Talk:Hyrule

Locations and Landmarks
Hey guys, I have a question to put to some of you: As the article enters its final stages, we are approaching some sections that could be as big or small as we choose. However, what those who are working on the article, along with myself, need to know is just what locations and landmarks would you like us to include? Do you want only the most important places and recurring locations, or would you like a section on each major section of Hyrule that is featured? What I am concerned about is that, just as Matt said yesterday, that the size of the article is going to balloon out of control without some guidelines of what you would like to see in the article. We can make it however you like, but we need to know just what locations and landmarks you'd like us to include. The games by appearances are complete, and if we can at all make them smaller we will, but we've already cut those down pretty good for size purposes. So if some of you could offer your input on what or how many locations and landmarks you'd like us to include and how in-depth you'd like us to go into descriptions of each, it'd be a great help for those of us working on the article. Thanks! Link87 15:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the descriptions of the places should be trimmed down a bit, as we have the main articles for those places. However, I think that most of the similar locations should be mentioned in the same section. e.g. Mount Crenel and Death Mountain would go in the same section, as would Desert of Mystery and Gerudo Valley.Ganondorfdude11 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the page
The page is way too long for most web browsers to handle. I get errors a lot just by trying to edit it. Maybe we can do something like make sub-pages for each major section like moving the Appearances section to its own page, and the Locations section when it's done. Ganondorfdude11 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Splitting all the sections into subpages, then including the subpages back on the front page will make things a lot easier. Less errors and easier to spot mistakes. Because then you'd only be editing small pages at a time. And any changes you make to the subpages would show on the front page. Any pages included on it will be listed at the bottom of the edit view of the page. Just ask for help with this if any help is needed. We'll watch and be on standby to help either way. 23:21, August 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, what's the way to go about doing this? Ganondorfdude11 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good thinking, I'll make some cuts to the page. Mainly to appease the rest of the staff, but it has benefits to the two of you as well. It's too much info to contain all in one place, and despite the well done writing, it's likely to turn off readers. The races section can be summarized SIGNIFICANTLY and link to a page aptly titled, oh idk "Hyruleans" where the expansion can go berserk. But if the two of you are working all the way down here, I'll focus on the upper portions of the article. This will be later tonight, when I'm less distracted. 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you create a subpage?Ganondorfdude11 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the main thing we should do is move the Appearances by Game section to its own page. How do you do that? Ganondorfdude11 05:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be included back in the page by placing   where you want the section to be. That way you can have all the content on the page, without the editing glitches. 06:06, August 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea Matt, and I'd like to say good job Ganondorfdude11, I am very pleased with how things have been rearranged and trimmed without compromising the integrity of the article. I will will be continuing writing the sections for Locations and Landmarks, but how in depth would you like me to go with them as far as which ones to include??? For example, Death Mountain returns MANY times and is a definite yes to be included, but what about such places as the Parapa Desert that only appear once???


 * I also have another question: the pictures of Hyrule. I know we still have them in the subpage of the article for the Appearances by Game section, but should we include those pictures on the main page of the article as well in the gallery?? I don't care one way or the other, but seeing that we have the leftover pictures down in the gallery, I didn't know if some of you wanted to include those pictures on the main article page in the gallery or not. What are some of your feelings in regards to this?? Link87 16:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Galleries are usually very integral, I would think either removing from the sections, or preferably another page for it. (like the Link and Zelda articles) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, can you clarify a bit for me? So you would like to remove the pictures from the sections and the gallery and make a different subpage for it?? I just want to be sure I understand correctly. Link87 18:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see making a subpage for it. Link and Ganon have them. This article needs one, too. I say keep the maps on the Appearances page, they go well with the description of how the geography changes from game to game. Ganondorfdude11 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected Page
