Category talk:Misc

Comments
Hmmm... a POV page. Good, this should give people a place to vent. It's important to have something like this in a place like this, especially seeing as how some will probably be annoyed by something or another. Then again, I'm half asleep. If you don't know what relavence that has to what I just said, try being half asleep. Then you'll understand.

Your Loyal Zelda Fan, Wielder of the Sword

Irrelevant Articles in this Category
I strongly believe that having articles in this section that have absolutely no relation to the Legend of Zelda series is negative. It is misleading in that it artificially inflates the article count of the wiki. It may encourage people to vandalize other wiki pages, eg. to link to an unrelated Misc article. I don't see it having any positive value. What do others think? If there is reasonable support for keeping these articles in the wiki, I'll accept that. - Jin (26 Sep 2006)


 * While you may not believe it to be a positive value, I find that the lighthearted and humorous connotation of the Misc section makes it fun, and is a welcome change to what will eventually be a Wiki entirely devoted to quality articles. I've always found it good to have at least ONE area where users can fool around and do as they wish with little interference. If you're that scared about vandalism on the Wiki, don't be. Users who want to contribute and help the content of the Wiki ALWAYS outweigh the vandals. --Jase 14:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Renaming The Misc. Category
Rather than doing away with it, I think it would be best to simply to rename the category. My reccommendation is renaming "Misc." to "Miscellaneous", emptying the category and moving the articles to a new category whos name will better reflect the content.

I hate to call it the "spam category", but it really needs a name that fits the articles. The current Misc. category mixes right in with all of the other information and if you do not read the category description the articles will all appear to be misplaced spam and/or vandalism of important articles. I'm having a hard time coming up with a replacement name because "SPAM" would simply look bad rather than look "fun". So, this is open to any ideas you all may have. --Sheik-Yumil1988 15:46, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Sounds like a good suggestion to me. I guess one of the things I dislike is that, in my opinion, grouping the irrelevant articles with actual Zelda articles seems to devalue the real articles.  --Jin 16:57, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

My 2 cents
It is nice to have a section devoted to random things. It gives a sort of depth to this place, rather than making it strickly an encyclopedia of Zelda. But I do believe, as others have mentioned, that it is probably not labeld correctly. So a new name definately. And if there is some way to make it evident that it has no connection to anything related to Zelda. I think that if we make a clear distinction that it won't be a problem. And in response to the article count; I don't think the article count really is that big of a deal. There is no other wiki or place that is going to hold a candle to this one, and even so, I doubt there will be an article comparrison. The important thing is is that we keep good quality articles, not just go for quantity. Those are just some thoughts to roll around.

Gambit8585

No Anger
I think Misc should not contain articles that can cause anger between the members (see "earth"). Such things have many diffrent viewpoints and has no right to be on Zeldawiki.


 * That I will agree with. We need to draw the line somewhere. I noticed in the history an article titled "Changing it to Humor". The article had nothing to do with suggesting a name, but "Humor" might make a good name replacement. --Sheik-Yumil1988 07:35, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't know if Humour is the best title because it can be misleading - it's not just for humour, but for all random articles that don't relate to Zelda or don't fit in another category. It really is "The random article pile of the Wiki." Maybe "Randomosity" is a good name? ;) --Jase 14:45, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * How about a name that is as equally confusing as the articles in the Misc category? We need some inside jokes around this place to give it some character. --Captain Cornflake 21:33, 29 September 2006 (CDT)