Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center

Enemy pages that need to be moved/merged/split
Ok, so thanks to Fizzle, we have come to the realization that...a lot of pages need to be moved/merged/split either because:


 * 1) the enemies mentioned don't have official English names (that we are using because fansites such as ZD use them)
 * 2) the enemies that are currently in one page are actually different (such as Zazakku in the Daira article)
 * 3) two enemies that seem to be different are actually the same (Whisp is the only one I've seen so far)

And because all of these suggestions are mostly scattered about in different talk pages, Pakkun has done the job for us and gathered all of the ones that need to be moved/merged/split. Easier to keep up with it that way:


 * Merge Cyclops Fish with River Zora or move to Ku (to be determined).
 * Split Hoba or Hover from Water Tektite.
 * Split Hokkubokku from Geldarm.
 * Split Zazakku from Daira.
 * Split Aneru from Rope.
 * Move Lizard to Bazu or Buzz.
 * Move Reaper to Hyu.
 * Move Aqua Beetle to Pirogusu.
 * Move Rhinobird to Kyune.
 * Move Rabbit Fang to Toppo.
 * Move Eye Keese to Chasupa.
 * Move Sentry Eye to Laser Eye.
 * Move Kodongo to Kodondo.
 * Move Cloud to Gibo.
 * Move Tinsuit to Wosu.
 * Merge Whisp with Bubble.
 * Merge Nuranuru with Sluggula.
 * Move Thieves to Thief and move Thief to THIEF (Link) or merge with Link

'''Any other suggestions should be added to this section to keep better track of them. :D'''

I agree to moving/splitting most, if not all, of them. Although for merging and such, I'd have to give it a closer look. Dany36 16:10, 16 October 2011 (EDT)


 * With the exception of that last bullet, we've discussed AT LENGTH the renaming of these enemies. It's time to take action. I think renaming Cyclops Fish to Ku would be a better move. I also prefer Hover over Hoba and Buzz over Bazu, personally, but if people really want the opposite it doesn't really matter to me.
 * I recently gained the ability to move pages, but the only thing stopping me from moving some is the spelling of the page, whether we should use full romanisation with accented lettering (as Pakkun suggested), assumed names (like Slarok) or somewhere inbetween. However, some of them don't even require that much thinking, I recently updated the Eye Keese page and if people are happy I will go and move it to Chasupa right now as it requires no further discussion really. Fizzle 21:03, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Okay, I went ahead and moved Eye Keese to Chasupa. However, its beyond sleep time over here so not much else I can do right this second, so if people wanted to get started, the ones that require pretty much no adjustments are Kodongo to Kodondo, Rabbit Rang to Toppo and Sentry Eye to Laser Eye. As for the others, if you decide to go with assumed names like Slarok, may I suggest Zazak instead of Zazakku, as I'm fairly sure the ku at the end is mostly silent (like with Okutarokku), and Hok Bok or Hokbok (or Hok-Bok) for Hokkubokku, for similar reasons. Fizzle 21:38, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
 * The difference between an enemy like Slarok or Deadrock and the rest is that their names clearly use English loan words (well, Slarok doesn't use any words per se, but still...), so their names mean something when directly translated to English. Names like "Slarok" and "Deadrock" make perfect sense and have meaning, whereas names like "Zazak" and "Hok Bok"... well... don't. It's a tough call, though...
 * Like Pakkun, I don't care much for double-lettering, but I'm not sure using accented characters for page titles is a great idea either. I say we name them how they're named in the list above (simple lettering without the accented characters). 08:13, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Except that arguably, Deadrock should be Deadrok, as rokku is always translated as rok or roc in other enemy names, and I think the name was meant to tie in with Octorok and Slarok (the enemy moves in a very similar manner, although it doesn't spit rocks obviously). I personally really think if we don't use accented names, we should go with Zazak and Hok Bok. If you want my evidence that the is mostly silent, put ザーザック (Zazakku) and ホックボック (Hokkubokku) into Google Translate and listen to the Japanese voice say them and compare with デッドロック (Deddorokku). Note that all these names end on ック (kku) too. So my suggestions are to go with Zazak, Hok Bok, Buzz, and Hova (happy medium between Hoba and Hover). Those names are what I personally would think Nintendo would of translated them as, and if we want to keep Slarok and Deadrock as they are, I would think thats a suitable way of doing things. We would still obviously mention alternate spellings on the pages anyway. Thats my thoughts anyway, let me know what you guys think. I've just moved Kodondo so I'll strike that one off the list. Fizzle 09:23, 17 October 2011 (EDT)