I have protected the page because there has been too much drama involving it. The time has been set as indefinite, so who knows when it will be unprotected? However, for now, it stays protected. Go work on something else. --Xizor 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon Xizor, but we're nearly done with the page, and we've come to agreement on what we are to do with it. Once it's completed, we planned to submit it to the council of admins for their critique and for them to let us know what they would like to keep or not keep. I think it would be most wise for you to reconsider your decision and unlock the page so we can finish it. We're very close to it now as it is. I don't see your reasoning for locking it, it's only keeping us from finishing the project. And since we're this close, I think you'd like the end result far better if you would let us finish the last section on races and let us get the references into the page. That's really all we have left to do. Link87 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Christopher, without wishing to sound patronising, I'd like to thank you for responding so calmly and reasonably. I must say though, that I can understand Xizor's frustration with the upheaval and stress that this project has resulted in. Apart from the many lengthy discussions and disagreements surrounding this, I see that there have been 364 individual edits to this page over the course of the past six weeks; excessive by anyone's standards. I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm sick of the sight of it in the Recent Changes, and just want this interminable project to be finally over! My suggestion to you would be this; we'll leave the page protected for now. You should copy the current contents into a text document on your computer, and make all of the changes you propose for the "final" version. Then let us know here on the talk page, and it can be unprotected again so you can finish the work. I hope that's a compromise that works for everyone, and allows us to reach a conclusion. 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, Adam. This project has been excessive. Not to mention all the disagreements/edit wars involved regarding it. 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad that's settled. Also, I am going to leave the talk page unaltered, because apparently the back up caught this thing up and now this page has two sections about the page being protected. Oh well! We'll see if we can come back to this page sometime in the future. For now, the decision stands, because as I said, myself, and many other Bureaucrats and Admins made this decision. --Xizor 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I know of some admins that don't agree with the decision to lock the page, especially after we've just completed the final stages of the locations and landmarks page. That's not to sound impolite at all, just a stated fact. Anyway, I am requesting that the page be unlocked so we can finish the final section on races, which should only take a few edits at most, and so we can put references in. Then we are done with the entire project. So, if there is no further reason to keep it locked, it would be helpful if one of you could unlock it so we can put the final touches on it. Btw, Adam I thank you for your calm and polite manner of explaining things, and I can understand what you are saying. However, this is coming a little late to be much of any use, b/c the project is pretty much complete, save for the races section. Also, this was the wrong page to protect, as the one that's required so much work in reality has been the locations and landmarks page. I am writing Dany to ask her to do her work with the references for that page and the appearances by game page. I will try to type out a rough blueprint of what we can have for the races section, but I will certainly need it unprotected to put that final piece in to complete the entire project. WOO HOO!!! ;) Anyway, I thank you Adam and greatly respect you for being civil and explaining to me your point of view, and I can certainly understand what you are saying, as this has been a mammoth project due to the topic at hand. Mandi, this is not to mean any disrespect at all, but with a topic this big, one could only expect there to be A LOT of edits to this page, especially when we had to start from scratch basically. However, I am happy to report to all of you that the bulk of the project is now complete, with only the races section and the references remaining. Then we shall at last be done. Link87 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A loud minority will not overrule any majority, loud or otherwise. Your request is denied at this time, and the page will remain locked until the ENTIRE staff agrees that it is in the best interest of this Wiki to do so. If you think your edits are so important, you can ask an admin to do them for you. However, one admin does not have the authority to simply overrule another Admin, or Bureaucrat especially, just because they don't like a decision. We have methods, and they all involve discussion and vote. However, the issue will be brought up again to the staff as a whole, and a collective decision will be made. And, no matter how much you kiss up to Adam, he will not simply unlock this page against the will of many other Staff members. If the page is to be unlocked, we will all decide it. I locked it for a reason, and that reason will be respected until we find that it is no longer valid. I must say, though, you're reacting exactly as we all anticipated, and it certainly isn't speeding along the process. My advice is thus: find something else to work on, because I promise that this issue will be discussed heavily, and whatever the outcome is, you will respect it. Also, I would appreciate it if this was not met with some lengthy reply, because I honestly don't care. Just let us do our jobs. Thanks. --Xizor 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Xizor, please do not take what I'm about to say the wrong way, you do have some degree of respect from me to be sure. However, in reality it is you that is reacting exactly as some others including myself predicted, combative and unwilling to compromise. Matt was kind enough to compromise when we brought all the details to light before, but I have yet to see that same good faith from you. You will get no true respect if you treat others in a poor manner, namely me. And if you would like to earn respect from some, you really need to get over the whole "I'm a bureaucrat so I'm above the law" thing, b/c nobody is above the law, as some of you so ably put it. You will show respect if you want it. I will respect you, but I don't have to like you or your attitude if it is not a polite manner. And please forgive me any of you that take this as being disrespectful, b/c I do not intend it to be so, but I will stand up to those who try to bully. So please be aware that I am not being disrespectful when I respond to things like this, but I am giving a calm response of what my opinion on the matter is. So please Xizor, understand that I think highly of you for what you do for the wiki, but you won't get much respect if you don't try to show it in return. This is just to help you, not in any way meant to disrespect you. And to be honest, I see no reason for the page to be locked, and didn't see one to begin with to be honest. I encourage all of you