User talk:K2L3798@legacy41960118

Sidequests page
I'm not sure if you are doing a lot more to it or not so I figure to check with you before making radical changes to the page. I'd hate to interrupt someone's work :p Anyway I was thinking to break the page up into sections. Not sectioned by game but more like sectioned by Sidequest and show how it has evolved over the series. for instance: == Heart Containers ==

MiniGames
etc. Moreover, you wrote that the 2D games follow LttP, OoX included a Trading Sequence and deviated little from LA, in my opinion. But TMC seems a little more like LttP meeting TWW, in no Trading Sequence, but another long Collection Quest. 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, thanks. It's good to see that there is people who remember that this article exists. Actually, I found this article by accident, and it was sad to see that such a prominent theme linked to the series (sidequests, loved by completionists and hated by those who only want to clear a game) was not properly covered in the article. How about dividing the article into these sections: Types (the list you added, there could be the Minigames section you propose, and a NPC Interaction section too), Hystory (the sidequests' evolution as new games were launched; it can also explain with more detail the "Container vs. Heart Piece" relationship), and Trivia (if there is a side note worth mentioning). By the way, I haven't played TMC, so I was unaware of Wind Waker's influence. Sorry. --K2L 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch with the Ilia's Memory article: I moved it to something more suitable here, by request. =) 06:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow!
I'm incredibly IMPRESSED by your newest article! Seriously, it's a great addition to the wiki and it's very well-written! (Now all it needs is a couple of pictures and it'll be good to go. :D) And I should have mentioned this a long time ago, but the revamp you made to the Dungeon article was also incredible. You have a great writing style, so keep up the GREAT work, and we hope that we continue to see more of your fantastic contributions! :) Dany36 04:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this notion. Keep that up and you'll have a VERY bright future here! 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I third this! You sound like you'd be a great candidate to write Wiki Exclusives for ZW.org - have you ever heard of them? They are opinion based explorations into the Zelda universe, i.e. theories, ideas, etc. And there are quite a few on here, the newest one is by a user named Midnafan321 and it's called Zelda Weapons in the Middle Ages. Hit me or any of the admins up if you are interested! Happy editing! 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love your technology article, especially after hearing people say trains are too high-tech for Zelda. This will show them... Noble Wrot 05:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever hear of Skype? Take a look here for details. We use Skype here at Zelda Wiki.org to discuss articles, communicate with each other, and generally have a good time :)
 * It's free and it offers a great means of communication. You should consider it, kay? 05:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I get stopped by a third edit conflict, I wish to give some positive feedback to K2L. Anyways, you're a very skilled editor and I can see a promotion comming up in the future if you continue.  You're the kind of editor we need on Zelda Wiki.org so... don't leave.  (Really, don't... you will make us sad.) Edit on! [Not] 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, although I was just doing my job :). It's good to contribute on a wiki dedicated to one of my favorite franchises (even if I have to sacrifice the watching of my favorite show in favor of saving a totally screwed article from being deleted). As for the Tech article, can somebody add sections regarding Spirit Tracks and any other game possibly related to the topic? I haven't played ST yet, so I am unaware of how the train plays its role in the game. One more thing: I don't know if it's just me, but after a checking, I noticed that the article doesn't appear in the Misc category despite its addition on the article. I'll check again after writing this. --K2L 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Weird, now it does appear in the category. It's probably my imagination, so I should rest already (it's 3 am here in Venezuela). --K2L 07:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)