 * All the enemies here that are currently named after their Japanese name keep the original Romaji, without accented characters or double lettering (examples include Guma, Ra, Myu, and Nuranuru). Names are not translated to English UNLESS it's really obvious and these names have meaning in English (Stal, Slime, and, of course, Slarok and Deadrock). Honestly, I don't see why that system has to change. I still stand by the names "Hover", "Buzz", "Zazakku", and "Hokkubokku". And renaming Gaeru to "Geru".
 * In principle, using accented characters in the titles might be a good idea. However, I asked some of the other staff about it and learned that even simple ampersands (&) and apostrophes can mess up internal wiki functions, so that's a no go. We can use them within the article itself, but beyond that... 17:48, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Fair enough, seems good to me, thats what I assumed would be the case but I didn't want to go ahead and do all this and make mistakes. HOWEVER, I'm going to have to really fight with you on Zazak/Zazakku and Hokbok/Hokkubokku. I really think those kus are unnecessary. Hover I'll go with though though, because Hover Boots have the exact same spelling in Japanese. Buzz also sounds good to me, and I'll rename the Gaeru page I created as soon as possible. I just don't see any precedent for keeping those unnecessary kus, whenever any similar name is translated on the wiki they tend to get dropped. Even stuff like Magic Cape is "Majikku Manto", or Fire Rod is "Faia Roddo". I've not see any instance where the kus are actually intended to be pronounced. Its just the way things are written in Japanese, and this is still true for "nonsense" names, such as Hinox as "Hinokkusu", or Tartnuc (the official translation for Darknut in the Japanese manual) and "Tātonakku". Fizzle 18:08, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Funny, just as you posted this I was writing about how I changed my mind about Hokbok and Zazak. It definitely looks better than "Hokkubokku" and "Zazakku". I thought Stal, Slime, Slarok and Deadrock were different than Hokbok and Zazak, but they aren't really. I over-thought that one a little bit. Sorry for wasting for time. 18:39, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I should probably give my input on this before it's too late. On the "rokku" issue, double-consonants indicate a pause in the word. With the inclusion of ッ before consonants in Japanese, it becomes harsher. The best I can describe it is sounding out the word, and then taking an abrupt pause before the next letter. Or, sometimes you pronounce the consonant twice, but only the vowel once, the second time. Take Pocket Monsters, for example. If I recall correctly, it usually comes out sounding like "poket-to monsta".
 * Deadrock and Deadro(c/k) are tricky because there's no phonetic difference. Honestly, either is "accurate", I'm not for assumed names unless it's painfully obvious that it's an English word, like ホーバー being "hover".
 * Now, regarding the silent "u" issue... I meant that rarely would the u in "ku" would be silent. It's commonplace in "su", but only a few times have I heard the u in ku silent when dealing with Japanese media. You might have to consult someone else, but it wouldn't happen so frequently that all relevant enemies fall subject to it, usually only when it is a direct English word. Neither Zazakku and Hokkubokku are English and are just jibberish from what I can tell, and they differ from Deadrock and because both are based on English words. That's just my observation, anyway.  20:41, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I trust your knowledge on this, but I have been hunting and really I haven't managed to find an example where the extra "ku" was kept in the English pronounciation. The only example I have found was Iron Knuckle, which, to be honest, was a heavily assumed name and I don't think "knuckle" was originally the intended name at all, hence why Tartnuc just became Darknut despite them both being spelt the same way. We could always move them afterwards if we can find evidence that the ku is meant to be there, or if we just change our minds about how to do it, I just figure that we should follow the route of the other names and just avoid unnecessary lettering for now, if thats the plan. I think the point is by placing the extra emphasis on the K, the u becomes unnecessary, at least thats what it seems like to me. Maybe we should go steal a fluent Japanese speaker from the Fire Emblem wiki sometime?
 * Though, now I'm thinking on it, should Aqua Beetle be moved to Pirogus instead of Pirogusu as well if U in su is commonly silent? Less of an issue since its just one letter, but I just realised that falls under the same rule. Anyway, I'll continue by moving some of the less controversial ones first. Fizzle 05:48, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Actually, what I meant was that we don't mess with the names or try to localize it in any way unless it's based on a loanword. Personally, I feel that trying to localize it just makes it another case of fan-naming, which is what sparked this whole debate. Honestly, I'd prefer if we kept true to and retain accuracy with the Japanese names and not name articles for how they sound.
 * Anyway, I don't think you should be looking for any "English pronunciation" when dealing with their Japanese names. Unless you're talking about the romaji, in which case, I'm gonna say it's a highly subjective matter whether or not to pronounce the u in ku. Google's far from perfect (especially its translation features), so I'd take everything with a grain of salt.
 * Fire Emblem wiki is down, I think, so I'll just ask somebody else about it. 06:50, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
 * As a follow-up, one of my sources (a Japanese speaker), says it's "not exactly silent, but it is much less stressed". I was probably mistaken in ever bringing it up because in the instance I based it off of, the guy was talking hastily, so the "u" in "ku" never falls completely silent. 07:58, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I would normally agree with you, but since people seem pretty attached to names like Slarok as opposed to Surarokku, I figured we should at least be consistent for now. I would rather have all of the names being "semi-localised" like Slarok, Zazak etc. than have half of them like that and half of them not. Personally I would be fine with Zazakku if Slarok was moved to Surarokku, but I doubt people would be happy with that. Fizzle 10:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I understand your point, but I think at this point, the issue isn't conforming to convention, it's about retaining accuracy. I think we should put forth the effort to challenge the "previous standard" and keep it as accurate as possible, even if it means renaming the other articles. 19:29, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
 * In that case, we need to get Hylian King and other people's opinions on it. Like I say, I'm happy to go with Zazakku if the older articles are renamed along with it. I've already moved Bazu to Buzz though, and I kind of just want to get the articles into correct names (and correct info) even if not the correct spelling of said names right now. For too long they've been sitting on fan names, even though the original names have been known for years and years in the fandom for those who actually want to know them. Personally I've never used the fan names the wiki has been using. Then again, I'm a bit of an ALttP specialist, but still. I kind of feel like this might be a wiki policy issue however, and I'm well aware that the wiki has an American bias (seeing the US Spirit Tracks names everywhere is still utterly confusing for me, as someone who lives in England). Fizzle 07:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)


