Nerdyarchimedes (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The wanted pages are for their boss versions, as they usually appear as bosses and then as normal enemies in the origial TLoZ. 04:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since most of the information about the boss versions are already found on the already-existing regular pages, would it mostly be a matter of transferring the boss information to a new page? I'm fairly new to editing, so it may be best for me to leave full-page edits alone for now. - Nerdyarchimedes (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry that's my fault. It's just because of the boss template that uses them. It's a project I started before college started back up and never got around to finishing. So yeah, eventually I'm going to make these pages. I did end up finishing Aquamentus and Aquamentus (Boss) if you want to see what I mean. Our director determined that we cannot consider something a boss unless it is explicitly stated as being a boss. Since every boss in TLoZ also appears in dungeons as regular enemies, we have to make separate pages. I'll just go ahead and change the template back because you are the second person to notice this now, I only did it to update it ahead of time but I'm not sure how soon exactly it'll be done. Sorry for the confusion. Hylian pi (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's cool. The idea of giving each boss their own page is very good, I just hadn't thought about how complicated it was. Just looking at Dodongo in particular there are the Dodongo boss used as a boss, Dodongo boss used as a strong enemy, King Dodongo, and varieties of regular Dodongo enemies to account for. I love the variety in Zelda, but categorizing everything effectively seems challenging. - Nerdyarchimedes (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Why we should change the Canon policy (and Hyrule Warriors' Canon status)
Initially Hyrule Warriors was deemed as non canon. Aonuma said it was not a part of the timeline, thus not a part of the main story. However he said it does exist in the Zelda Universe, albeit in another dimension.

Recently, we have found out that currently, Breath of the Wild does not exist on the Zelda timeline either, thus it's currently not part of the main story until a placement is decided. However, Breath of the Wild is obviously still canon. Aonuma currently does not know where it would fit, that is if he even decides to fit it into the timeline at all. So to be consistent, Hyrule Warriors existing in another dimension should be considered canon too.

Both Hyrule Warriors and Breath of the Wild take place after Ocarina of time. In Hyrule Warriors this is blatantly evident from the plot where portals to the Ocarina of Time Era, Skyward Sword era, and Twilight Princess open up. In Breath of the Wild this is evident from an interview with Aonuma, as well as references to Ganondorf's Gerduo form, the Divine Beasts named after the Sages, Lon Lon Ranch, the Temple of Time and other in game references.

Both Hyrule Warriors and Breath of the Wild follow the events of the main timeline (set after Ocarina of Time), but they are not on the actual timeline themselves. Not being on the timeline used to be enough to deem a game non-canon, however with recent news this should change.

Thus Hyrule Warriors should be considered canon or at least semi-canon, as existing in another dimension, is still existing. Especially since Breath of the Wild retains canon status despite not being on the timeline either. Editorguy117 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)