to come together as Xizor has said and hopefully come to a decision to drop this unnecessary lock b/c we are only two steps away from completing the article. If I'm not mistaken, the law clearly states that admins or bureaucrats may only lock a page in the event of vandalism or an edit war, neither of which has taken place. I am just being honest when I say that I have always been under the idea that a page may not be locked by any one member merely because they feel like it. I could be wrong in believing that, but if I remember correctly, that's how even wikipedia operates. Again, this is not to sound disrespectful, but I am one that believes that just rules are made for a reason. And as some put it so well, this wiki does not belong to a single person Xizor, even you, so before saying anything is "denied", I think the other leaders of the wiki deserve some say in all decisions, not merely one person. And I have yet to see where it takes unanimous approval by all admins to drop a lock on a page made by one person, though once again I could be wrong. If that were the case, there'd be a lot of gridlock, and I have never heard of anything of the sort even on wikipedia. This is not meant to be disrespectful, but these are just my experiences in researching rules for wikis, especially wikipedia itself. I don't want anyone to think I'm sneering at them b/c I'm not at all, but it just seems to me that there really isn't and to my knowledge wasn't a reason to lock the page. If the reason was for number of edits as I said before, that would be understandable completely, but it's too late to be of any use in that regard, since we're basically done save for one small section. I could have that last section done in an hour if the page were unlocked, then Dany could do the references. The choice is yours, but I strongly encourage and hope all of you will be willing to see reason and reopen the page so we can complete it. It's just a few paragraphs from being done, so there's no real legitimate reason to keep it locked, that's just being honest. Once again, it's not meant to be disrespectful, but it's the truth. I look forward to conversing with all of you again soon, perhaps on Skype. ;) Link87 01:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you just not read or do you not care? I told you that 1.) This was a collective decision made by many of us, I just was the one who suggested it and then carried it out, and 2.) I don't want a lengthy reply. We are ALLOWED to lock pages for any reason we see fit - there are no "laws" we have to follow, and any policies we have in place are explanations for each other and users, not binding rules for us. We have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and I don't care what they do. I also anticipate, in light of some recent discussion, the page staying very locked. Expect some other Admins to post in here with their viewpoints. --Xizor 07:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Xizor is correct when he says that it was a majority decision to lock this page. The decision was not made lightly, and was heavily discussed amongst the staff before the page was locked (I'm not going to repeat the reasons why, as they have already been listed). Likewise, the page will be unlocked when the majority of staff agree that it is time to do so. In the meantime, I hope you are still willing to go along with Adam's suggestion to work on the final edit externally (i.e. in a Word Processor or similar) and then either post it here on the talk page or send to an admin, so that the page can be updated. I think it's the best solution for this article. Lysia 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see any REAL reason for the page to be locked. Drama is not a legitimate reason to lock a page. And yes Xizor, there are limits to an admin's or bureaucrat's power. They are to use them only where necessary, and that is a sacred trust they are sworn to. I'm not saying you don't abide by that, but your attitude does not help matters at times, it only makes them worse. You must realize that people will be willing to work with you far better if you would approach them in a different manner than lashing out, threatening and trying to puff yourself up more than what you should. Again, please don't take this as disrespect, b/c I am trying to help you there.


 * Lysia, not many of the admins I spoke to last night seemed to want to keep this page locked indefinitely, and many seemed willing to reopen it since it's basically done. All that needs doing is one last small section, so again there is no real reason to keep it locked. There are only small edits left for that last section, and it's complete at last. And as I said, of course I am willing to draw up the text for that final section, but it would be in faster and we could get the references in faster if it were unlocked. And again not to be disrespectful at all, but you locked the wrong page if you were trying to avoid a lot of edits, b/c this wasn't the page that was getting all of them, it was the L&L page. I shall however work on the text as you asked and submit it here so we can satisfy everybody. Link87 14:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What "law" is there that Xizor, Lysia, and myself are not above? We're talking about the wiki, not the US government. The administrators and bureaucrats are the law. And I don't believe this page was protected because of "drama." However, I think it should be made very clear that "drama" is a perfectly legit reason for locking a page if we decide it is. The real reason is excessive edits. This page has received constant edits flooding the recent changes for over a month. I was ready to lock this page after 2 days of it.


 * No one wants to lock it "indefinitely." We want to lock it until you have a clear idea of what the the complete page is. We have decided this is the best action for this situation - we're not going to lock every big article and ask the contributors to write everything up outside the wiki (this is a very special case). Once you submit your work, it will be looked over and slimmed down (if necessary) and then published. Perhaps then we can talk about unlocking the page. I don't want to have it unlocked and then see you, or anyone else, just start up the constant edits again despite the fact that "version 1" is "done." --Yumil 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Yumil pretty much just said what I wanted to :P I agree completely.
