Talk:Hero of Time

Fate of this page
I personally don't think it's worth having pages for all the different names given to the different incarnations of Link (Hero of Time, Hero of Winds, Hero of Pasta ). But in all seriousness, there's not much to say about them that isn't already said in the Link article. As such, I'd think this would be better served as a redirect. 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I did this page is because T Hero of Time has such a large history and legacy that you can't fit in the normal Link page. If everything was put in the Link page then half of it would be about the Hero of Time. 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that the Hero of Time is an important historical character, I have to admit that making a page for him when some of the other heroes simply don't have enough story to support their own pages does seem a bit biased. After thinking about it, another concern I see is furthering possible bias: Since most of the information is, like Justin said, already stated in the main Link article, providing enough text for a whole sub page may end up including too much opinion around the base facts. Conclusion? Sticking with the original redirect would be less trouble in the end. 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that we also have a Young Link article. That already covers just about everything that's unique about the Hero of Time (and then some) in comparison to other Links. 12:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging a page with this one
I propose that we add the Young Link page to this one because they are the same Link and this one will also include his adult hood and life as the Hero's Shade instead of just his youth. 19:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've thought of that as well, but after a bit of deliberation I'm beginning to think our current setup is fine. Every other Link's story is covered on the Link article, so it only makes sense for the Hero of Time's story to be covered there as well. If you take plot away, what is there left to say about the Hero of Time that would require its own page? The only thing I can think of is the "Young Link-Adult Link" dynamic, which is covered perfectly fine as is on the Young Link article. Briefly what I'm saying here is, as far as our coverage of Link goes, there's nothing wrong with the way things are right now and in my opinion, no new articles are needed at this point.


 * On a side note, the MM section of the Young Link article is merely a repetition of Link. It should be reduced to a short summary with a link to the main Link article. 20:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but this page could be a great place to explain Link's whole life, from his time as a "kokiri" to his adult hood then his journey to Termina then to his life and legacy as the Hero's Shade. Along with all this, this page can help explain Link's life and journey in Detail instead of a brief paragraph. 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally convinced, but if you feel like our coverage of the Hero of Time can be much better than it is at the moment, I personally have no problem with giving you the benefit of the doubt. Although, I'd rather have this page return to being a redirect for the time being until a decent-sized article is written (like in the Zelda Wiki:Sandbox or something), because right now it's a nuisance, frankly. 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it ok to copy and paste stuff from other pages to create this???


 * Well that kinda depends on what you're copy-pasting. If the article is mostly copy-paste with words changed around then that kinda proves Justin's and my point about redundancy... 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Going Great!!!
So far my work on this page has been pretty good. I plan on Making this page 2 times bigger at least though. 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Right on. But before you go any further I hope you know that if most people disagree with the article then it'll have to come down. You seem to be making good progress, but again, it doesn't matter what I think even though I'm an admin; it's what everyone thinks that counts.


 * Not saying that to discourage you or anything. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the possibility going forward, and I don't want you to feel cheated in case it happens. 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I know that if people don't like this page then it has to go down, and personally I do believe in the good of the group. If it goes down I won't rage and spam anyone, you have my word. 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wasn't expecting you to. You don't seem like the type haha. Thanks for understanding. 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Little help from my end and something to think about
Seeing as how we're all still rather undecided as to the fate of this page, for the time being, I'm going to at least assist in making sure it's all in order. I changed some wording and information that wasn't entirely correct, and did some spelling and grammar fixes. Nothing too major really, but I'll keep an eye on things as as we go.

Also, I need to be honest. I'm not totally sold on this working out. It looks like quantity over quality and a whole lot of filler. For example, I don't see what including the dungeons, child and adult weaponry, or SSBM statues have to do with the character himself really. When I think about a page for one hero in particular, I think of a personal biography sort of appeal. A life story, so to speak. Not necessarily which part of his arsenal he could use in which era. 00:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Dungeons section is completely unneeded. I'd delete it, but I decided to put it up here first. As pointed above, the Equippable Items section isn't really necessary. This page focuses on gameplay rather than story and character, and that's something we really needs to work on. 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The fate of this page
Alright, so it seems like this page was abandoned when it was half done, so we're kind of worse off than before this page was made. In my opinion, a Hero of Time article is not a bad idea. However, since all of our Link content is pretty solid right now, this article has to at least match that standard if we're to move information onto this page. Until such a time as a proper article can be written, I went ahead and changed this back to a redirect to the Link page. Any objections? 14:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. If anyone wants to give it a try, I'd recommend viewing the old revision of the page to find the content and then working off a sandbox with it. 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)