Talk:Main Page

hey
Listren this stupid but are we alowed to nominate pics and artices i have only seen amin do it--Link6767 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, other members are allowed to nominate images and articles. Also, please post new sections at the bottom of the page. Thanks. 23:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try not to get upset if something you put up fails. It happens. Stuff I put up has failed before. Make sure to look at the criteria at the top, and try to compare what you want to put up to the rest of what is already featured. Try to consider what others would think of it. And try to make a detail reason for your nominating it. And take your time to type your posts out and try to spell things right. That will make it more likely that people will take you seriously. And to make a new section easily on talk pages like this one, click the plus sign next to the edit button at the top of the page. 01:47, May 15, 2009 (UTC)

blue hyperlinks
Hi guys, while i've been on zeldawiki.org I've noticed that with names such as Legend of Zelda or Nintendo DS are hylighted blue and have stars underneath and when i put the mouse near them a bubble pops up, what is that? Calibure 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Calibure


 * Those are ads placed within the pages, to hopefully lower the amount of money needed to spend on the servers. 14:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They're actually special types of ads, Related Links. They're the kind of ads that are actually useful, because they link to interwiki content instead of external sources. So they help you get around the wiki, and every time you use 'em we get a little cash to spend on the server bill, which is always expensive. --Jason 14:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do like to dream Jason. The ads you just described do not exist. All there is is ads to sell people stuff. And they do not go to wikis. 16:47, January 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Gonna have to agree here, Jason. I've seen ads for products, but nothing linking to anywhere in the Wiki. 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks for that guys, didn't think anyone would reply so fast (now thats great service). anyway just thought maybe somone was vadilising or something.,and if that happens (cracks knuckles) we send in the Vandalism.Against.Any.Text.INcorporated (yes i made it up) vaati for short (why Vati you find a zelda-related word wth a V). Anyway thanks for the help bbut another question shouldi touch them? Calibure 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Calibure


 * Haha, well, if you want to. It's not like your computer's going to melt or anything if you do. Shouldn't harm you at all if you do. 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

okay, that made me feel like i was five, and you never know its around 40degrees outsite so my computer might just melt. Calibure 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that Jason is, in fact, absolutely right (and let's face it, he should know, it's his server after all!) I just saw one of these links for the first time, and they are noticeably different from the standard green ad-links that Matt and Ando are referring to below. As shown in the image, they're blue and have a dotted underline (not stars); in this case, "final destination" offered links to the articles Ganon and Gerudo Desert, which both contain that same phrase. They seem to be quite infrequent though (also, if you're wondering why I don't have the ads disabled, my cookie manager/blocker can't properly manage exceptions for the cookie required to switch them off!) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That picture proves nothing. This is a brand new PC. And I searched on many pages. Including the ones in the image. These links do not exist. Even after clearing cookies. I've checked a few PCs. Ones with Vista and ones with XP, even a few Macs. No such links are to be found anywhere. Meaning that the system is not perfect and has a lot of errors. So they are not worth using at all. The chances of it not showing up on all of those computers being only a coincidence is basically zero. So I don't want this to be written off a some oddity like the other problems I have reported were. If you remember, I was right in those cases. 21:39, January 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, I know we don't always see eye to eye, but that's no reason to call me a liar! I mean seriously, saying "That picture proves nothing" makes no sense; it proves that either the links exist, or that it's some elaborate hoax concocted by me and Jason... Sorry for the outburst, I just sometimes have trouble comprehending how your mind works :P
 * Anywho, having not seen them myself before today, I was pretty skeptical. That's what prompted me to post the image in the first place; stunned amazement! I wasn't trying to make some big issue, or prove anyone wrong... 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange, I never noticed them. I'm going to have to agree with Matt, I am even looking for them....Still nothing. 22:26, 15 January 2009

Well I'm gonna agree with Adam because I checked the Blue hyperlink's and most of them go to another page on this website, however none of the link's are related in anyway to the word that is hylighted. Maybe you two didn't see it as you had an ad block or something? Calibure 15:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad block can't prevent text ads, are you sure you didn't turn those text ads off? 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the wiki have ads?