 * "Lysia, not many of the admins I spoke to last night seemed to want to keep this page locked indefinitely"
 * That was a minority. This is a majority that has agreed to keep the page locked. Like it or not. Too bad. 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mandi, please do not take this the wrong way, but your sarcastic tone doesn't help matters either at times. I've been able to talk to you before calmly and like a couple of friends, I would prefer to keep that tone between us and refrain from this kind of behavior that only encourages friction. Adam was kind enough to keep a calm and civil tone above, and I greatly appreciate and respect him for that consideration on his part. And he also explained his position rationally, and I could understand where he was coming from without anyone having to get sarcastic or nasty. But rather than just being a yes-person for whatever side seems strongest, I think you would be so much better served to be open about what you really want and feel. And as for the "minority", that minority represents the very best of your ranks that genuinely cares about this wiki and building good relationships with its users. To refer to them in a demeaning way is not constructive either, so I would prefer we maintain civility in our conversations and refrain from referring to people in any ways that can be interpreted the wrong way. Again, none of this is to be disrespectful at all, but also as just a few words of friendly advice in good faith.


 * As for you Yumil, I'm going to save a copy of this page, and next time anyone dares to accuse me of "owning the wiki" or acting like I'm "above the rules", I'm going to pull this page up and prove otherwise. Yes, admins and bureaucrats are executors and enforcers of the rules, but not the sole "kings" of the wiki. They too have rules that they must abide by, as that's what gives them any kind of legitimacy or credibility. By not abiding by them, they not only set a bad example for regular users like me, but they also forfeit that legitimacy and credibility. This is not meant to be disrespectful at all, but just being honest, so please don't take it the wrong way. Also, just in case you haven't read all that's been said on the page here, the page IS complete, save for one last small section, so the complete page is basically already here, as I've been saying.


 * Those replies aside, I will work on the text for the final section and submit it here, even though I still don't see the need for a lock when all the work's already done. I will work on the pictures and text and submit them here for your viewing, just to appease those who are adamant to see it first. But Mandi, as I said, you locked the wrong page if you were worried about edits, b/c the L&L page was the one getting all of that, and none of you have explained why that page was not locked and this one, which was basically already done for the most part, was locked. I could understand your reasoning had it been that page, but not this one. And please don't take this as a sign of disrespect at all, but if you're worried about a lot of edits, you may want to be prepared for this kind of thing in the future, b/c although I'm going to work my best to avoid making more work for you than is absolutely necessary, there will no doubt be others down the road that will probably. What were you expecting also, with an article of this magnitude and having to start from scratch with no set blueprint for its makeup from anyone, not even the admin council, though we did ask for their input on it more than once? Multiple edits were almost unavoidable in that respect, but had you let us know from the beginning of the project that you cared so much about having more edits to deal with, we could have taken other measures to work around that. Again, not meant as a diss or a sign of disrespect at all, but just a word of advice from a friend.


 * I shall report back to all of you when I have the text completed for the races section. Link87 05:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Christopher, while I like you trying to keeep this civilized, please try to understand. Edit fights go no where, so the only way to stop it without deleting the page is to lock it.  Yes, higher ups have rules, but locking a page is in their power, and the action is not without reason.  If it was to be unlocked, hell would break loose, I can assure you that.  Therefore, the page will stay locked until further notice.  05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Austin, I understand what you are saying, but please try to understand what I'm saying too: the page is already complete. You're going to have to unlock it sooner or later, and edits will undoubtedly continue regardless of whether you have it locked for a week or ten years. But the article is mainly complete, with only that last section to put in, and I'm telling you that the chances of edit fights over it now are slim to none b/c it's already done with. Had this been done back when we were only like halfway done and there were edit conflicts going on over it, I could wholeheartedly understand your decision and would have even supported it b/c edit wars do nothing of benefit for the wiki and we could have worked out the details aside then. However, don't you think this is a little late to be of much use honestly? I can understand your wish to prevent edit fights, but without evidence of one, how can you predict that there will be, especially when it's already complete? It's not like this page is halfway done, you know what I'm saying?? Link87 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can post the whole finished draft in the Sandbox. In order to do your part on maintaining good workable relations with all of the staff, I'd recommend only one post there. So sleep on it, reread it, tweak as needed, etc then submit it to the Sandbox. Normally when I lock a page I try to resolve the conflict and mediate disputes, with the goal in mind to have the lock in place for only a very short time. While it's good practice as a Zelda Wiki.org Admin, I don't think it's a written rule. In best interests 06:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I know where you are comming from, but a page truly never is "complete." There will always be people wanting to edit it, so there will always be edit wars that follow.  (Not right away, of course.)  In all respect, how can you predict when or when not a page is complete when such a thing is impossible?  If new information comes out, it's up to the higher ups to decide what to do.   06:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, but you can't keep a page locked forever simply on the "fear" that there will be an edit war. That serves no purpose really, do you know what I mean? We can go around all day saying "if we do this, then that will happen" but until you take the plunge, you never really know. And while you're right no page is truly ever "complete", the basic blueprint for it is indeed complete is what I'm saying. The meat of the article is complete. Therefore, as work is nearing completion, there really isn't much use for a lock on the page now, whereas there would have been 3 or 4 weeks ago. You know what I mean? Link87 06:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)i