 * I'd really rather not move Slarok. It's clearly meant to be a variation of the Octorok and the name allows us to compare the two. "Octorok and Slarok" sounds much better than "Octorok and Slarokku", wouldn't you say? The same could also apply to Zazakku and Hokkubokku, but there's no other enemy with a similar name so it's not really the same.
 * In any case, both of you make good points. If we really can't come to an agreement, perhaps we should consider passing to a vote. This discussion has gone on for far too long. 15:52, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Maybe, although I kind of get the feeling we're the only people really that invested in the intricacies of this right now, haha. Though, if we go by the logic you just suggested, I'd say "Daira and Zazak" sounds better than "Daira and Zazakku" to my ears. Anyway, we've been making good progress I think. May I also one more to the list? Crab needs to be moved to Sand Crab, with either the Crab section being split or being the "less dominant" subsection. Sand Crab is a specific enemy that is a giant crab that has appeared in a number of the 2D games with relatively no differences (and is even named as a Sand Crab in the game itself) while the Crab is merely a regular old crab in TWW that is entirely harmless and entirely different (and extremely tiny). Thoughts on that? Its a minor one compared to the rest but my OCDish nature is bugging me about it. Fizzle 20:45, 23 October 2011 (EDT)


 * You don't have to excuse yourself. As I've said before, we do appreciate what you're doing. Thanks to you, we're probably one of the few people out there (if not the only people) that get all these names right, and that's something to be proud of.
 * There's no relation between the names Daira and Zazakku, so that logic does not apply. Anyways, we could go on talking about this forever and not get anything done. At this point, it's about difference of opinion and the only way to solve it is with a vote.
 * Everyone's fine with the splitting of Crab and Sand Crab. By the way, I would suggest that you mention the merging/splitting of pages that are not about ALTTP enemies on their respective talk pages instead of here, since this conversation was meant specifically for that purpose. It's also better for organizational purposes. Also this section is getting ridiculously long :P 22:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Summary
OK, for those who don't feel like reading that massive wall of text, here's a short summary. Basically, it's all come down to two enemies: and, which need to be split from the Daira and Geldarm pages, respectively. There is some debate as to how we should name them:


 * Fizzle thinks we should simplify these names as "Zazak" and "Hokbok", since we already did that for Slarok. If we decide use the names "Zazakku" and "Hokkubokku", Fizzle thinks we should rename Slarok to "Surarokku". Fizzle stresses the importance of consistency. If we're going to localize names like we did for Slarok, he thinks we should do it for all of them or none at all.
 * Pakkun, on the other hand, stresses the importance of keeping the Japanese names as it is the only way we can remain 100% accurate. If we try to localize the names on our own, the names we choose (Zazak and Hokbok) might not be entirely accurate. He argues that using these names would be another case of fan-naming, which is what we've been trying to get rid of all along. For him, it's Japanese names or nothing (with the exception of names already based on English words).
 * I could go either way for these two names, but I'm wholeheartedly against moving Slarok. "Surarokku" is clearly a romanization of "Slarok", which is a reference to the similar enemy, "Octorok". I agree that we should use Japanese names, but we can make an exception of Slarok.

