User talk:Ceiling Master

Yo
Hey man, it's Oni. Popped by Zeldapedia to note something (spelling of Eastmost Peninsula was finally corrected in the Switch Release of LOZ ). Saw that the recent changes list was absolutely empty. No edits at all in the past three months. Honestly felt like a part of me had died. Now I know how the Last Unicorn felt. How are things getting going on here? Did the move work out well? Jotari (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Oni, good to hear from you. There's a reason there's been no recent changes: we're not actually supposed to be editing ZP anymore. I don't know if you knew, but the whole site has been locked (every page has basically been protected) from editing except by staff. It's been archived as of June 15, and it'll probably be closed down eventually, so there's really no point in editing it anymore.


 * I say this with a bit of awkwardness, but would you consider rollbacking all of your edits after June 15th? We've been having a hard time convincing people in the Discussions section that ZP has been closed down, since Fandom hasn't found a way to actually shut the /d down yet. Seeing recent activity on the wiki might prolong that, and I think it would be best to close the book on the site for good as of June 15th.


 * Things are fairly active here, even if I'm not. I got a kind of crash course on some of the policies and how to edit, but I've found that I don't have the motivation to edit much anymore, so I'm pretty much retired. Once BotW 2 comes out I might add in some content as I play it, but that'll probably be the extent of my editing. Either way, it's good to hear from you; don't be a stranger. – Ceiling Master (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't realize edits weren't supposed to happen at all. That explains it. I think if I rollback things now it'll just add more activity. Best to just leave things be perhaps. Though I'm not sure why the need for the shut down. Why not just leave it to the wilderness? Jotari (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomenclature
How do you decide what does/doesn’t fit into the nomenclature section? I’ve generally tried to avoid putting information up on there unless it looks really likely, but I’m guessing that’s not right. In the recent case (Elsie) I added it because old wiki said she was probably named after Elsie the Cow (the mascots of the Borden Dairy Company) and after I looked her up on Wikipedia to see if she was actually relevant, I thought (given her fame and apparent symbolism of the perfect dairy product) it was probably safe to put up.

If I have to write another page that has potential information from a Nomenclature how should I check? Bagadew (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed that because it was pure speculation; although I can see the possibility of a connection, it didn't have a source or anything. In retrospect, maybe I should have added instead of removing it, but I'm not sure what the guidelines are there.


 * As for nomenclature (or etymology as I'm familiar with it) in general, I guess it's just a judgment call. For stuff like the Wind Tribe members having their names based on weather-related things, that's obvious because there's a pattern. But for a one-off cow being named after a real-world famous cow? That's a bit more of a stretch in my opinion.


 * In any case, Tony would probably have a better, more detailed answer on what should and shouldn't go in those sections if this wasn't helpful. – Ceiling Master (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Termina Retcon
The encyclopedia is clearly incorrect, why uphold information that is clearly faulty at best and outright contradictory of the source material at worst?. Is this a low quality wiki that adds whatever it feels like willy-nilly?, it'd be an embarrassment to fans of the series if that's the case.

I don't have to "take it up" anywhere, it's flat out 'wrong'- undeniably so- and should not be taken as Gospel.