The page was locked because of, yes, the drama and strife surrounding it, as well as the massive amounts of edits. Let's hope that the talk page doesn't mimic the actual page. When I said "indefinite" I didn't mean "forever"; I meant indefinite, which means undefined, not definite. It could be unlocked tomorrow, or in November. We have no deadline. The page probably will not be locked forever, though that's certainly not impossible to conceive of. This lock is unique for many reasons, and some of them are reasons that are only shared amongst staff. ;-) Anyhow, unless you're posting the rest of the page changes, or something new/relevant needs to be seed, let's stop cluttering the Recent Changes page with edits to the Talk page, eh? Thank ye.

And by the way, I lived up to my word and brought up the issue again to the staff, and the lock remains, as it stands. That could change tomorrow or the next day, but don't count on it. And, in case you were curious, I read everything everyone has said here. --Xizor 07:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cutting Down?
After looking at this page's fully complete state, and then examining its size, I'm not entirely sure what can/should be cut out. The only sections I think that may need to be trimmed are the Races sections, because we have articles about each of those races, and some of those articles are nearly as long as the sections on this page. Other than that, it looks pretty good. --Xizor 06:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Each paragraph in the races section covers stuff already in the main articles. I say trim them to a few sentences each. Ganondorfdude11 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Xizor and Ganondorfdude11. I do agree they have a lot of information and we can trim them down. Can you tell us what essential information you would like us to keep in the sections for races Xizor? Then I or someone can trim them to specifications. Link87 02:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for final edits or what not, if we're done, are we about ready to un-protect this page? I have a picture for the Zuna but I can't put it in until the page is unlocked. If any edits to the text for the races section are desired, we're going to need that access to be able to do that too. Link87 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is still disgustingly huge. It's the largest article on the Wiki. I don't wanna have to go Texas Chainsaw Massacre on it. --Xizor 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Xizor, I understand your concerns and I don't like pages to have to be any longer than necessary, though as an encyclopedia we do have a need for detail. And let's not forget that Hyrule is featured in the vast majority of games, so naturally this page is going to be big. You can't halve every page simply for cutting's sake. Hyrule does have a lot involved in it, and we have already cut a lot already. While I agree it is still a very long page, we've already cut a lot while trying to maintain the article's integrity. I could understand your actions for Labrynna, they were likely needed (though I think the material removed should probably have been transferred to individual pages that may have had need of it), but Hyrule is a completely different story since it appears numerous times. That's just my take on it. Nobody else has had a problem with this page all this time, I see no reason to butcher something we all had a hand in shaping. Hyrule appears in probably 90% of the series, so like Link, Zelda and Ganon, it's naturally going to be amongst the longest of pages on the wiki, that's to be expected. Any further cuts to the page would compromise the integrity of the massive amount of work that was poured into this article by several people. Given the topic, I honestly think this page's size, while still quite large, is within reason. If you want a real example of an oversized article, go check out Wookieepedia's article on Palpatine , it'll make you think this article is tiny. Link87 07:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Saria Picture
Would someone mind swapping the picture of Saria with this transparent one? File:OoT Saria.png Thanks. 05:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization or Order of Appearance
Hey guys, I have a question to ask all of you, and I'd like your input on this if you have a little time: For the subsections like this one for the article, would you like us to alphabetize each section on this page? For instance, would you like us to alphabetize all the topics under "Forests" by name? Or would you like us to put them in order of appearance in the series? Either way is fine, but I'd like to do it the way that the majority would like to see it. I know most encyclopedias go by rules of alphabetization, so I wasn't sure if that's what you'd like us to do, or if you'd prefer we keep them in order of appearance as some other sources do. Link87 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Generalize
The only way I can see this going back into the article is to have the sections generalize itself :P Just the geographical nature of the area. Few other points need to be here, as we have articles on each section. From there we can decide if we ought to generalize to Deserts, Bodies of Water, etc, which I think we'll need to but, if it looks fine at that point then it can stay that way. Remember that the series isn't over so this will be an article expanded upon after most releases. (/cry-for-help) 05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Spirit Tracks?
