Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center

Satellaview Zelda pages
This has been bugging me for a little while now. Is there any particular reason the BS Zelda game pages are so devoid of content when compared to, say, the CD-i abominations? Inishie no Sekiban (Ancient Stone Tablets) in particular is very lacking in info. There are category listings for enemies that appear in the CD-i games but not the BS games. The BS Zeldas may be "uncanon" in the same vein as Crossbow Training or the Tingle games (although I'd argue that Inishie no Sekiban has no reason not to be considered canon plot-wise, but thats a whole debate I don't want to get into) but they WERE still made by Nintendo unlike the CD-i stuff. I would love to improve their pages, but its far, far too much work for me to do alone. I would really need help; it would be nice to see the effort that people are going into to categorise the stuff from those unplayable messes being put into the geniunely good and interesting BS games (no offense to the effort placed there, it is fascinating in a morbid way). I will work towards it as well, but I might need to get consensus on a few things.

To get started, I want to suggest that the BS The Legend of Zelda: The Ancient Stone Tablets be moved to BS The Legend of Zelda: Inishie no Sekiban or even possibly just BS Zelda no Densetsu: Inishie no Sekiban. The game has no official translation; fan translation should probably come second, with the possible and popular translations mentioned prominently, of course. Although if someone can find mention of these games in any NoA media that does name them, that would be great. I am quite well versed in the game being an ALttP obsessive so I am happy to get work done on it, but help would be appreciated. Fizzle 10:12, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * Fizzle, there's nothing wrong in asking for help, but I hope you understand that everything at this wiki is done voluntarily. Everyone is free to contribute in whichever way they like, and should never ever feel obliged to do something they don't feel like doing, just because an area of the wiki is underdeveloped. Some subjects, regardless of how insignificant they may seem to you, simply get more attention than others. That being said, I'm not afraid to say that I myself know next to nothing about the BS games or the original Zelda classics, for that matter. I'm afraid I personally couldn't be of much help at all.


 * For the record, I agree with moving "BS The Legend of Zelda: The Ancient Stone Tablets" to "BS The Legend of Zelda: Inishie no Sekiban". 10:45, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * Hey hey, I know that. Its not like I'm somehow forcing people to help me, that wasn't my intention. I was just asking for some help if anyone was willing to focus on it. I think you're misreading my distaste of the CD-i games (a natural reaction, surely!) as distaste at people adding that information in favour of others, which isn't the case. People can focus on what they like. I am sad that these games don't get much attention, however. Inishie no Sekiban is basically an early concept for Majora's Mask in a lot of ways, but not many people know that. They're fascinating and often forgotten, so it doesn't hurt to prompt people to check them out, surely.


 * And I was mainly just wanting to ask that naming question to be honest. Felt like a pretty big thing to go and change without any consensus.


 * Also, may I just add that I was genuinely wondering if it was wiki policy not to have categories for these games because they were Japan only or something like that. Fizzle 11:01, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * We certainly do not have a wiki policy for not having categories for these games! :] I know it's a big task to work on adding content about a game without any help (I got to the exciting work of adding info about the cartoon and the original LoZ comics! :P), but really, there's nothing we can do to get other people to cooperate. :/ Believe it or not, adding info about the BS Zelda games was next on my to-do list (I saw some gameplay videos about that and they look pretty fun!), but since SS came along, that has taken priority instead.


 * I went ahead and moved the page since it never got an official translation. I'm sure no one will mind. :P Dany36 11:33, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * Well, I personally look at it like this... Everyone knows about Skyward Sword now, there will be plenty of willing participents to update those pages, but those people who know about the BS Zeldas are much fewer in number, so it was sort of a "call to arms" of a sort I suppose. It's up to whoever to update whatever they want, of course! Everyone has their favourites and priorities (by the way, I really appreciate all the cartoon and comic information, I actually find that geniunely fascinating, I love all that stuff, I've been trying to add some manga information in a similar fashion). Was more of a suggestion than anything. SS work is a big deal right now, I know.
 * Thanks for moving the page! I think I'll focus on a characters page first. Fizzle 14:42, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * For the record, I know you weren't trying to force anybody to do anything. My bad for sounding reproaching. I was just trying to answer your question: some areas of the wiki, such as BS Zelda, have weaker content because some things just don't get as much love than others, and no one wants to work on things they aren't interested in just because that part of the wiki's content sucks. Hopefully it won't be the case this time, but, like Dany said, sometimes you just end up being the only one who really cares about a particular subject. That's just the name of the game! 12:07, 2 January 2012 (EST)


