Zelda Wiki:Milk Bar


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5

Threshold for theory inclusion
What's the threshold for theory inclusion? I recently added a theory section to the Groose article, but it was soon removed, and the other editor opined that it just sounds like a personal theory. Is a theory more notable if I can provide multiple independent sources that have also arrived at the same theory? Because I didn't come up with this theory by myself&mdash;versions of it have been floating around for some years now. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, re-adding something someone reverted is bad form, especially if the someone who reverted it is an admin.

Anyway, I personally to feel that the less theories there are on this wiki, the better. But in this case, it honestly feels like Groose was at least intended to invoke the Gerudo. There really aren't any characters (to my knowledge) in the Zelda series that have blazing red hair and yellow eyes besides the Gerudo and Groose. This isn't really evidence, but his name also starts with a "G", same as Gerudo and Ganon, although Nabooru's name doesn't start with G, so it isn't a Gerudo naming convention. Basically I think that there should be a mention of a Gerudo/Groose connection somewhere on the Groose page, although the Theory that Dermot submitted is definitely unacceptable as is due to its unfounded speculation and unprofessional tone. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not intend bad form or anything like that, and I didn't know if the editor reverting my original edits was an admin or not. It was just that their revert said it sounded like a personal theory, but I didn't originally come up with it, and have seen it turn up repeatedly online.  If there remain issues with my style of editing, I'm sure they can be improved upon.  But my original edits were in good faith, and the material seemed perfectly congruent with the established pattern of theories in articles.  Even if there are editors who dislike theory sections, there are plenty of readers who do, and expansive theory sections were already all over this wiki when I joined up, and I find them to be one of the more interesting parts of the wiki.  If this wiki is to include theories, and a theory is honest and has appeared independently again and again, then what is a theory section editor to expect?  It is my understanding that theories by their very nature are not universally endorsed, but arise from an attempt within the community to explain conspicuous correlations that have captured their attention.  And if a theory pops up from multiple sources independently, it would seem to fall within the threshold of notability.  If the wiki were to adopt a policy of no longer hosting theories in articles at all, I could then understand their swift removal; otherwise, it can confuse an editor and make them wonder if their edits were judged as bad faith or vandalism. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion. To minimize future confusion, I think the wiki needs to adopt a clear, readily-referenced common policy on theories in articles, preferably linked from the "Theory Warning" template.  This policy would explain criteria and threshold for inclusion, so that future editors can inform themselves and have a better idea of what to expect.  It's confusing to be told by a moderating editor that theories are not a good idea, when theories are already all over the wiki in abundance and seem to invite expansion.  I admit I'm a rather nervous editor and don't always have the best conceived editing style, but a clear sense of official procedure could make the whole process less bumpy for all sorts of editors. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There already is such a policy here. Theories are only to be added if they are supported by a reasonable amount of 1) evidence and 2) community acceptance. Of course, what constitutes a "reasonable amount" of either criteria must be left to judgement. 03:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see... Well, that seems clear.  I suppose my only remaining suggestion is to link to that policy from the template.  If you believe the theory section I added was inappropriate, I will accept its removal.  I apologize for any appearance of discord. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the theory from the page. Once again, I apologize.  I seek to be a constructive contributor to this wiki. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, theory sections seem to be a magnet for well-intentioned speculation by editors either unfamiliar with the quality control rules or who have not memorized these rules by heart. And to be candid, I have many theories in my head, some of which I have already sprinkled around the wiki, mostly in existing theory sections. And I'm sure the ones I can remember adding (off the top of my head) are probably not all the ones I have actually added. Now that I know that there's a certain requisite consensus standard and citation style for theories, I will try to be more thoughtful of similar edits in the future, and to see if I can improve the quality of my theory edits if I stumble over them again. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Maps: Before or after?
For map images, should they be shown as they are at the start of the game (doors locked, walls unbombed), or as they are at the end of the game (doors unlocked, walls bombed)? I assume that the former is the desired quality, but I wished to get an official stance on this for the future. Apologies if this has already been answered. Champion of Nayru (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no official stance. There aren't many strict image policies, so uploaders are encouraged to use their best judgement.
 * I personally prefer "before" maps as they're usually more revealing and useful. They do tend to be harder to make, though. Again, do what you think is best. 07:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)