Okay, with all this new info about Spirit Tracks coming to light, should we put information about that game's Hyrule in this article, or create another article for "New Hyrule," since it's clear that it's set in a separate country named after the original one? It's even got a different coat of arms and everything. Ganondorfdude11 07:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hyrule is hyrule, no matter what form it's in. spirit tracks is no different from minish cap or four swords or any other different version of hyrule, so rightfully it belongs in the main article for hyrule. Gerudosrhot 07:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The main reason I asked is that the ST Hyrule is explicitly another country, and not supposed to be the same land as seen in all of the other games. Its history also seems to be different, with the Demon King being sealed by the Spirit Tracks and all. Ganondorfdude11 07:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * they could all conceivably be different hyrules though. no ocean in OOT's hyrule, yet there is in the hyrule featured in early games. no doubt, all incarnations of hyrule belong together b/c that's just what they are, they all make up the hyrule of that time. Gerudosrhot 07:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being "conceivably" different Hyrule and being explicitly so. ST's setting seems substantially different enough to warrant some discussion on this. Ganondorfdude11 07:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hyrule is hyrule, as i said earlier. just b/c this is the successor to the original doesn't separate the new land of hyrule from the old one. and for the record, they're all substantially different throughout the series. any land named hyrule is considered part of the overall history of hyrule, no matter which version of it that is. Gerudosrhot 08:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not split the article into two? Old Hyrule and New Hyrule. The only real problem I could see from this is the fact that we don't know which Hyrule each Zelda takes place in.

It should really mention though that there is another Hyrule. The histories will be different. The Hyrule you experience in Spirit Tracks never experienced the events of OoT or MM for example. From a "historical" viewpoint you have to distinguish Hyrule from the new Hyrule.-- Green_Tunic (Talk) 08:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * not really, hyrule is hyrule, regardless of what form it is. this is just another of its many forms, no different from the others. for all we know, the hyrule of the original games could be the same as this one. are we going to start separating all those out? no, too complex to start breaking it all apart. and precisely as you noted, we don't know which form of hyrule each game takes place in, which bars us from doing such a thing. just b/c we know this is a new hyrule doesn't make it any less than the original featured in the nes games. any form of hyrule, new or old, is still hyrule and belongs with all other forms of it that has been presented. the history of this form can be noted like all the others in the article's history section, but i'm against separating them into different articles or sections b/c this is just another form of hyrule, no different from the others. Gerudosrhot 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The New Hyrule doesn't have the same culture or mythology that the old one did. For instance, the war with the Demon King appears to be its major founding event, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Triforce or Sacred Realm. Its Coat of Arms even substitutes a Force Gem for where the old Hyrule had a Triforce. I'm not going to really change anything until the game comes out, but the new country already seems different enough to warrant its own article. Ganondorfdude11 08:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the new one is based upon the old one, with its traditions and such it appears. and its name is derived from the original. and we cannot say the triforce or the sacred realm don't figure in b/c we haven't seen the game yet, and it's kinda been tradition that they all have some passing reference to those things in one way or another. and no, as i said, i am firmly against trying to single this particular hyrule out b/c we don't know about all the others. what about the four swords version, why is it completely different with no mention of the triforce? why is the same true for the minish cap (tho it's seen in pictures)? why is four swords adventures surrounded by an ocean and other versions aren't, and again no mention of the triforce? there is no separating the versions of hyrule from one another, they are all bound together in one way or another. they are all the kingdom of Hyrule, and that institution unites all of them, no matter what physical ground each occupies. Gerudosrhot 08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The TMC and FSA Hyrules are only different cosmetically. We have no in-game plot evidence to suggest that they're supposed to be separate countries. ST's Hyrule is explicitly different from the one that was destroyed in TWW. Ganondorfdude11 08:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that's irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that we don't know about all of the different versions of hyrule, for all we know some of them could very well be different countries from the one featured in LOZ and AOL and the one featured in OOT and MM. trying to separate this one out from the others is wading into a realm of zelda lore nobody truly knows about. the truth is this is just another form of hyrule, and the institution of the kingdom of hyrule is revived in this new land, but that institution is the same as it always has been. TMC doesn't have an ocean and could be a different kingdom too, for example, so it's just not a good idea to try wading into separating out the