 * In that case, people need to rearrange their priorities, ha! Having played both, I certainly recommend them being more worth the time than the CD-i games. Ah, I'm half kidding though. Like you say, people can care about what they care about, so I'm not trying to order people about, that's silly. I'll do what I can to work on the BS Zelda pages and hopefully it'll make more people interested the more they know. Very unique games. Fizzle 14:42, 2 January 2012 (EST)
 * Should Navi Trackers, the Tingle games, Mystical Seed of Courage, and other Japan-only games also have their titles moved to their Japanese pronunciations? Or did we get official translations for them somewhere?KrytenKoro 17:35, 10 January 2012 (EST)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure, but if it's anything to go by Zeldapedia has those games listed under the English titles, and they're pretty anal about staying official/canon. :P 21:11, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * Personally, concerning the Tingle games, I believe at least Rupeeland should stay where it is--that's not a Japan-only game, it got released in Europe and thus has official English names (albeit from a source not normally used here). And last I checked, Mystical Seed of Courage wasn't released anywhere in the world, not even Japan...--Shiningpikablu252 21:42, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * Rupeeland was released in Europe (I own it but haven't played far) so it most certainly has an English title. You can even play it on an American DS, as the old DS and DS Lites are region free. Navi Trackers WAS given that name prior to release in various media (although I think it was also known as Tetra's Trackers when it was still planned for release, which could be a case for moving it), and so was Mystical Seed of Courage. I think the second Tingle game was named in English in some NoA or NoE material before they knew whether it'd be released. To be honest, if someone can find some NoA or NoE media specifically referring to the BS Zeldas by any specific names (preferably PRIOR to the fan translation giving it a name), I would be happy to switch to that, but usually they seem to have gone almost entirely unnoticed. Fizzle 08:27, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Same-article coverage of same-named but different-entity subjects
Okay, currently this wiki has a general policy of merging the articles of subjects whose English names are the same, but not for Japanese. Personally, I have several qualms about this:
 * If the intention is to "merge things that are meant to have the same name", then this leaves out things which have different names only through translation quirks, like the Tower of the Gods and Tower of Spirits, which were given the same name by the Japanese authors who wrote the games, but were translated differently by the NoA localizers.
 * This leads to a lot of confusion on articles where we know for a fact that the entities are meant to be separate and unrelated, like the Hyrule of ST and all the other Hyrules, or the Temples of Time, or all the Links. While there is something to be said for merging the same-named character articles (as the Zelda authors love them some character archetypes), it's very messy to apply it to locations, where the most you can say is that both Temples of Time are "timey".

The method I've seen on wikis that are very succesful at comprehensively communicating all the knowledge of their subject franchise is to separate similarly-named-but-separate-entity topics by continuity/appearance. A good example of this is Transformers Wiki's coverage of Optimus Prime. Even then, they group all of the G1 versions of Optimus in one article, even when they are technically separate characters, but are the same "template" of being.

Minor characters and species of monsters, I think it's clean enough to merge them as done with Optimus Prime (G1) and as is already done on this wiki. There's no seriously conflicting backstory to each character.

Link and Zelda...as much as they portray a static archetype, they almost always have detailed backstories and plot that generate articles large enough that each version of the character could safely stand on their own. Or, you can keep the current version if you want.KrytenKoro 17:35, 10 January 2012 (EST)
 * I will cover qualm # 2 because it's the most delicate aspect. I wouldn't mind a separate article for ST Hyrule, I'm actually indifferent about it. But I've seen that some people incessantly makes analogies and the like as evidence to split or merge something. That's not how it works. The most ideal approach is to use common sense and discuss things case-by-case, it all depends on the subject of the article and its coverage. Take Fado as an example. There is an article about Fado from OOT, an article about Fado from TWW, and an article about Fado from TP. Yet we have different articles about Link, Zelda and Ganon. I know consistency is good and all that, but we can't take it to the extremes, since not all articles can be approached from the same perspective.
 * As for point one, the Japanese/English thing is a policy we have had since the inception of the wiki. I know some people want to merge Palace of Darkness with Temple of Darkness, or Tower of the Gods with Tower of Spirits. Problem, is, not all of us have played the Japanese version of the games, they're associated with the names given in the software aimed towards North America. Nowadays, in fact, Nintendo and several other companies localize the games in not only English, but also Spanish and French, and expectantly those language versions will have their own names for objects, places and characters as well. The Names template allows us to include those names and even translate them, but when it comes to the core content of the articles, as well as their titles, we must abide to the English version since this wiki's language is English, and therefore the names we must use are the ones provided by the English versions of the games. As flawed and schizophrenic as the North American canon is, it's unfortunately a law dictated by the wiki's canon policy, and therefore that's the canon we must abide. The Japanese canon can be helpful, however, when there is no official English naming about a subject, as would be the case of the enemies seen in the NES games, or Hyrule Historia.-- 22:08, 10 January 2012 (EST)
 * My point with qualm one is that the author intention is that these objects should have the same name. Personally, I would prefer split articles for all entities who we know to be distinct, but that's not how this wiki works, so I roll with it. However, merging by English name only (a second-degree version of the work) makes little sense when we end up having Eastern Temple and Eastern Palace kept separate, solely due to arbitrary limitations placed on the translators at the time. "English canon" and all that, but we still take the time to pave over obvious and fatal translation failures like the Oocca creating the Hylians.
 * Also, I do not think that asking to merge articles based on their Japanese name (while still using the English names for how we refer to things) is at all equatable to asking for merges based on the Spanish or French names. Japanese is the language that the games were authored in. Spanish, French, and even English, were not. In my mind, the common sense method would be to, when the authors intended two subjects to have the same name, at least treat the two subjects like they are meant to have the same name; even if we actually refer to them with separate names, or end up having separate articles for them. Especially since it is an indisputable fact that the translations for the early games were in many places, artificially false, it does somewhat of a disservice to the material to treat those translations as the "true and proper way the material was meant to be received and interpreted".
 * As an example of how I've dealt with this elsewhere, I work on the Digimon Wiki. Although the wiki is dub-based, and treats the dub canon and dub names as the primary source, we readily admit that the various attempts at localizing the material have been atrociously inconsistent, and that in order for a reader to recognize any sense of consistency, we have to group topics by what the author intended, even if we communicate all the info using dub terms. So, when a creature that has five different dubbed names but only one intended name appears, we give it just one article.
 * Long story short: That the wiki's language is English is not a good justification for ignoring author intention and instead binding ourselves to a source that has proven itself still able in this late period to make startling errors that lead to impassible contradictions, and was for a few titles intentionally false.KrytenKoro 10:16, 11 January 2012 (EST)