The way the wiki currently stands, we always use Japanese names in the absence of English ones. The only time we localize the names ourselves is if the Japanese name is an English loanword (like this enemy, for example). To my knowledge, the only exception to this policy has been Slarok. Basically, this discussion has been about whether or not we should change this policy and how. It all boils down to these four options:


 * 1) Name the two enemies "Hokkubokku" and "Zazakku" and keep everything else as is.
 * 2) Name the enemies "Hokbok" and "Zazak" and keep everything else as is.
 * 3) Name the enemies "Hokkubokku" and "Zazakku" and move Slarok to "Surarokku".
 * 4) Name the enemies "Hokbok" and "Zazak", keep Slarok, and move every Japanese-named enemy to an English equivalent of our creation.

If people could please voice their support for one of these four options we can get this over with and put it all behind us. 19:43, 2 November 2011 (EDT)


 * I vote for Option #1. I won't get into much detail, since this seems to be a voting section, but we can do the following to ease everyone's concerns.
 * Create a page called "Hokbok" and redirect it to "Hokkubokku"
 * Introduce the article by saying "Hokkubokku (possibly romanized as Hokbok) is..."
 * Do the same for Zazakku, Girubokku, Fokkeru, etc if there is a similar conflict
 * The whole point of this discussion is to avoid fan-made names. However, I think this suggestion can make the enemy names more memorable or "better looking" for those that don't care for the original JP name. 04:30, 3 November 2011 (EDT)


 * I second that. 07:25, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
 * I should mention that Slarok is not the only example, there's also Deddorokku, which is assumed to be Deadrock, although given naming conventions, it could also be Deadrok, or even Dedrok. We've already assumed Deadrock, just like we assumed Slarok. I guess my point originally was that since we cut out the extra "ku" on the end of these names, might as well do it for these other ones as well, even if the names are "nonsense" names. Even the Japanese romanisation of Tartnakku (Darknut), a complete nonsense name, was listed as Tartnuc in the Japanese manual for the game itself.
 * However, given that we already have Girobokku, and I went with Pirogusu instead of Pirogus, I don't really mind too much what we settle on as long as they're listed under correct names. However, if we use adjusted romanisation either in the article or in the name, may I suggest Hok Bok as the romanisation rather than Hokbok, as in the naming convention for Like Like. Looks better to me.
 * I quite like Abdullah's suggestion, and I'm fine to go with that, but I think Deddorokku is a bigger issue than Slarok. I'm fine with Slarok as I'm 99% sure thats what they intended it to be, Deadrock is an issue of spelling however. I think alt spellings need to be mentioned on the page, at least.
 * Minor small point, but when I was uploading new images for these enemies, I was unable to change the filenames for some of the enemies when uploading new versions, is an admin able to do that? Fizzle 19:01, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
 * Then we'll switch back Deadrock. Also, yes, an admin can rename files. What files do you want to rename, and what do you want to change them to? 02:57, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 * The main offending files are [[File:Lizard_ALttP.png]] should be Bazu or Buzz rather than Lizard, [[File:EyeKeese_ALttP.png]] should be Chasupa, [[File:Cloud_ALttP.png]] should be Gibo, [[File:Reaper_ALttP.png]] should be Hyu, [[File:CyclopsFish_ALttP.png]] should be Ku, [[File:Rhinobird_ALttP.png]] should be Kyune, [[File:Rabbit_ALttP.png]] should be Toppo, [[File:DairaBlue_ALttP.png]] should be BlueZazakku, and [[File:Geldarm_ALttP.png]] should be Hokkubokku. If they're easy fixes, renaming [[File:Kodongo_ALttP.png]] to Kodondo and [[File:Pickit_ALttP.png]] to Pikit would be nice, but they're minor spelling things. Thank you though! The enemy pages are getting really nicely organised now. Fizzle 07:30, 4 November 2011 (EDT)


 * Done. Can someone volunteer to create Hokkubokku, Zazakku and Deddorokku, among others? 14:55, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 * No need, now that we've decided on names, I'll get right on it. Thanks very much! Fizzle 16:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I am in need of serious help
I know how to edit but nothing else. I'm lucky I found out how to type this. I'm new so can someone tell me how to vote, set up my personal page, edit pictures, and things like that? --18:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)Person777 18:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)


 * Well, that's a lot of stuff. First off, I'd recommend looking through the Help Guide. However, I will address each point:


 * To vote for a Featured Article or Featured Picture, click on the edit button beside the nomination you want to vote for. Next, add your vote beneath the template like this:
 * # I vote for this article/picture because... ~


 * To make a personal page, click on this link and create your page. You can add anything you want to it, as long as it isn't offensive. If you need inspiration, you can look at what other users and staff have on their pages.
 * "Editing pictures" is a really broad topic, so you have to be more specific. Do you want to upload new files or update an existing file? Or do you want to learn about the process of creating and modifying the image? If it's the second question, what exactly do you want to know? Would you like to know what programs to use, how to make images transparent, how to make a picture brighter, etc?
 * If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to reply. I'd be happy to help. 18:54, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for answering my question. That was very helpful. I check the help guide for pictures, I don't really know what I'm looking for!:) --17:18, 21 October 2011 (EDT)Person777 17:18, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

Theres a no plus mark in the heart container
Help! there is no "Plus" Mark in the heart container page,i want to add question. how to do it?