different versions of hyrule. just because we have a few extra details about how this version relates to another featured previously does not mean the institution of the kingdom of hyrule is any different, it was just revived in a different setting, which could hold true for multiple other versions possibly. it's best to just make note of the details we know in the unified article for hyrule and not wade into uncharted waters in regards to the different versions of hyrule b/c nobody truly knows how it has changed geographically or if they are all different. we just don't have enough information to do something like that at this point. Gerudosrhot 09:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay well I have to mention that Spirit Tracks's Hyrule is unique among the other "different" Hyrules. Unlike other Hyrules that we assume are just different adaptations or portrayals of Hyrule the Hyrule of Spirit Tracks is specifically stated to be different whereas other games don't bother and details are left vague. It is specifically pointed out that this Hyrule is different. The placement of the the landmarks and such are different not because of the game itself but because of the universe within the game. I just wanted to mention this.-- Green_Tunic (Talk) 10:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the hyrule of the minish cap has no recognizable landmarks either aside from hyrule castle and lake hylia, are we going to single it out too? i agree wih you that we need to note that this is the successor hyrule to the original portrayed in the wind waker, but it's still hyrule. hyrule as an institution or nation is still the same as it was, just revived in a different setting, no different from the minish cap and others. Gerudosrhot 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See but unlike Minish Cap, there is a confirmed story-related reason for a lack of landmarks. It has been confirmed that the reason for a change in geography is related to the story as opposed to a change due to game design like past Zeldas that have rearranged or removed landmarks.  But I digress this conversation won't really go anywhere.-- Green_Tunic (Talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While this is confirmed to be a new Hyrule, I agree that it belongs with the other incarnations of Hyrule, not in a separate article. Confirmation of difference or not, it is true that the kingdom of Hyrule is no different. I can see how some would want to separate it out, but it belongs with all the other forms of Hyrule. Separating it out from the others sets a bad precedent to try to separate the others like The Minish Cap's Hyrule or Four Swords Adventures's Hyrule out, etc. It's true that we don't know about the others, and we don't want to set that kind of precedent. This new setting for Hyrule is just another chapter in Hyrule's history, and I agree that's where it belongs, with the other versions of Hyrule. Link87 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The game is unreleased. We can decide this later, if it's specifically called New Hyrule in-game we'll make an article following suit. But as for now it's basically theory and speculation. As far as Timeline fitting the other incarnations of Hyrule into New Hyrule, we won't be doing that. For now the only thing we could really have for an article titled New Hyrule is a redirect to the ST section. After the game is released we might have to move ST to that, so we'll see. Go ahead and make that redirect tho! 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I finished Spirit Tracks a while ago and noticed something interesting. Not once in the game do any of the characters refer to the land as Hyrule, just the kingdom and the castle. And before you say "if the kingdom is named such and such, then the land has to be named such and such", that is not true. Sure they don't mention it being called something else, but Hyrule doesn't come up either. After all, people were obviously living there before Link and Tetra arrived there, and I don't think they would rename the land just because they arrived. So I think that only the Kingdom is named Hyrule, but the land is named something else. Perhaps if another game comes out that is after Spirit Tracks, we'll find out that name.HyruleBiologist 06:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence there were people there before Link and Tetra arrived there, depending on how you interpret the story of Spirit Tracks. There is no concrete evidence anyone was there before that, the people shown in the beginning could very well have been the Hylians for all we know, there just isn't any conclusive evidence one way or the other. And another thing, by the same token, the kingdom was called Hyrule in the originals as well, yet we eventually learned that as a result, the entire continent was called Hyrule as well. If we are to go by precedent, then there's more evidence to suggest this land has also been named Hyrule as well. And the castle being named "Hyrule Castle" is incontestable, that proves that the part of the land we see is indeed called Hyrule. You forget that, for instance, America wasn't called America until the Europeans arrived here. But today, it's still called America. The same principle applies here. This land may indeed have had no name at all before the arrival of Link and Tetra, and they rebranded the part they settled as Hyrule. The whole world doesn't have to be called by that name as you suggest, it never was before anyway as we saw other lands existed in the same universe as well, such as Termina, Holodrum and Labrynna. But to assume that the land actually had a name before Link and Tetra's arrival and to assume that people were already living there prior to their arrival is not supported by any true concrete evidence. Those are merely assumptions that cannot be taken to be fact at the present time. Link87 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Humanoid Races?