 * I do agree with you totally. I do think that, on the grand scale of things and with the release of more games, it will become very problematic to just throw so many things into one article just because they share the same name. This will gives people with lesser knowledge the impression that x and y are the same thing, a big contradiction to what the purpose of a wiki actually is: to give truthful information and to not confuse people who are looking for information. I can't see a fully agree with the rule of using only Nintendo of America's translations of various things, as I personally feel it borderlines anti-canon information. They have a history of mistranslations, which unfortunately means some information presented on the wiki is twisted. Because this is a Zelda wiki for all things truthfully Zelda, I believe that we should be going by the true, canonical translations, giving true information. Otherwise, it's another problem of a wiki not doing it's existing purpose correctly and is another way of ignoring the intention of the people responsible for making this series.

I would also like to argue that further on the issue of shared articles for different entities, the Link and Zelda articles are going to overflow with the release or more games. They will just keep getting messier because they're getting unreasonably long all due to these different people sharing an article. Then there are things that... just make no sense at all: there is an article for all Links including the Hero of Time, a separate article for the Hero of Time as a child alone and then an article for the Hero of Time a s ghost in Twilight Princess. This is an example where articles, in my opinion, should be merged. I think that alone proves that the Hero of Time is a good example of a character who needs his own page: he has featured in two console games, has a backstory and even has an entire life and future as ghost. That's three games he has appeared in, but his information is splatted into three separate articles. He is a fine example of how every Link is a different person with a different personality and story. Then why do individuals such as the Dragons and Light Spirits have seperate pages? By the current rule's logic, they should have the same page: same names, same roles. The Hero of Time truly needs his own page, if not all "developed" incarnations who featured in several games. The same applies to New Hyrule: it's backstory can't be listed because it's merged with the the old Hyrule, a predecessor kingdom with a vast and long story of its own to be listed. There are other issues in regards to different entities sharing the same article (Hyrule and New Hyrule) and the same entities having separate articles. (Desert of Doubt and Desert of Mystery). The logic behind the mentioned deserts is a funny one, as the deserts of Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess share an article, yet they don't hold the same name. It's all a little messy and contradictory, if you ask me. Her Grace 14:23, 11 January 2012 (EST)


 * To address the English/Japanese controversy, we stick to our guns with the English and NoA localization titles because that's the language that an obscene majority of our users not only speak, but the language in which the same majority of our readers play in. While it might make sense to merge the Tower of Spirits and the Tower of the Gods, that would cause so much confusion and madness - those who read this wiki would not see the connection, which is only present in a language they do not encounter on a daily basis (and because there blatantly isn't one, given in-game and developer evidence). This does not mean that we wouldn't include a bit about it on the page, it just wouldn't be the three-ring circus. We are also an English wiki, and not to beat a dead horse here, but the English versions of the games are what we specialize in, and have from the get go. Japanese translated material, if there is an official English counterpart, ends up as a trivia bit or a fun fact in the article - we don't base the majority of our information on the Japanese because that simply is not what our readerbase can see and relate to when they are playing the games. In the case of Hyrule Historia and other such examples, where and English version is not present, we, in our quest to provide the most infomation possible, use that until an official English release is sighted.