 * Thanks for pointing that out! It has been fixed. 10:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Sprite sizes?
I've been recently uploading new static PNG versions of the ALttP enemy sprites, along with a number of FSA sprites. I've been creating them at a x2 scale, so each pixel is twice the size, but when checking the galleries like Gallery:Enemies in The Legend of Zelda and the Game Boy games I've noticed these sprites are in a x3 scale. Rather than rush on and finish uploading loads of x2 sprites only to find out that x3 is preferred, I thought I better ask before I go about finishing. It would be relatively easy to go back and upload x3 versions, but I just wanted to be sure. Are they x3 because they are 8-bit and are small, or because x3 simply looks better when resized in thumbnails for all sprites? Some sprites in ALttP are just as small as those in TLoZ, despite being 16-bit (and some are even smaller, like the Bee sprite) and still look blurry in thumbnails even at x2 scale. On the other hand, some sprites are huge, like the bosses. But larger images do scale up or down better in general and are usually more "future proof". Anyway, if x3 is preferred, I can easily change the ones I've done so far and continue in that scale, if people prefer x2 for ALttP and FSA I'll stick with that. Fizzle 11:36, 30 October 2011 (EDT)


 * As you can see, there is currently no written policy regarding sprites. Given the wide variety of sprite sizes already on the wiki, trying to standardize them would be a nightmare and would hardly be worthwhile. Just do what you think is best; I strongly doubt anyone will criticize you for it.
 * Personally, I try to upload the original size whenever possible. If visibility is a problem, I use a x2 version instead. Different people will tell you different things about how to upload sprites. However, like I said before, how you want to do it is really up to you.
 * I remember Abdullah once suggested to me that I start by uploading the sprite at its original size, then upload the enlarged sprite as a newer version of that file. That way the original sprite is always there just in case. Just a thought. 12:12, 30 October 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree with Hylian King. I recommend to always upload the original sprite, then upload a larger version if visibility is an issue. 13:31, 30 October 2011 (EDT)


 * Alright, cool. I'm replacing sprites that are at x1 scale for the most part anyway. The ones I'm uploading have fixed colors and things, but the old ones are still there. I'll carry on with how I'm doing it now, would be easy enough for anyone to make x3 versions later (or x1 versions even) if needed as they scale up or down in editing software fine if you chose the right setting. While there is a wide variety of sizes on the wiki though, most of them from TLoZ, LA and the Oracles seem to be in a x3 scale except for small or animated .gifs, which are usually x1 scale, while most of those from Zelda II are in x2 scale. ALttP ones were in x1 scale but now I'm replacing them they'll be in x2 scale, and the FSA ones will be as well. I guess I'm saying that if they're not standardised, I can standardise them to x3 if needed. Anyway, I'll carry on as is for now, x2 is happy medium for these ones I think. Fizzle 19:45, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Dungeon Themes
I think that there should be some changes for what dungeon themes there are. The Desert and Earth elements should become one because they are basically the same thing, the element of Earth. Desert is sand themed, and Earth is stone themed, but they are still Earth based. I think that the element of Metal should be added because it would cover all metallic and mechanical dungeons such as Great Bay Temple. Although Electricity can be aligned with Metal, it doesn't fit well with Great Bay Temple. This one isn't that big of a deal, but the element of Poison could be added and it would cover for all dungeons that have poisonous aspects, unless you count Forest to be in the Poison zone. Lahmaster 3:10, 7 November 2011 (AEST)
 * I think desert and earth should remain separate for the same reason ice and water should. While they're essentially the same thing, they have distict themes to them. Though maybe it would make more sense to rename "desert" as sand... Also, why don't we have spirit? A lot of the shadow dungeons could fit that category, and spirit has been established as an element in Zelda ever since we got the Spirit Temple from Oot. Mata Nui 00:24, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 * I think you guys are taking this too seriously, let me give you some advice on this. Earth and sand are not the same thing. There are aspects of one type that aren't present in the other. Turtle Rock, a prolongued cavern with pitfalls and dark rooms, and Mutoh's Temple, a royal pyramid with obstacles like rocks, arrow shooters and (again) pitfalls, are both earth dungeons. They're not, of course, desert dungeons, because what you find in them differs from what you do see in the Desert Palace, the Temple of Wind, or the Sand Temple. There are dungeons that do overlap the elements, but the element differences exist nonetheless. As for the metal/electricity thing, we need to be careful here. When it comes to technological stuff in the series, these elements are very ambiguous. Electricity is actually a wider element because it not only encompasses the industrial-like places, but also those where electricity is present without the technology stuff, such as Inside Jabu-Jabu's Belly. Perhaps, in the future, there may be a dungeon that canonically represents one or the other element, but for now it's more versatile to think of "electric" (also, note that the GBT does operate with electric energy, see for example the neon lights through the doors, passageways and walls).
 * As for the poison thing, it's something already included in the forst category, not only in Woodfall Temple (like Lahmaster correctly suggests), but also in Forest Temple and Forbidden Woods. Only on rare occasions, you see toxic elements in other types of dungeons. As for Spirit, we would have to define what an element like that is; for what we have seen so far, Spirit is rooted to light (not only in the Spirit Temple itself, but also on the Tower of Spirits) while the shadow dungeons lean more about the evil or dark side of this (hey, remember that light and shadow are opposites).
 * Remember that the whole element system is expendable, so it's not really a big deal. Dungeons are not Pokemon, so don't freak out if you see a dungeon article without element icons in the infobox. If a dungeon doesn't clearly fit within an element, then there's no need to include it. Take the OOT and TP dungeons as the models: Their elements are less ambiguous, and might help you to determine what kind of element the dungeon of another game fits in. -- 00:50, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 * To further ellaborate on the last thing I said, TP can serve as a model on how the dungeons are like from the elemental perspective:


 * 1) Forest Temple->Forest
 * 2) Goron Mines--->Fire (and electric as well)
 * 3) Lakebed Temple>Water
 * 4) Arbiter's Grounds->Desert, shadow
 * 5) Snowpeak Ruins>Ice
 * 6) Temple of Time>Light
 * 7) City in the Sky--->Wind
 * 8) Palace of Twilight>Shadow
 * 9) The Lantern Caverns found through Hyrule>Earth
 * It's a nice family, don't you think? You can compare these dungeons to those of several other Zelda games, and this way determine whether or not one fits in some particular element. But, again, it's not good to be too obsessive about this. In the past, some users indiscriminately put icons in various dungeon article infoboxes where they didn't belong, this even extended to the NES game dungeons, which are all homogeneous and alike with their themes. Hopefully the fuss won't repeat, it would be sad if we had to remove this cool feature due to some disagreements. -- 01:01, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I can understand the Desert and Earth stuff a bit better now, same with Poison being Forest. But Electricity is slightly annoying me in a way. I definitely see Jabu Jabu's Belly, Goron Mines and Lanayru Mining Facility being Electric based, but Great Bay Temple just doesn't seem to fit. Even though the machinery is being powered by Electricity, the element is hard to notice while it is easy to point out in the other 3 dungeons. I would either suggest that Great Bay is not Electric based or that you create a Metal Dungeon Theme for it. The element of Metal could also apply to other dungeons. Lahmaster 4:20, 7 November 2011 (AEST)
 * We don't know either about to what extent the LMF uses the whole electric thing. And I will tell you a secret: I personally think it's still too early to implement this element in the first place. For one, unlike the other nine elements, electricity has yet to be aknowledged canonically by a dungeon in any game. By such thing I mean a dungeon that only has electricity as its element (the closest thing would be the whale in OOT, but it looks like I'm the only one with that opinion....). Of course, the Mining Facility might be that big boy we're looking for, but we can't be sure until the game is released, so for now it would be wise to just leave in stand-by, or even scrap, the possibility of such thing as an electric/metal dungeon.
 * I will tell you a story: When I first developed this concept for inclusion in the dungeon articles and their infoboxes, none of this poison/metal/electricity dilemma was present. Elements were meant to be exactly that: Elemental. Basic. Fundamental. A natural entity that would be a staple for most of the dungeons and their themes. Elements are only one of many ways to classify a dungeon. You can also consider the Architecture criterion: From this perspective, you can think of dungeon as temples, towers, labyrinths, caverns, palaces, etc. Or the range, which separates them into main dungeons, mini-dungeons, master dungeons and final dungeons. The elements are no different, and they're supposed to simplify the way we distinguish the dungeons, rather than complicate it. As I said, we might (for now) scrap the electric element until there's a game where a dungeon amazes us with a giant shout-out to the element, like OOT did with the forest, fire, water, etc. -- 01:30, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 * Perhaps we should put an alternative focus on what the images mean; that is, redefine them. I think that dungeons will always be element-based, but we keep running into the "complication" of what element a dungeon is supposed to be. Maybe we should, instead, focus on what the dungeon includes, rather than what it strictly is about, which is all too obvious in most cases. Take for example, Ganon's Tower. It's an amalgam of all other previously encountered elements containing rooms devoted to elements apart from the main one (which is Shadow). We can take away all the other elements because it's not the central theme of the location, but I think therein lies the complication. We should rather (reasonably) loosen the standard to allow other elements aside from the primary established theme while retaining a relatively strict criteria for what it entails. For this, I'm suggesting 2 options:
 * Include all the pertinent elemental images onto a specific dungeon based on clearly established themes for obstacles/terrain, items and enemies found within, without sole focus on the main element or instead arranging them in order of being most common or most relevant. Ex: IceElement.png FireElement.png
 * Similarly, possibly create another section entirely devoted to sub-elements that may be found in the dungeon in question. Main: FireElement.png ElectricElement.png Sub: WaterElement.png
 * However, we would only refer to the primary element(s) on the thematic dungeon pages. This way, we can accurately describe the particular elements, be it enemies, obstacles or some form of terrain, found within the temple/dungeon without detracting from the central idea. This would also allow for the inclusion of a metallic (sub)element, provided the focus included terrain or architecture. 03:12, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I would be quite happy with option 2, as long as you keep Electricity because you guys just added it. Lahmaster 6:20, 7 November 2011 (AEST)
 * The second alternative is very interesting indeed. The only concern would be that some users might abuse the "sub" feature (by adding, for example, the fire icon in Gerudo's Training Ground just because two of its rooms have lava, same for the Tower of Spirits). What I might add is to make the secondary element icons smaller, to emphasize that they're indeed secondary. As for the metal/electric thing, I'd still wait until SS comes out, to see what theme the Mining Facility favors the most, so we can have a canonical way to define either theme (Abdul has also suggested a "Mechanical" theme, which emcompasses both). -- 09:00, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I'm a little concerned about dungeons without specific elements getting given elements just for the sake of it, as in the case of the Eastern Palace, which is apparently an Earth element according to someone... but I don't get that, its just a neutral dungeon if you ask me, like the dungeons of the original Zelda. Nothing strikes me as particularly Earth based, but then again, the Earth Temple is kind of the only Earth based dungeon I can think of, AND it seems to have closer relation to the Shadow Temple than anything. Personally, I'm of the opinion that giving something an elemental nature is something thats only really relevant in some games (usually where its obvious anyway), not all of them. I feel like I'm getting into a whole other argument here though. I guess I'm of the "hey, this isn't Pokemon" point of view on this issue. Elements have their place, but they seem like a relic of Ocarina of Time where they were really prominent, and not overly vital to other games. Still, some dungeons have obvious themes, and it looks like that's not going to stop with Skyward Sword, so thats fine. But if we're going to include stuff like "Desert" as an element, then surely "theme" would be better terminology? In no games is Desert mentioned as an element as far as I remember. Nabooru is the Sage of Spirit, not the Sage of Desert. Fizzle 16:39, 7 November 2011 (EST)