Why is it that the Zuna, Minish, and the Wind tribe aren't under the headline Humanoid Races? They have two arms and two legs, as well as the fact that they look more human than a Goron or Zora.--Eyestaledbird 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because someone forgot them. Add them in yourself, if you like. I think the page isn't protected anymore. 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, you mean that they're under non-humanoid. Leave them alone, then. They're there because they aren't really human. Minish don't even resemble humans, and Zuna don't look human, either. Humanoid means that the race appears human in nature. 04:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposition
In light of the recent concerns raised by Xizor and Mandi, I have a proposition that may satisfy everyone. I won't guarantee that it will, but hear me out and let me know if this sounds like a good plan to you guys:


 * We know it's hard to load this page due to it's size, Xizor and Mandi both have points. However, it is long by necessity due to the topic and we have already cut a lot out to keep things smooth. Further cuts are not the answer here, however I propose that we do with the Locations and Landmarks section exactly what we did with the Appearances By Game section. We make a new subpage for that section, leave the intro paragraph for it here along with the link to the subpage. This would greatly alleviate loading problems for all and wouldn't necessitate any further cuts.
 * Next is the label at the top: now while I understand your desire to warn others of the page's length, I don't see the label as being necessary when we can simply make a small note at the top warning of length (which wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if we go through with the previous bullet). To those wanting to keep the label, I say you're only making the problem of loading the page worse with the added graphics. I propose we do what I suggested before in regards to a new subpage and replace the overkill label with a more appropriate, concise note at the top.

Does this sound reasonable to you guys? Link87 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do like this idea. I believe the template should still be used for over-sized pages because it is concise, alerts the reader and/or user sufficiently and really doesn't take up too many wiki bytes, at all, in comparison to the rest of the page. 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the label's content does't fit the situation here. The label refers to "weight loss" when we've already done a lot of "weight reduction". If we follow through on my idea, that no longer applies here. I would suggest, if it's an actual label you'd like, to make up a new one that simply warns of the larger size alone rather than encouraging further "weight loss" when it will no longer be an issue for this page. Perhaps make a new label with a smaller picture that's not as bulky? My issue with the current one is that if these steps are taken firstly we may not even need one b/c it's going to greatly reduce the size and loading time of this page in particular and secondly b/c it does not focus in on the issue at hand enough (loading time, etc.), it instead focuses on "weight loss", which isn't the issue here. Link87 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and enacted the plan, and it reduced the page's loading size by 35,000 bytes out of 85,000. Given that, I don't think such a label is necessary now, as we've got other articles on here with just as much if not more. Link87 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, although this page may not need it anymore, the template should still stay in its current state and placed on oversized articles until said article is cleaned up sufficiently. Of course it should be removed from this page now, but what I said just touches generally in respect to all oversized articles. 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but one's definition of an "oversized" article is very vague and ambiguous when considering the topic. Link87 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where you're coming from, and I do agree that there should be a distinction as to specifically what part of the article needs cleanup, instead of a full page generalization. 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The reduction is acceptable. I can't gaurantee that I won't come back to this page in the future to trim it down more, but for now, I have bigger fish to fry. Thanks for your cooperation. --Xizor 06:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to trim when no effort has been made to do so, but cutting for the sake of cutting is not a strategy. If we keep cutting, it defeats the purpose of article improvement, so I might suggest thinking next time before actually cutting, such as with the Labrynna article. I agree with your action to remove the data from that page, but taking it a step further and moving it to where it could be of service to the wiki would be a more effective strategy for article building. We can't go on an "oversize" article binge though, some articles are naturally going to be long as I said before, that's just to be expected. Link87 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Prolonged Wars
In twilight princess Gor Coron mentions the prolonged wars, but doesn't go into musch detail about it. Should we add this to the military conflicts section or not?--LuigiBros64
 * Since we don't know which wars he is referring to, or if they are wars we've already heard of, probably not. A war is already mentioned in that game anyway, the Interloper War. Link87 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he refers to the wars that wiped out the Sheikah tribe, he's probably talking about the Hyrulean Civil War. Ganondorfdude11 04:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is my theory as well, though of course it's not confirmed, hence why I said we can't officially draw that connection without hard evidence, as per the wiki's standards for fact. Link87 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Higher Rule
Could it be possible that Hyrule is a pun for High Rule as in Higher. As in a supperoir kingdom than the one we come from? -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but this is so speculative that it's not worth mentioning on the actual article. It's an interesting point, but no. --Xizor 07:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never intended it to be on the page, but I was just shocked that it wasn't mentioned at all on the page or this talk page. I can not beleive nobody else noticed. -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, many people have noticed, but its just more of a "oh-that's-cool" kind of thing, not really an article worthy bit, like Xizor said. 14:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And since the theory tag categorizes pages, don't use it in talk pages. And we've noticed that, but Zelda has a lot of wordplays, so it's not a theory, just a cute fact. 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)