 * If there is going to be a long article on this wiki, leave it up to the Link and Zelda articles to be those articles. Splitting them up by incarnation would prove more "jumps" and thus a greater difficulty to access the information one is looking for. With accuracy, we also prize navigability - the faster a user can get to the information they need the better - but it also must conform to reasonable bounds and relevance to the article at hand. 14:48, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * Just to clarify: Although I notified the wiki that Tower of Spirits and Tower of the Gods have the same original name, I do not think that they should have a merged article, as they are clearly intended to be separate entities. The actual suggestion I am making is that it is silly to keep things that are canonically the same entity separate just because their name has been translated differently in different games. In my opinion, no entities that are explicitly or obviously disparate should be covered in the same article unless there is overwhelming need to do so -- for example, the entities are a set of closely-related enemy species, reoccuring items with the same purpose and use, or a solidified character archetype like Beedle. I'm actually all for covering the Links or Zeldas on a page, since so much of their character is bound up in them acting like a reincarnation, but I definitely feel that "Young Link"/"Wolf Link"/"Hero's Shade" should have their character info (plot, personality, etc.) merged into the greater Link article...even if stuff like "appearance" or "official merchandise" gets treated as a subarticle. I'm a firm believer in making sure that a character's storyline is all in one place and easy to read through as if it were a biography.
 * In regards to "Young Link"/"Link"/"Hero's Shade" -- that's a crystalline example of where navigability suffers. It makes no sense to split the same entity's story among three different articles, while at the same time merging multiple entity's plots into one article. that's literally taking the worst of both options, rather than the best. For a real-world analogy, consider covering all "Peters" in the world in one book, but making a different book for one of them that legally changed his name. Instead of covering all Peters and all forms of Peters in one book, which makes it easier to find info on a Peter and keeps the individual stories complete, even if the information can get blended, long, and messy, or covering each Peter in a separate book, which keeps the individual stories complete and clearly distinct, even if it requires more work to find each of them, stuff like Desert of Doubt/Mystery or Young Link/Link is neither keeping the stories clearly distinct, complete, or easy to find (since they are now split amongst various articles). If the general attitude is to be mergist, it still makes more sense to be mergist about entities before you get to names.KrytenKoro 15:05, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * First, I want to thank you KrytenKoro for creating this topic, as I was planning on doing so myself XD. I agree with you 100% and I'd just like to expand upon what you've already stated.
 * While I agree that the separation/merging of articles should be taken on a case-by-case basis, common sense also needs to factor into the decision. KrytenKoro mentioned in another discussion that we shouldn't blindly follow policies like robots and that our own logic needs to play a role. And while I know most of you would agree, it's not the vibe I get when reading through different articles on this wiki. A few examples have already been given of the inconsistencies this topic addresses, so I'll go ahead and list those and more:
 * - The Eastern Palace and Eastern Temple are on separate articles, despite sharing the same map locations, same entrance design, and similar themes.
 * - The Desert of Doubt and Desert of Mystery are on separate articles, despite sharing the same map location, a similar dungeon(which I'll mention in a second), and the same name in Japanese
 * - The Desert Temple and Desert Palace are on separate articles, despite sharing the same map locations, same entrance design, same themes, and same Japanese name.
 * - Hyrule and New Hyrule are on the same article, despite being very different land masses, having their own separate histories, and having different regions and races
 * - Eldin Volcano and Death Mountain are on separate articles, even though we all know they're one and the same.
 * - All Forest Temples are in the same article, despite the fact that they're each distinctly different places with the only resemblance being the forest theme.
 * - The Fire Sanctuaries are in the same article, despite being in two completely different kingdoms
 * - The Light Spirits and Dragons are on separate articles, despite the fact that they are both guardians over their respective regions, share the same name, and the Dragons in Skyward Sword are said to have eternal life(stated by Lanayru), implying they'd still be around during the events of Twilight Princess.
 * Now, there's two common mistakes made by these articles. The first is that when two articles are meant to detail the same thing, it's not made clear enough. In fact keeping them on separate articles is a mistake in itself, as it implies their similarities are merely coincidental. The second mistake lies in the phrases used to describe certain locations/characters that are not meant to be the same. I'll give a few examples:
 * - "The Forest Temple is the name of a recurring temple..."
 * - "The Forest Temple returns in Spirit Tracks..."
 * - "The Fire Sanctuary is an area that appears in two Zelda games."
 * - "Hyrule Castle reappears in Spirit Tracks..."
 * These are just a few examples, but in each case it's worded in such a way that implies the locations are one and the same, but they're not. As I stated earlier, each Forest Temple is different. They're not the same location that reappears or returns, they're different dungeons sharing the same name and theme. The Fire Sanctuaries don't appear twice, they're separate locations appearing only once in different games. And Hyrule Castle doesn't reappear in Spirit Tracks, it's an entirely new castle.
 * The reason I bring all this up is to make a point that all aspects need to be considered when deciding whether to merge or separate articles. Don't just consider names, consider common locations, common themes, common English and Japanese names, common qualities, etc. If two things share enough common features that they're so obviously the same thing then merge them. If not, separate them or at the very least, make it crystal clear that they're two distinct locations/characters.
 * And finally, on the subject of Japanese translations...never disregard those. Such translations are as close to canon as you're going to get, and following them has only cleared up inconsistencies in the past, not complicated things as far as I know. I understand that this is an English wiki, but all that means is you need to keep everything in English! Leaving translation errors all over our articles is only going to spread false facts around the internet, which has the opposite effect of what a wiki is meant to do. And let's be honest, the type of people who are going to search this wiki are likely people who want the most accurate information possible, so why would we give them inaccurate information based solely on the fact that we have to follow what NoA says? We shouldn't, because NoA makes mistakes, and there's no harm in addressing those mistakes on a wiki. In fact it's what we should be doing. :) Teekay 15:12, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * Excellent list, Teekay. Now, I have a good idea of the changes the three of you would like to see, and they are all legitimate and backed-up with good evidence. To address this comment:
 * "I understand that this is an English wiki, but all that means is you need to keep everything in English! Leaving translation errors all over our articles is only going to spread false facts around the internet, which has the opposite effect of what a wiki is meant to do."
 * This is actually not how it works! By saying we are an English wiki, we mean that our canon is that of the NoA localization translations and the English games! ZW doesn't disregard Japanese translations by any means, but we do make articles with a priority on the English because that is what our readerbase plays. Japanese translations do add to the content of our articles, but they are usually only embellishment or fun facts, never the main event, unless there is no such English counterpart for some information. I apologize for this misconception - we are not spreading false information as the games' canon is virtually identical between releases, and is officialized by Nintendo either way - it is just that our founder, Jason, established this wiki with the intention of using English canon, and continues to do so to this day. "Mistakes" made by NoA are still considered official by Nintendo, thus, there is in effect no spread of false information - it just depends on the part of the world you are playing the games. To be clear, when I say "we", I mean not just the staff, but everyone that's worked on the wiki in the past. 15:29, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * I just want to bring this up briefly, what about NoE and NoA localisation differences? Primarily in the case of Spirit Tracks, of course. I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere before, but I think some of this is pretty vital information to contain in the main part of the articles as it offers two different, entirely canon English versions. I know this wiki is obviously based in America, but the intention of the wiki is to cater to English speakers, not Americans just for the sake of it. And Americans can understand the English version of Spirit Tracks just fine, as, well, its English, and surely they might be interested to know, for example, that the Forest Temple in Spirit Tracks is actually called the Wooded Temple in the European version and therefore might not actually be the same location as previous dungeons whatsoever (as some people still believe, despite the impossibility of it due to the world flooding). Fizzle 08:59, 16 January 2012 (EST)


