Zelda Wiki:Milk Bar

Clear up images
Can someone clear up these images so their not so blurry--Link hero of light 19:49, 3 March 2008 (EST)

The first image is from youtube so its not easy to unblurr it--Zanramon 17:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)


 * Hm... I took a picture of a ReDead from Twilight Princess. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if it's better than the current picture or not. --Ando (Talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)


 * Definitely better than my "stopgap" image, I'll replace it now (quite scary too lol!) —Adam (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Oshus picture
Could someone please find a picture of Oshus in his whale form as i have looked every where like youtube and everywhere--Zanramon 17:46, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Here. I found it at Zelda Dungeon.


 * Also, you can't have looked very hard on YouTube... typed "phantom hourglass ending" and this was the first result I looked at:



I know but i was on the co.uk one--Zanramon 06:44, 8 March 2008 (EST) still good though

Ocarina of Time Dungeon Images
Can someone add images for the entrances to the Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time so that the page doesn't just have maps? It would keep it consistent with the other dungeon listings. --Hisak 20:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)
 * Alright, before I get started on this, exactly what do you mean by "entrances"; the actual entrance of the dungeon, or the text that appears the first time you enter it stating the name of the dungeon (much like the Inside the Deku Tree image on the page you provided)? --Ando (Talk) 09:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
 * The cutscene that appears when you first enter the dungeon. --Hisak 19:39, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Aye, sorry I missed this earlier (a lack of a good, constant computer made checking the wiki quite a chore!), but I think I can work on getting some more pictures on here for the various dungeons. --Ando (Talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I've started taking some. They aren't that big because of the program I'm using for taking pictures. Does anyone know a better image capturer? I'm using the free version of fraps FYI.--Green 22:34, 22 March 2008 (EDT)




 * What emulator are you using? Project64 has a built-in screenshot capture tool (utilized by hitting F3). The screenshots are saved in whatever resolution the game is running at (it's what I used for the Majora's Mask pictures I've uploaded such as this one). --Ando (T : C) 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh! I also use Project64 I don't really user emulators so I don't know much about them.  Thanks and sorry for the late reply.--Green 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could also take some Pics from the entrances(I have also a good amount of boss-pics from OoT and MM). --DarQness 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

soulcalibur
Could someone start making articles for soulcalibur II characters. The wiki has articles for smash characters, we should have soulcalibur characters. Oh and just a question. Is soulcalibur considered canon?--Link hero of light 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * SOULCALIBUR is definitely not considered canon. Also, getting SOULCALIBUR articles to be made is dependent on people actually owning the game, much the same as the CD-i games. --Ando (T) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I own both SSBB and Soul Calibur II, but I don't think that SSBB should have the information or articles it has, and am quite content with where the Soul Calibur articles are: the game has an article, Link's role in it is discussed, and brief mentions are made on other articles where appropriate (the last is actually lacking, but as soon as we can decide on terminology for certain things, I can change that). I think that, rather than try and increase Soul Calibur II articles and content to match SSBB, we should downsize SSBB articles to match Soul Calibur. I also think that all SSB game articles (orginal, melee, and brawl, should be put into ne article together) Also of note is that while SSB series is a mix mash of characters from different games, and we can limit the data to only relevent info for SSBB, Soul Calibur II contains, besides Link, all original characters, who have extremely detailed backstory's and information, as well as several different forms of development. If we bring every bit of info from every game Link makes an appearance in as a playable character, we will run into problems. My argument in short is: In the long run, we should focus on the Zelda series, not every cameo/playable character game with a zelda character in it and mention everyone else who appears in the game in detail. PS, if you've never played Soul Calibur II, I am not exagerating at all when I say extremely detailed backstory. We would have Minda sized articles for every character.--Magnus orion 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you said. We should feature mainly zelda, but Link, Zelda, Ganondorf, Sheik and Toon Link have all appeared playable people in the smash games, therefore, articles about the characters that appear alongside them should be here.--Link hero of light 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, Can I take a different perspective on this. This is a zelda wiki. We feature Zelda game content. Now lets say there was a super smash wiki (there is). What do they feature. Super Smash content. They would not feature everything in this Wiki just because Link appears in these games too as well as Super Smash, would they? If this were a soul calibur wiki, would we put in this entire wiki just because Link appears in one of our games? NO!. We give an article to link, talking about him and where he comes from. We do not attach to it every other character from every other game Link appears in! We may give an article to the legend of zelda series, but thats it. So this is a Zelda wiki... We give articles to games with conections to Zelda, and thats it. We do not move all information related to the games with connections to Zelda into this wiki. Basically, by putting the SSB articles in here, we are turning it from Zeldawiki.org to Zelda/SuperSmashBrosWiki.org!--Magnus orion 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But you have to remember, though, that Smash Bros. isn't just connected to Zelda -- Brawl features four playable Zelda characters, several stages, and TONS of Zelda music. And most of the Smash-character articles only feature information as it relates to Zelda. Such as Mario's encounters with Link, Peach with Sheik, etc. Characters that have no relation to Zelda at all (Sonic, amongst others) should be given only the barest mention with a link to their Wikipedia article using the template. --Ando (T) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's 6 zelda characters in the smash series. ;).--Link hero of light 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, if you count Sheik. And Young Link, but that was Melee. --Ando (T) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But, all that information could be put in a smash bros article, or, if necessary, a subspace emisarry article. It doesn't require a mario article be created, does it?--Magnus orion 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, is this article necessary for the zelda wiki: pichu? How does this show any relation to Link in any SSB games? These articles should all be merged. These characters do not need there own individual articles on a Zelda wiki. Also, I've thought about what you have said and tried to apply it to soul calibur. Unfortunately, even the adventure mode boils down to combat with random characters, and no one really has any relation with the guest star character. Its either all or none for the characters of soul calibur, and I vote none.--Magnus orion 04:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't played much of Soulcalibur II, but I think it's a different case than SSB. Apparently, like Magnus said, Link is presented as a guest character in SCII, and so it shouldn't get very much mention. But he's a main playable character in all three SSB games, so I think those games deserve attention. The character and stage pages shouldn't go into too much detail beyond their appearances in SSB (the Dr. Mario stage, for example, has too much information). If we do decide to cover SCII, we shouldn't cover any of the other Soulcalibur games, and we shouldn't cover any games with Zelda-related cameos, like Super Mario RPG or WarioWare. But the appearances SSB are definitely not cameos, and shouldn't be treated like they are. --Hisak 19:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

