Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center


 * Archive 1

Status of dungeon names in the Valiant comics
Feel free to move this topic to another page if it should be somewhere else; I'm rather unsure where this should be, since it's about an issue that spans several articles, but it's about a specific detail that potentially affects all of them. I'm posting this here because I can't find the original "X Labyrinth" vs. "X" discussion for dungeons in The Legend of Zelda.

It does seem that in the game's manual and in all definitely canonical sources I'm aware of the dungeons are referred to as "Eagle", "Moon", "Manji", etc. and the names "Eagle Labyrinth", "Moon Labyrinth", "Manji Labyrinth", etc. do not appear. However, I can't help but notice that the "X Labyrinth" names are mentioned in excerpts from the ambiguously-canon Valiant comics. Does this usage have any relevance? Although the events of the comics have dubious canonicity, does this mean names used in them are to be disregarded altogether, or are they still treated as "official" names? If they are, should they be treated as having equal validity with the "Labyrinth"-less names and usage of them on the wiki not changed, or should they be "secondary" names, with usage of the "primary" names from the manual preferred? I ask this because I noticed this usage in the comics while editing the old "X Labyrinth" names to their "X" forms from the manual. --Osteoderm Jacket 18:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Hmm...that's interesting, I hadn't noticed that. I think that the article names should just be without the "Labyrinth" stuff, since that's not how they're called in any of the "true" canon material (games, game manuals, etc.). However, I don't really think it's...necessary to change out the old "X Labyrinth" to "X" from articles that are not about the actual labyrinth in question. Of course, that may just be me being lazy, but if others want to go ahead and do it, that's fine by me. :P --Dany36 18:26, 6 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I should hedge this a little. Because the comics, like most English-language comics, use all caps, it's not clear (at least from the excerpts and scans; I haven't read the comics and it's possible that the names are mentioned in case-sensitive contexts somewhere) whether the dungeons are being called "X Labyrinth", which implies that "Labyrinth" is part of the dungeon's name, or "X labyrinth", which implies that it is not. The example I'm thinking of, on Eagle, is quoted with "labyrinth" not capitalized, but the comic itself is all caps so that probably doesn't mean much. --Osteoderm Jacket 00:55, 8 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I'm late on this, but what Osteoderm said was my main reasoning for moving the pages in the first place. The manual never refers to the dungeons as "Eagle Labyrinth" with caps, merely Eagle labyrinth. And since the term "dungeon" was not in use yet, it is merely just a describing word rather than an actual name. When the dungeons are listed in the manual, they are simply given single names, including Death Mountain, and Hyrule Historia does this too. The official guide for the game ALSO refers to them simply by their single names. Besides all that, the cartoons and comics are in no way canon, anyway. Of course, referring to them as "X labyrinth" is perfectly acceptable and can help allieviate confusion, but it's best to keep labyrinth in lowercase, I think. Otherwise it would be like calling the Forest Temple the "Forest Temple Dungeon". 15:04, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

'Confirmed' user right
Hey, everyone. I don't want to wait 30 days and have 200 edits to become autoconfirmed. I wish a 'confirmed' user right could be set up on Zelda Wiki so it is necessary for accounts to be exempted from the customary confirmation period. The 'confirmed' group should contain the same rights as the 'autoconfirmed' group. After the 'confirmed' user group is set up, please list the group at Help:Group Rights. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
 * The problem is, we think of Autocomfirmed as a reward for users who have shown their interests into editing and expanding on the articles that revolve around the Legend of Zelda. If the requirements were to be set down to this low, many users would take advantage of this and just edit their userpages, which doesn't contribute to the wiki at all. I would have to disagree. XXSuperXXNintendoXx 15:38, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
 * While the rest of the staff and I agree that 200 edits is slightly excessive, I must say it's really not that hard to accumulate edits here. Having been around wikis and having the know-how, I understand how frustrating it is to be limited on rights. However, I also understand that these limits are in place for a reason: to prevent nonconstructive edits, spam bots and vandalism and to ensure that users know both how to edit and how this wiki runs. The 30-day limit ensures that the users have an ample opportunity to get a feel for how things are ran.
 * Now, the staff have taken your suggestion into consideration, but have decided that it's not enough of an issue to warrant any considerable change. As aforementioned, it's simple to rack up the edits, and there are several pages needing improvement that you can easily tackle to complete this. As for the 30-day limit, we ask that you show patience; this time will likely pass much quicker than you expect. 16:19, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
 * It's pretty important that a wiki with autoconfirm limits has a 'confirmed' user right for users who don't want to wait until they are autoconfirmed. 30 days and 200 edits is too long for me to become autoconfirmed. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 23:32, 6 June 2012 (EDT)


 * The staff has given a lot of thought to the matter and we adamantly believe this would not be right for us. One reason being that we are supposed to be the wiki of the Zelda community; made by the people, for the people. In the vast majority of the decision-making at Zelda Wiki, every user's opinion counts just as much as that of the staff. And so it would go against that philosophy for the staff alone to decide who gets to be exempted from certain rules. Personally, I would feel like a hypocrite with that kind of responsibility.