 * Just something real quick: any notable mistakes made by the NOA translation team are always noted in our wiki pages, most notably, the Oocca comment (which is in the Trivia section and most recently made its way in the main article by one of our editors), and the Master Sword backstory spoken of in the manual. Even small details like Auru being Zelda's tutor mentioned in the Japanese version are also noted. Dany36 15:35, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * I understand the point you're trying to make, but I still disagree with the idea in general. Looking at any Zelda forum will show that a lot of people, Americans included, follow the Japanese translations. And as I'm sure you know, such translations don't radically change anything, in fact they often clear up the mistakes NoA makes. Everyone knows NoA's translations are meant to be taken as official, I'm not sure I've seen anyone who strictly follows their translations either.
 * Regarding the topic at hand, following Japanese translations would clear up a few of the inconsistencies where articles are separated based solely on their name variations, such as the Desert of Mystery/Desert of Doubt and Desert Palace/Desert Temple. I think it can only benefit wiki users, but if it can't be done then so be it.
 * @Dany36: I understand that, but merely mentioning the Japanese translations as if they're trivia doesn't necessarily solve the problem in my opinion. Teekay 15:44, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * If you really want to be technical, everything released from Japan to English is translated, so yes, everyone follows the translations. :) As I've said before, they do vastly improve the quality and meaning of an article, however, this wiki was built from the ground up for readers that play and understand the English versions of the Zelda games - having the Japanese bits in there as trivia is the best we can afford those expecting to learn about the English versions of the games first and foremost. By not leaving them out and not giving them the centerpiece, we've acheived the best option in which English players can make their own judgments about what they think about the series given their experiences. And that is what wikis are all about. 15:51, 11 January 2012 (EST)


 * About the things that Teekay listed... The first three fall under the sub-discussion that is currently being talked about, so I won't touch that. Same with the Hyrule/New Hyrule since that's currently also being discussed, even going as far as opening a poll in our FB page to see what our readers think. As for Eldin Volcano and Death Mountain, I think that's stretching it a bit too much. Sure both are mountaneous and have volcanoes and lava and whatnot, but we just got scolded for calling the Desert colossus in OoT the "Gerudo Desert" like in TP even though it's never referred to as that in OoT (heck I even just recently took the OoT section out of the Gerudo Desert article for that very reason), so...now you guys just confused me as to what you are looking for! XD As for the Lanayrus and Farons... Yes, they MAY be the one and the same, and if at one point it is confirmed, then of course we'll merge them. For now, though, we are keeping it separate. Speaking of, has anyone seen if they mention them in Hyrule Historia? You know, to see if they are the same. Then that'll be one thing we can agree on. ;]


 * And Cip, I think you just explained it much better than any of us could have. "By not leaving them out and not giving them the centerpiece, we've acheived the best option in which English players can make their own judgments about what they think about the series given their experiences." We have to please both sides, and I think this solution does just that. Dany36 16:12, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * A small quibble on the issue of "relying on English canon" over "merging or splitting pages based on English name" -- that the Oocca created the Hylia is a translation error, but that Shad said it is canon to the English games. That's fine, and it can be made workable by just saying that he translated the ancient texts incorrectly :P.
 * However, that's not quite the same as treating the Eastern Temple and Eastern Palace as if they are different. That's not actually any claim of the canon, and it ends up being purely the zelda wiki's decision to portray them as separate entities. The authors clearly intended them to be the same entity, and the fact that they have different names from ALttP to FSA...doesn't really do anything to change that. Heck, being faithful to the authorial intent while keeping the English names and any posssible canon involved here is as simple as saying "the names changed between the two timelines". It's hardly "disregarding English canon in favor of the Japanese canon" to say "also known as X". I really don't see how it interferes with English canon, at all, to say that "a certain type of being is known as both Y and Z throughout the English games". We used to have Zolas and Zoras, after all.
 * I can see keeping Faron and Lanaryu and Eldin separate, although I think that the implication of the game text is that they simply changed form. That borders on speculation, however, and I honestly prefer separate articles to having "multiple-topic articles" like is done with Fire Temple and that. My main goal, here, is if we must have merged articles, to make sure that we get rid of a lot of the generalized and in-the-end false phrasing, like TeeKay's complaints about how the Hyrule article gives a false impression about "New" Hyrule, or how the Zelda article used to say that all Zeldas are princesses, directly after mentioning that their power comes from SS Zelda. Separate entities should, at the very least, be made very clear that they are separate, while identical entities should be made very clear that they are the same.KrytenKoro 17:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)