 * Well, there's sand...Mata Nui

How about this idea, you have a Primary and Secondary element for each dungeon. Here is an example:

Great Bay Temple - Primary Element: Water, Secondary Element: Metal Don't add an element if it only appears in 1 or 2 rooms of a dungeon, only include it if it is very obvious. If you go by my idea, then you can include Metal as an element. By the way, Spirit would be a mix between Desert and Light, it's not a major element, heck, it isn't even an element itself, it was just a name used in OOT. If you do use the sub element idea, then people will want to see Fire, Water and Wind in Stone Tower Temple, which will make your dungeons become somewhat cluttered. Lahmaster 9:30, 8 November 2011 (AEST)
 * That's a good point, and in regards of Fizzle and the Eastern Palace, the Earth icon was added because of the primary type of obstacle (the rocks rolling through various rooms). Also, it's true that not all Zelda games focus on elements (the NES game dungeons!), but the icons do help us identify the type of themes we can find in the dungeons. Also, as I've said in the Electric Dungeon talk page, it's preferable to wait until SS comes out, to see in what theme (metal/electricity) the Mining Facility focuses the most. -- 19:40, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 * I'm perfectly fine with waiting until the release of SS, however, to answer how the elemental revamp would be implemented, I used the Goron Mines (a topic of previous controversy) as an example.
 * Let's say as a tentative base rule that 20% (1/5) of the total dungeon rooms must have a particular element before it can count as having an elemental sub-theme. And maybe place around 30-40% of rooms having to be comprised of an element before it's considered a primary theme.
 * I may be wrong, but Goron Mines has 18 rooms in it. Of those:
 * 8 rooms contain lava
 * 4 rooms contain water
 * and 6 rooms are neutral
 * That roughly translates to 44. 4 % rooms having lava, 22. 2 % containing water and 33. 3 % being neutral/non-elemental.
 * Thus, following the aforementioned stipulation, the dungeon elements would read as follows:
 * Main: FireElement.png
 * Sub: WaterElement.png
 * A different game example could be the Woodfall Temple. It has 13 rooms.
 * 6 (46.153%) are forest
 * 7 (53.846%) contain water; excluding puddles, 3 (23.076%)
 * 1 (7.692%) contains a fire enemy; including fire-related puzzles, ~5 (38.461%)
 * 2 (15.384%) contain shadow-related enemies
 * Which could read as:
 * Main: ForestElement.png WaterElement.png
 * Sub: -
 * So how's that? It would take a bit of work to accurately document the features, but it should be feasible enough to satisfy both parties, and naturally, things might vary depending on terrain/architecture, enemies and puzzles. 21:44, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I'm not saying that the sub element idea is bad or that it won't work, but I still feel it being a bit too much in a way. Even though there are 4 rooms in Goron Mines having Water, that element isn't focused enough to be a part of the dungeon. Electricity or Metal is more prominent in Goron Mines due to the fact that you can use it to get around, which is magnetism. I honestly think that there should only be 1 or 2 elements per dungeon. Only add a Secondary Element to a dungeon if it is obviously there. Anyway, I'm not admin so I can't do much except talk about stuff and see what happens around the site. Just do what you gotta do, but I still believe having a Primary and Secondary Element would solve this problem in a large way. Lahmaster 1:11, 8 November 2011 (AEST)