 * The first sentence makes no sense, because it is an accidental leftover of a previous version of that post. But still, this rarity proves that it cannot possibly be making enough money for it to be worth keeping. 23:13, January 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I actually just saw them for the first time recently. The frequency with which they appear seems to be fluctuating (sometimes I'll see one in a day, sometimes ten), but they're definitely there. Also, Matt, you say that they can't be worth keeping, but... what harm could possibly come from it? I mean, removing them would remove another source of money; no matter how small that source may be, every little bit helps. I see no reason to remove them, personally. Not sure why you're so set on getting them removed. 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ando, you made the point that I forgot to mention due to being irked. I don't see any benefit in actively seeking to reduce the revenue of the wiki. These links cause no know problems and can be easily disabled by any user who chooses to. 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm against it for several reasons. Above all, I'm totally against compromising our morals just to make a quick buck. 19:19, January 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The ads were only supposed to be temporary when they were installed.
 * 2) Every ad on the wiki is one step closer to being Wikia.
 * 3) The ad service we're using has been rated as malicious and untrustworthy.&#91;citation needed&#93;
 * 4) It is an embarrassment having them in the first place.
 * 5) They are annoying to everyone. Meaning that it is not a good source of money.
 * 6) They do to cause problems. Mostly on Internet Explorer. Like it or not, that is what a majority of our viewers use.


 * I have never seen the ads! I'm still looking, and I will let you know when I find one :P Though the green ones are very, very annoying however (in the midst of reading a page, you have a nice little pop-up that comes out of nowhere, asking you to buy something). I don't think we need them either. Think bout this: The majority of our members (except Adam) are under 21, and (hopefully!) don't have a credit card to buy something with. Also, despite that fact that we probably do have a few +21 readers, I'd have to say the lot of them are younger as well. So really, what purpose do these things have? 22:43, 16 January 2009


 * That is a good point. In addition, these ads cannot be making enough money to be worth it. With these ads, we are basically targeting minors with ad scams. Remember people, that ads turn people off. We'd get much more people without them. On a similar note, the ads on Zelda Universe are okay. Because most are hidden for registered members. And most viewers of Zelda Universe are registered members on the forums. Here, on Zelda Wiki.org, I cannot see a way to hide these ads for members. And that doesn't matter because most people here are just viewers. One of the basics of economics is supply and demand. So removing some of the more annoying ads on Zelda Universe will get more viewers and in turn might increase the revenue for the other ads. This is a simple concept, but most people fail to understand it. Wikia is a prime example of that. So optimizing the ads on Zelda Universe is a good thing to do. Regardless, the math behind the ads here clearly indicate that they don't make enough money to be worth keeping. Especially with the severe moral issues with it. 23:13, January 16, 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you have any source for your claims that we're merely making "a quick buck" or that there's no way we're making enough money with this to make it worth it? Jason's actually told me before that quite a bit of money comes from the ads. Not, like, enough to completely cover server costs or anything, but certainly quite a bit. So evidentally they do make a significantly larger amount than you're thinking. 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) And I guess that the temporary period just hasn't ended yet.
 * 2) um what. Having ads = us being Wikia? Wikia also has a Zelda wiki and uses the MediaWiki software -- that's closer to us "being Wikia" than some ads are. Every site has ads, man! D:<
 * 3) Now THIS is actually a good point. I can agree with this point.
 * 4) An embarrassment? Who cares as long as it does what it's supposed to which is to make money??
 * 5) Annoying to everyone? As Adam mentioned, they can be disabled if the user so desires. And heck, apparently not everyone cares enough to do it. I haven't.
 * 6) They cause problems? I just pulled up Zelda Wiki on IE and noticed no issues whatsoever. Not sure what you mean here.