 * For the record, the Eastern Palace and Temple articles are going to be merged in the near future. No one is opposing that. 18:18, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * Great! Now what about the Desert of Mystery/Desert of Doubt and Desert Palace/Desert Temple? :p Teekay 10:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * I'm not sure what HK means by "will be merged in the near future", since those articles have yet to be tagged for merge, let alone discussed and approved. Please check Zelda Wiki:Canon Policy on why the articles you're mentioning get different articles despite rabid purists wanting to merge them because they pretend to know more than Nintendo about the matter. -- 10:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * While you are right, K2L, that there needs to be discussion on the suggested merge pages before they are taken care of - I feel that we could simply copy/ paste half of the discussion about it here and then it would mostly suffice. Furthermore, the tone you use when talking of other editors is downright inappropriate, and considering this is a multiple offense coming from you, a long- time editor at that, it's about time we enforce some consequences. For the last word here, the dragons and spirits stay seperate - game implication is not enough to warrant a merge at all, and as said many times before while the names are the same, there is truly no other connection outside the fact that they are all holy forms. I'm making an administrative decision on that one, and considering the several proposed changes we've made so far, I believe we can at least retain this one. Thanks guys. |


 * Woah, wait. Who's saying the Eastern Temple merge wasn't discussed? K2L, you agreed on it yourself. see here 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * I hadn't put the merge template down yet because I was waiting to see if there were any major disagreements, but I was offering to do the manual work. Aside from that, Cipriano, if the Light Spirits and Dragons are kept seperate (as they should be) then surely dungeons that are different locations with the same names should also be as well, correct? That would make sense to me. Fizzle 08:59, 16 January 2012 (EST)

So, language issues aside, was a decision ever reached regarding single articles for groups of clearly different dungeons that share a name? I'm thinking of the following: As the dungeons in these articles are at demonstrably different locations, have demonstrably different structures, and have next to nothing in common beyond the name and (in some cases) an elemental theme, I think we should give each dungeon its own article and make disambiguation pages with the shared names. I'm ready and willing to split each of these into articles for the individual dungeons (with titles in the format "Earth Temple (The Wind Waker)", "Fire Temple (Spirit Tracks)", etc.) if those in charge approve. I'd just like to know what people think first.
 * Earth Temple
 * Forest Temple
 * Fire Temple
 * Fire Sanctuary
 * Turtle Rock

And if you're wondering, no, I'm not suggesting giving individual articles to different appearances of what's clearly intended to be the same place in multiple games, e.g. the Palace of Winds. Cases like that only require one article.--Osteoderm Jacket 00:11, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * It seems as though the wiki has been learning towards "mergism" lately, the main argument being, as you can see, that it makes information more accessible for readers. But sometimes I find some of these merged pages are so complex that they're actually harder to follow. I strongly believe in the importance of simplicity and conciseness in writing.


 * Lately, I'm starting to think that any page that really needs more than one infobox should be split . If a single article has two or more subjects that are distinct enough to each need their own infobox, they're different enough to stand on their own. Honestly, I've always found pages with multiple infoboxes to be awkward; I've never seen it anywhere else.


 * So that would mean splitting articles such as: Forest Temple, Fire Temple, Fire Sanctuary, Earth Temple, Turtle Rock (this one doesn't have two infoboxes but it makes ridiculous use of the exp template in the one), and Hyrule Castle. Yes, I said Hyrule Castle. Having to describe the dungeon aspects of Hyrule Castle in ALTTP and TP makes the article rather weighty. Anything pertaining to the location itself could stay on that page, with a link to a full article detailing the actual dungeon ("Themes and Navigation" and so on).


 * It's a lot of change, but it's something that I think would be beneficial for the wiki. Does anyone agree? 13:21, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * It is silly for a page to have more that one infobox. I agree with HK; these pages should be split, and a disambig made in their place. In the case of Hyrule Castle, the main article should stay with links to the dungeon portions. 13:53, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * OK, I'll begin splitting the dungeon pages. I think I'll leave the Hyrule Castle article to a more talented editor than myself, though.--Osteoderm Jacket 16:19, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * Woah woah, wait, hold on a sec. We should wait to see what other people say first. As far as I can tell we haven't reached any kind of consensus yet :P 16:21, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * Got it. I'll wait.--Osteoderm Jacket 16:24, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * I'll take care of Hyrule Castle. With that said, I have given my opinion on the matter. :P But yeah, we should wait and see what other people think. Let's not be hasty! Oh, and one more thing: someone (or some people :P) is gonna have to go through and fix all the disambiguations that these splits are going to create. For example, we might have an article that says " The Bow in Ocarina of Time is obtained in the Forest Temple ". However, with these splits, it would be bad, because then Forest Temple redirects to a disambiguation, which should generally never be linked to in articles. So, that would have to be " The Bow in Ocarina of Time is obtained in the Forest Temple ". Just a reminder. :P --Dany36 16:42, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * I'm happy with splitting those articles...and that's all I really have to say on the matter :) Teekay 19:14, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * Split the hell out of them, its the sort of thing that bugged me before I even joined the wiki! Three different Forest Temples on one page? Its pointless to keep them the same as you've essentially got three entirely different sets of information. To be honest it won't even be that hard to split them since they all have their own infoboxes, it just means a lot of redirects will need to be fixed, as Teekay says. I definitely do not think this is the same as the FSA dungeons, which clearly are designed in a way to directly evoke their ALttP counterparts in almost every manner, be it from location to appearance to enemies and traps. Fizzle 08:59, 16 January 2012 (EST)