picture block
Wikipedia has something similar to this, but because certain pictures on the site offend various users. A block could be set up that would not allow users to see the certain pictures mentioned above. Of corse, people would have the choice wether they would want a block or not, after all some people find the pictures funny. Does anybody agree with me?--Link hero of light 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are pictures in the wiki that have no reason being here whatsoever. Some are offensive, yes, but just saying that no one will come across them because there is no links to them isn't enough. There is a random page and a random image

button to the left on the wiki. These can take you to any page (except user ones and talks, as far as I know) or any image. Please reread the italicized text again, provided for you to the right of this sentence for your convience, so that the general flow of reading right to left is maintained: any image. Please note the "any", meaning every single image on the wiki is open to be acessed through that link. Therefore, there is no links to them argument for images is wrong. These images really don't belong on this wiki and are offensive, predjudice (esp. sexist), or advertising in nature and are really degrading. The fact is, like the argument for the ssbb articles above, they have no place on this wiki. This is Zeldawiki.org, not Zelda/offensiveimagery.org. I also think that the misc. section is fine, so long as it maintains its inoffesiveness.--Magnus orion 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand what you are saying to me. Are you telling me that the pictures should be removed entirely, a block should be set up or the pictures should stay. Also what do you mean by the random image thing. Don't worry though, some have my posts have been complicated to read to. ;).--Link hero of light 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We mean, that a picture block is a good idea, since they should be there, but to not offend anybody who has no business seeing it. The random image is that there Is a link to all the pics. That link! --David (T : C) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I mean that, while blocking is a good idea, the images rather should be removed, as they really aren't contibuting to an encyclopedia. On the left bar of the wiki,there are a bunch of yellow links. Random image takes you to what it says, a random image. It has been claimed in the past that these images aren't important or needing to be worried about since nothing links to them. I am simply pointing out that this is not true. Random image does link to them, so anyone claiming that there is nothing linked to the images is wrong.--Magnus orion 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Horror
There is no page on Wikipedia about ZeldaWiki.org!!! I feel that people from here should make it. Who else has an account set up on Wikipedia? --Matt 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that (last time I looked at them) a site be referenced and featured on AT LEAST two other, major, notable, trustworthy sites. Zelda Wiki is not as far as I know. So an article would most likely be deleted immediately. The same happened with Flash Flash Revolution, and that site's been around for over five years. --Ando 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the end of the world tho. If you managed to get Nintendo Power to feature an article on Zelda wiki, well a whole can of worms would be opened. I'd just send in something about it on paper. I mean they print stuff about cosplaying all the time and that's an individualistic topic.Axiomist 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's do what ever it takes to do this. A few Wikipedia articles use ZeldaWiki.org as a reference anyway. Three sites on the top 50 search results for "Legend of Zelda" are: www.zeldadungeon.net, www.zeldalegends.net, www.zeldauniverse.net. That's two. That is enough for the notability requirement.--Matt 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen Wikipedia articles use Google ranks as a statement. Lately, I've been watching the article count on the main page here, it seems to drop more often than increase. But how does Zeldawiki.org compare to other wikis. With Wikipedia obviously at #1.-curiousAxiomist 05:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lately, the article drops have been do to the merging of articles. Now, we're running low on articles to be merged. The recently created articles for Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland have replaced most of what was lost. To compare Wikipedia with ZeldaWiki.org use this and this.--Matt 05:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Battlestar Wiki has a page. It has about a thousand more articles than we do. However, that wiki has a ton of really short pages (around two-thirds of the total) that should be merged. So we are the the better wiki.--Matt 06:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what "being the better Wiki" has to do with it at all. I really don't see why you consider this such a big issue. :/
 * Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines state that something must be covered in reliable secondary sources INDEPENDENT OF the topic. Meaning, any of the owner sites are not acceptable sources, because they aren't independent of the Wiki.
 * Likewise, the web-specific guidelines state that "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance." Zelda Wiki is not, at least by Wikipedia standards, either of these things.
 * That's primarily why I don't see this working. --Ando 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm with Ando on this. Does it really matter to any of us what the world at large thinks about this place? Not to me. I don't feel the need for some kind of "fan page" on Wikipedia (which, for reference, is not the fountain of all world knowledge. It's just a website - albeit quite a popular one - that's only been around for 7 years!). I certainly don't care what arbitrary monetary value some quasi-intelligent machine somewhere may assign to this domain, or any other - the only opinions I listen to are those of other sentient beings ;) --Adamcox82 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page here just about the history of this site then? As far as I can tell, most of the information is scattered around on several pages. I know that the monetary value in that comparison has no real meaning. I thought that the amount it gave us was a little funny. I was more concerned with the real stats on the left side of those pages -- the page ranks and such.--Matt 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt: Zelda Wiki.org. --Ando 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a little too short. It doesn't really do this site justice.--Matt 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)