 * I like the sub-element suggestion and the percentages Pakkun used as a guideline. They're a step closer to having objective criteria. I think we should only count things that are significant, for instance, obstacles (enemies, puzzles, obstructions), terrain, things that help you navigate rooms and obtain chests, etc. If its small like a shrub or a puddle, it shouldn't count (unless it plays a large role in navigating the room). 01:02, 8 November 2011 (EST)
 * To answer Lahmaster, of course water isn't the focus of a fire dungeon, that's why it would be a sub-element. I'm suggesting elements being based on presence and occurrence over the focus, which for the umpteenth time, would already be obvious. And, it's been discussed that both the metal/mechanical and electric elements are "on hold" for now, so I didn't document how many rooms had magnets or metal structures in them. In most cases, I imagine that the elemental "focus" would already be prominent, securing its spot as the primary element and secondary variables wouldn't be as commonplace, usually resulting in it staying as a secondary or sub-element.
 * Similar to Abdullah's suggestion, we could alternatively include more expansive screening based on 3 (or more) categories and then use the numbers to find a better percentage. As Abdullah already suggested, the screening could be based on the elements of enemies (say there's 15 of X element, 3 of Y, 14 neutral, etc. within the entire dungeon), how many rooms devoted to an element based on terrain/obstructions (say there's 10 X-themed rooms, 7 Y and 0 neutral. Rooms can overlap elements.) and how many elemental puzzles there are (if it requires the use of fire, ice, light, etc. Imagine there's 3 X, 2 Y, 2 Neutral). Now, say the dungeon has about 17 rooms.
 * On paper, that looks like:
 * 15 X Enemies (46.875%), 10 X Rooms (58.823%) and 3 X Puzzles (42.857%)
 * 3 Y Enemies (9.375%), 7 Y Rooms (41.176%) and 2 Y Puzzles (28.571%)
 * 14 Neutral Enemies (43.75%), 0 Neutral Rooms and 2 Neutral Puzzles (28.571%)
 * Math definitely isn't my forté, but I think this means around 49.501% of the overall dungeon is devoted to X and 26.245% to Y (and roughly 24.252% Neutral). So, X would stand as a primary element and Y would be considered a sub-element, 4% short of the proposed 30% mark.
 * The more elemental variables there are, the lower the standard would probably have to be, though, as the primary would end up being sub. Maybe dropping it by .05% every (other?) added element allowing for a 10% range. Again, I am terrible at math, but this is factored on 30-40% for around 3 elements. It's not perfect (and it'd be better if a math whiz was doing it), but that would look something like this:
 * 4 Elements: 25-35% Majority (Primary); ~15(-24)% Minority (Sub)
 * 5 Elements: 20-30% Majority; 10(-19)% Minority
 * 6 Elements: 15-25% Majority; 5(-14)% Minority
 * 7 Elements: 10-20% Majority; 2.5(-9)% Minority
 * 8 Elements: 5-10% Majority; 1.75(-4.9)%
 * Honestly, I'm not very confident in it, I think the more factors involved, the less accurate it becomes (but normal dungeons usually shouldn't exceed more than 4 and "final dungeons" with multiple elements based on previous dungeons should be exempt). In any case, I may just be putting my foot in my mouth at this point. 02:18, 8 November 2011 (EST)