 * So...how much more time should I give people to voice an objection to this? I've never made a suggestion this large-scale before, so I don't know what's considered appropriate.  As yet no one seems to disagree with me.  Anyway, I'm quite happy to take on the task of splitting the articles and prowling around the wiki fixing links whenever I'm given the go-ahead.--Osteoderm Jacket 19:25, 16 January 2012 (EST)


 * I'll remind some folks at the Skype chat to check this out. I'd say give it one more day...this is a pretty big change in the wiki policy! ;) No one has really opposed it so far, so... However, glad to know you're willing to help out with the disambig links and whatnot! --Dany36 00:41, 17 January 2012 (EST)
 * Just a quick'n: It might be simpler to use established acronyms as your parsers, rather than the full game names.KrytenKoro 01:35, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * Maybe I'm just being dumb, but what do you mean by that? What are parsers in this context?  Also, it looks like nobody's given any objection to this and many people agree it should be done, so unless there's something else I should wait for I'll begin splitting the articles within the next 24 hours.--Osteoderm Jacket 03:52, 18 January 2012 (EST)


 * For example, "Forest Temple (OoT)" instead of "Forest Temple (Ocarina of Time)". The function of the parsers is solely as a pagetitle to organize the information on the page, rather than an imparter of information in and of itself, so there's no need to make it any longer than can be reliably memorized.KrytenKoro 10:26, 18 January 2012 (EST)


 * Err...I don't really like the look of that. It seems unprofessional and lazy for us to go with (OoT) instead of (Ocarina of Time). Otherwise we'd use the acronyms everywhere instead of the full titles, so I can't say I agree with that. --Dany36 11:23, 18 January 2012 (EST)


 * It also seems inconsistent. I can't think of anywhere else in the wiki with page titles that look like that.--Osteoderm Jacket 11:27, 18 January 2012 (EST)

New splitting/merging policy
Piggybacking on the previous subject seen above, I'd like to officially propose the implementation of a new merging/splitting policy at the wiki:

''Infoboxes should be limited to one per page. Any article that has two or more subjects sufficiently distinct as to each need their own infobox are sufficiently distinct to each have their own page. Therefore, any article that applies this principle should be split. Alternatively, no page should be merged if the two or more subjects in question each need their own infobox.''

When I say "need", I really mean "need", so this excludes pages like Dinolfos and Turtle Rock. The former has two infoboxes when it could easily have one, and the latter has one but really should have two (really, the overuse of the Exp template there is ridiculous). Pages this policy would affect are, and please add to this list if you find any more:


 * Earth Temple
 * Forest Temple
 * Fire Sanctuary
 * Turtle Rock
 * Fire Temple
 * Temple of Ice
 * Hyrule Castle (have separate articles for the dungeons, but still mention them on the main article, with a link to the main article detailing the dungeon itself)
 * Temple of Time (same as before)

I strongly believe this is a simple and valid method of judging the splitting/merging of certain articles and help settle many merge/split discussions. Plus, multiple infoboxes looks silly anyhow (I'm not the only one who thinks so!). There will still be many splits and merges that will need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. However, this policy would nip many mergist/splittist arguments in the bud, which are often repetitive and unproductive anyhow.

In the previous conversation, Abdullah, Dany, Osteoderm Jacket, Teekay, and Fizzle have all shown their support for this proposal. If anyone is against it, please say so. 20:44, 17 January 2012 (EST)


 * I call dibs on Hyrule Castle (seeing as it doesn't involve fixing disambiguation links hohoho) :] But um...are we doing this now or what? --Dany36 23:51, 17 January 2012 (EST)
 * I like the bit about one infobox per page, but I do not agree with separating certain articles for the fact that one is a dungeon and another is not. I like have the Temple of Time in one article. The one in TP has more in common with the one in OoT, yet it seems you are saying the one in SS will alone share the same page as that in OoT, despite being very different, just because the TP one is a dungeon. Explain to me why it has to be this way because I do not see the logic. If, in the future, we have a Forest Temple or Fire Temple that are not really dungeons, do those get their own pages, too? Noble Wrot 15:43, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * My mistake, perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I'm not saying that we completely remove TP from the main article, I'm just saying the information detailing the actual dungeon elements ("Themes and Navigation", for example), which currently make the article somewhat cluttered, should have a full page on it's own like any other dungeon page. Anything else would stay on the Temple of Time page, with a link to the dungeon article. 16:43, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * I'm with Cipriano. Are we doing this? Are we making this happen?--Osteoderm Jacket 17:03, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * Um, guys? Have we reached a decision on the dungeon pages? I'd like to get going as soon as possible if we have.--Osteoderm Jacket 21:59, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * I understood you clearly, HK, and you already know my ideas on the matter that we discussed on Skype. I think I would like to discuss more matters behind the scenes before I throw them out here. There are too many unresolved issues at the moment. Noble Wrot 00:02, 19 January 2012 (EST)