 * That being said, we are more than willing to discuss lowering the standards for the autoconfirmed group. Many users, myself included, feel as though 30 days and 200 edits is excessive. As already discussed, many of us would be confortable with even cutting the standards in half—100 edits and 2 weeks—if userpage edits could somehow be excluded. This would assure 100 main wiki edits which is more than enough for peope to learn the ropes and prove themselves.


 * Anyone who has any comments or suggestions is welcome to voice them. We appreciate all of your input. In fact, we thrive on it. 17:06, 7 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree with halving the requirements. It's long overdue. 00:48, 8 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I also agree. Count me in. --Dany36 17:01, 8 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I think the new conditions are fair enough, so I'm all for it. 21:51, 8 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Instead of introducing a 'confirmed' right, I would like it to be shortened to 1 week and 100 edits. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 00:50, 9 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Actually, I do agree with halving the requirements. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 22:06, 9 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I think the limitations are good as they are... I didn't notice my limitations until I had like 195 edits and been here for 29 days - That might just be me or whatever, but to the point: wasn't there a part of the login that autoconfirmed users automatically skip? I think one of the rights a so called "confirmed" user could/should have is skipping that thing (whatever it is). If this is the only right given to this new group of users, maybe the limit should be set at 25 go 30 edits and a week, how does that sound? -- 14:43, 11 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I found another good idea: 8 days and 70 edits. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 16:00, 11 June 2012 (EDT)


 * OK. I think the autoconfirm limit is good already. I just have to wait a while and make some edits, then - viola. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 16:05, 11 June 2012 (EDT)


 * Personally I'd have to say that 150 edits and anywhere from 3-4 weeks is a good confirmation level. I realize that it is quite annoying to have to deal with limitations, but if someone really wants to stick around this place, then they shouldn't be too much of a hindrance  22:05, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

Instant Commons
I'm suggesting that Instant Commons be enabled for Zelda Wiki. Commons is a media respiratory of freely licensed images, icons, and SVG vector files. After InstantCommons is enabled, be sure to list Zelda Wiki at Sites using InstantCommons. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 01:42, 7 June 2012 (EDT)


 * We'll look into the matter. However, given that Zelda Wiki rarely uses images from the Commons, I don't see how this feature would be useful for us. 10:50, 9 June 2012 (EDT)


 * But we want to use images from Wikimedia Commons without the hassle of uploading them to Zelda Wiki. -- Cuddles  (Sit next door) 22:22, 9 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I like to think we've been doing fine with Commons images as is, but in any case, enabling this feature would require access to the wiki's configuration settings. We'll have to run it by the dude who owns the ZW server so we can gain access. But he seems to be kept pretty busy running Zelda Universe and with all this E3 business it might be a while before we're able to get a hold of him. We'll get back to you when we can. 07:45, 11 June 2012 (EDT)


 * I don't think anyone has uploaded anything from Commons in the past 6 months. If we see more files coming from Commons, we may consider enabling this. Otherwise, it is unnecessary. 07:51, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Tingle and CD-i enemies seperate from normal templates?
This isn't a big deal, but it's something that's been bothering me for a little while: should Tingle and CD-i enemies be listed on the normal enemy templates? I noticed if you look at Template:HumanEnemy that there's basically a swarth of oddly named * enemies in a big group that end up looking out of place amongst the others. These are all enemies from the CD-i games, which of course are not considered canon in the slightest, but they're included there all the same. It seems unusual to do this; it would be like including characters from these games on the Template:Characters list, for example, or including enemies and characters from the cartoons and comics on said lists (which are arguably MORE canon, sort of). I'm less bothered about the Tingle games, as they are at least created by Nintendo, but generally it just seems awkward to include non-canon material in these templates. I think what makes it especially odd is that we already have a template for CD-i enemies here, Template:Philips_CD-i_Games _Enemy so it seems unnecessary to include them in the other template as well as they're basically all humanoids of some sort anyway.

Also, the * listing by each of these enemies is quite vague and doesn't really alert users to their non-canonical status, rather it serves to simply draw attention to them instead, as if they're somehow special. I have no problem with the wiki covering CD-i stuff, I just feel a bit awkward whenever it's given the same level of precedence, or in this case, seemingly MORE precedence, or at least more visibility than the canonical material. Perhaps if people disagree with keeping them seperate, there could at least be a change to how they are listed, especially as most enemy templates now have seperate sections within? 15:30, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Well technically the Template:Philips_CD-i_Games _Enemy is just the bosses from the CD-i games. Also the Human Enemy template is only one of the templates that have the * enemies. In fact I believe ALL the templates have at least one * enemy in them. Anyway even thought the non-canon and ambiguous canon enemies are at the very least in their appropriate area's (i.e. Oyster being in the Aquatic Enemiest template and Malmord being in the Living Corpses and Disembodied Enemies template.) But thats just me and I thought I'd add my two cents in. --Heroofstuff 22:59, 13 June 2012 (EDT)