User talk:Melchizedek1866@legacy41958488

Hello
..... I'm not too sure if I'm using this pm format correctly. It's a lot different than what I'm used to. But yea, I have a few questions. Firstly, for example if you check out the page for the AoL game, you'll find scans of the AoL manual. And look at a character list page for TP or OoT and you'll see an image gallery. I was wanting to do something like that. –Axiomist


 * Yeah, you're using it fine. You just edit the users talk page, and using the same Wiki format, you can talk back and forth like so...So if you say something to someone on a talk page, for the answer it's good to check back there. I sent you a PM at ZU, so I hope that explains what you want to do with pictures. I think there may be templates to help with pages such as character lists. I'm not too sure about them, so I'd recommend talking to a sysop. I recommend Adamcox82. He's good. Hope that helps, --Melchizedek 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideas
Hi there! At the risk of sounding like some "voice of authority", I feel I have to point out a few things in relation to your ideas for improvement of the wiki: It is a matter of general agreement that this wiki is not the place for strategy/walkthroughs. For this purpose, we operate a reciprocal arrangement with strategywiki.org. A good idea would also be to formalise the formatting/placement of these, as there are a number in various locations around the place. See point 1 above. To be treated very carefully. Theories are opinions, and opinions cause conflict. We have a very strongly segregated "timeline theory" area, and display some of the most widely accepted/acknowledged theories within some articles (always within a clearly labelled non-factual section). I'm not saying don't add them, just to remember that this is an encyclopedia of facts, and not a pamphlet of ideas and musings ;P
 * Walkthroughs for all Games
 * Glitch lists, and Instructions for all Games
 * 100% Completion Checklists for all games
 * Theories: Search the internet for every descent theory and give 'em a page

That said, I'm sure there are others who would disgree with any/all of the above, and such is the nature of a wiki! I only point out what seems to be the majority/longstanding opinion on such matters :) --Adamcox82 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks so much. I was going to raise the points in Hyrule Castle to get a 'professional' opinion, but you've answered, so thanks. I don't know how you came across my user page, but thanks for reading. And by the way, it's not a 'risk' being a voice of authority to me, "A wise man heeds counsel from the authorities." You could say that's something I go by... To quickly just go over my ideas...

Once again, thanks for telling me all that... It's good to have dedicated sysops...Also, I've updates my wiki ideas on my user page, according to your comments.. Regards, Melchizedek 07:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Walkthroughs: Okay, won't do. Strategywiki sure does have that down pack. I looked around, and the game pages link to that wiki, so that's good, and settled. I'll remember to link to strategy wiki if the situation arises.
 * Glitches: I've noticed that some games have full pages on glitches, some just have them on the bottom, other pages aka Fierce Deity Mask I've seen have glitches on the bottom, so I'd be happy to formulate what I can find into specific game pages. I noticed strategywiki, has a glitch link for each game, but the pages don't exist yet.. So just clarifying, is going ahead with making specific glitch pages okay?
 * Checklists: Will link, and leave up to strategywiki.
 * Theories. Will do as you said, and be careful. I think there are some great theories out there, for example [1] which I think deserves a page. But definately, I won't give everything a page, just those good ones... Can you tell me if you think that linked theory for example, deserves a page...?


 * Yeah, to answer you on the stuff above:

And to answer the question that I've just posed to myself after re-reading my two very different answers on two fairly similar topics, I'd say this; personally I feel this will be the best way to handle each of these. Whereas glitches are highly game-specific and factual in nature, theories are much more subjective, layered, hierarchical, complex, game-independant... in short, difficult to handle! So I'd say that the current solution gives them the correct amount of prominence, and keeps them tied to the most relevant factual information. P.S. Sorry for being so dull and long-winded ;) --Adamcox82 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On that particular theory, it's actually already linked to in it's entirety here. I think that's the way to go - either state it as a reference within an article, or include a summary of the theory within the most elevant article, as appropriate for the situation. Creating a new page for a particular theory would be less good ( ouch, that's some horrible grammar ;) ), given that the current trend is towards combining like subjects rather than fragmenting.
 * With the glitches however, I'd say it's time to consider separating them as you've suggested. I could see it working in the format of Glitches in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, so we'd end up with one subdivided master-article for each game, specific relevant sections of which could then be linked to from other articles as appropriate. This would be consistent with the treatment of other areas of game-specific content such as characters, items, dungeons etc.


 * No problem. Your answer is good... Don't be sorry, you're doing a great job. :P. Regarding the glitches, I will use the suggested titles, and get to work on that when I have free time. Obviously MQ and OoT should probably be one page, though MQ has glitches OoT doesn't such as the water temple one I told you, but I still think the one page. Your opinion... Also, I think it is important everyone posting glitches follows the same structure, for example:Glitch Title, Which game version it was performed in, Difficulty/ tries it takes, what it does, and how to do it, and pictures on the right appreciated. Where's somewhere that I can put that template, so that people editing the glitch pages when I make them will use the same structure... I also think it is important that users don't just get glitches from the internet, but only put on ones they have done themselves. For example, I've heard of glitches that can complete the MQ water temple even quicker, but I told you the one that I have used, and know it works. So yeah, where do you think is best to put that so people know? --Melchizedek 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that a common format will be needed, but I think that with the possibility of images, videos or neither for each, it would be difficult to draw up a single template. The best idea would be if you start one of the pages with your suggested format, so I can try to work on standardizing it however possible. And yeah, the glitch should have been tested by the writer (attributes as "Information contributed by ") --Adamcox82 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Most people don't delete stuff from their talk pages. If you wanna clear it off, you could create an archive subpage (see my talk or ask me how), but it could be taken as a little rude to just delete stuff which folks spent the time typing to you ;) --Adamcox82 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'll start my Wiki-Glitch project when I have some spare time. Also thanks for the advice on archiving. You've probably noticed that I've restored this page now to have everything, and I will archive from now on... --Melchizedek 07:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
I'm working on the page now. I'm surprised nothing existed concerning PH's multiplayer mode.Axiomist 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. PH has multiplayer mode. How does that work? Sweet, I'm checking out this new page of yours. I knew FSA could have up to four players, but..cool. And by the way. I'm here anytime you want advice... --Melchizedek 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That, sir, is why the Multiplayer page exists. :P I should add a link to the Battle Mode article in there, shouldn't I? --Ando 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I found that multiplayer page. I think the page could be worked and made better. I hate the short page of ZW that more could be put into. So Axiomist, the page exists, but probably needs a bit of work. So feel free to do that... --Melchizedek 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which page exists? The multiplayer? Battle Mode? Well, I worked hard on that Battle Mode page.twice ;P, thanks to the first one disappearing. Now that I know how to credit images I'm gonna make Battle Mode look sweet!Axiomist 09:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox
No problem man. And if you have any questions, concerns, whatever, feel free to let me or anyone else know. --Seablue254 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do! I'm fine for now. I've completely changed over to Firefox, and customized everything to my style, and it is better than IE. Most people don't know what WWW browsing bonuses they're missing out on... Thanks for the support. --Melchizedek 07:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem :) --Seablue254 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)