 * I'm going to jump in here randomly and voice my support. Pages like the Temple of Time article really bug me; its existence as a site of religious significance, pivotal story point, and historically constant location and its existence as a dungeon should really be covered in two places. So. That's +1, if you needed another. 02:03, 19 January 2012 (EST)


 * I'm not personally huge on diversifying pages for no reason, although if it's to prevent megaliths of confusion, then I say go for it. There should be some easily applied way to connect the two pages, though. Perhaps this is where disambiguation comes in? Each page would have to clearly state its purpose and that if you are seeking the other, clear directions are given. If that will be the case, then how could I not be in favor of this? --Xizor 08:39, 25 January 2012 (EST)


 * Out of curiosity, what happens to Heart Container/Piece of Heart? Should it also be split if this passes? 18:24, 26 January 2012 (EST)


 * I think we have to use commmon sense, as K2L would say. In that case, Heart Container and Piece of Heart compliment one another and it would be quite silly to split them off. The rule HK mentioned might be the new policy, but there are always exceptions. :P That's my take on it, anyway. --Dany36 19:09, 26 January 2012 (EST)


 * Indeed, there are exceptions to every rule. I'm sure we could find a way to cram everything into one infobox. ;) 20:31, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Timeline names
Ok so...with the reveal of the third split in the timeline, I've seen several names around here for it: "Downfall", "Defeat", and "Decline" timeline. I think it's time we decide a name for it to use around the wiki, and maybe a name for the Pre-split timeline (I saw Her Grace use "Unified" timeline, which sounds good enough). Personally, "Decline" and "Unified" sound good. So...yeah, what do you guys think? --Dany36 13:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)


 * Seconded. What do most people on Zelda forums use? 14:06, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * I'm fairly certain "Decline Timeline" is the most common. And I agree with "Unified" for the pre-split eras. Teekay 15:05, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * Are either of these terms official in any manner? Do the other two timelines have names of any sort? I have Hyrule Historia but can't translate very well, especially not by eye. Fizzle 12:55, 16 January 2012 (EST)
 * I think Decline is referenced in a section from the book. We should add it there, anyways. It also uses "The Hero's Defeat" as the name for the timeline. --Zelda Fan 123 13:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
 * If it has a specific name for any of the timelines, we should use that, or a shortened version thereof. Can you point to particular pages for me to check myself? Fizzle 15:00, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Should character and event info boxes have a section for the era they reside in?
In my personal opinion, to give articles of characters and events an new bit of simple detail would to be add "Era" to the info box, a little section where one can list the era (such as Force Era, or Era of the Hero of Time) individual characters come from and events take place in. It would better help place the games chronologically and detail such info in every article. Just as the info box lists a gender and list of games a character appears in, listing the era of history they live in would be nice touch of information about them to better help understand the history of Hyrule. The mentioned era, of course, would link to the Zelda Timeline page where details of that era and when it occurs chronologically is listed. A good example would be Gaepora, whose info box would list him as living in the Sky Era. I think this is very useful information, further spreading knowledge of the series' chronology and basic information that should be given for each character an event. It reveals a little more about them and their stance in the world of Zelda and its long history. What are your thoughts and opinions on adding an "Era" part to the info box? Her Grace 18:37, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * I'll support it, I see no reason why not to. We would just need to gather a list of the different era names and figure out which games go where. Teekay 19:01, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * That's a great idea. I fully support it and is a rather neat, informational touch to have on the wiki. :) Dany36 18:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * One possible issue with this is that many, many characters in this series have incarnations in multiple eras, e.g. Malon, Talon, Tingle, Beedle, Twinrova, and Syrup. We'd have to keep that in mind.--Osteoderm Jacket 05:18, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * We could cover that with the template. For example, for Malon, in her Era part of the infobox, we could put:
 *  |Era=The Force Era The Era of the Hero of Time The Era of Light and Dark The Shadow Era 
 * ...maybe :P Is it too redundant? That was the first thing that came to mind... --Dany36 13:24, 18 January 2012 (EST)
 * This sounds like a great, ingenious idea! :) I love it. The concerns that Osteoderm raises are legitimate though, but I feel that there are relatively few characters that span many eras - there are likely only around 10-15, compared to the hundreds of unique characters. We could easily make some sort of dropbox or something like that to condense the eras if there are too many in the above cases. Excellent idea, Her Grace. :) 21:58, 27 January 2012 (EST)
 * I don't think it's necessary. The developers think about characters game-by-game, and if a character fits the style or role they want, they use them. Grouping them by era would thus feel awkward. Besides, we already have them listed by game, so whoever wants to know their era can quickly look it up. 05:39, 30 January 2012 (EST)