As far as them causing problems for IE users, I used IE for the longest time.....Never had an issue with it. But, they are annoying, and like I said about young users. I still don't believe they serve much purpose, but...maybe they bring in more money then what I was thinking >_> 02:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again Ando, you've echoed more or less what I was thinking. Also, on point 4, I seriously cannot find any substantiating evidence regarding this so I have no idea what you mean. But I highly doubt that a platform used by advertisers such as these is malicious or untrustworthy. Also, while Mandi's point on actual purchases is a good one, it's not really all that relevant. Vibrant Media receive revenue every time one of their ad is clicked and loads the ad itself (that's the point at which the advertiser pays them), so that's all they or we are interested in; that's our revenue. The only one actually interested in whether you buy anything is the company advertising the product! Heck, I may even go around clicking some ads just for the hell of it, and I suggest you all do too! Do your bit to ensure the wiki's continued financial viability! To be honest I'd much rather that we fund the wiki like this, rather than periodic "emergency-donation/begging drives", which just make me feel sad... 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you click the ad...THAT'S IT!! Well then, I guess they're not as bad as I thought. What real harm could they do then? 10:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, I totally changed my opinion. But after reading this, doesn't seem like they're that bad.

The green links don't even have anything to do with related products. I just held my mouse over a green Zelda, and it tries to get me to buy car insurance. And with domain, it tries to "help" me lower my cholesterol. I don't see why anyone would click these ads. It would be different if it was for LoZ stuff on e-Bay and such. Also, they're quite annoying when trying to read an article. —Alter 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can turn them off here: [].--Link hero of light 06:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alter, it's funny you should mention eBay since, for me, 95% of the time these links point to eBay auctions for Zelda games/items (see example image from the links I got on this pages). Again, still not trying to prove anyone wrong here, it just seems weird that these ads work correctly for some and not others? In any case, as Lhol point out they can easily be disabled (you actually only need to click the "?" button in the corner of any popup, that will take you to the right page to do so). Also, for those who prefer not to use cookies and want a more permanent solution, you can actually disable them in your internet browser. For Internet Explorer 7 users, you can download and install the "IE7Pro" add-on here. For firefox users AdBlock should do the trick, simply adding  http://*.intellitxt.com*  to the blocklist. While I haven't had time to test these yet, they are "one time only" solutions and should mean you never have to have your enjoyment of the wiki spoiled by these ads again, if you so wish. 09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Really, I've still yet to see an ad for e-Bay. Worked like a charm. Thanks Adam!—Alter 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

uh
Listen i have a user or friend saying that he wrote artice wasn't contacted when it got detled so he stoped coming here. --Link6767 19:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I not sure who this user is, and I doubt anyone else does, but I will say that it isn't our duty, nor anyone's, to contact someone when an article someone made was deleted. Chances are, he made a page

that was already created, or violated the rules. 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) oh thanks i will tell him maybe he will come back. sorry about gammar eroer i am in a hurry--Link6767 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible new rules
Does anyone think that there should be rules on how much information users under 18 should be allowed to show? Maybe don't say your last name, what city\county you live in and your e-mail address (unless your an administrator)?--Link hero of light 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In an ideal world. But there is no way to know someones age and if they are as old as they say they are. So we could never really enforce it. That would cut off most of our members. And they'd get upset about it. There are some things that cannot, and should not be policed. Basically, supply such info at your own risk. We won't stop you if you want to give it. But we recommend you don't. 04:41, January 11, 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe we should have a warning. Something like you said: Supply personal Information at your own risk.--Link hero of light 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point. There's no age requirement for joining the wiki (and even if there were, there are thousands of kids who would lie about their age anyway), and while some are more careful with their information, there are people out there who would be fine with putting their credit card number on here. However, there's still the fact that we can't know for sure what a given person's age is -- for instance, I say I'm 17, but what real proof do you have that such is the case? None -- I could very easily be 14 and just saying I'm 17 to be, I dunno, cool or something? So while we couldn't enforce it, we can definitely include an "at your own risk" thing. I'll at least add it to the privacy policy. 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same thing with another site I'm a member of, "Must be 13 years or older to register, click here if over 13". As you can see, anyone under 13 can easily register. A warning would be a very good idea, it would perhaps give some younger users a "Any personal information submitted will be viewable to the public!" Reality check. This sounds like something that would be helpful. 22:26, 15 January 2009

It might not be a bad idea to prohibit giving out last names. Perhaps for everyone other than the site staff. There really is no reason for anyone to give out their last names. All it could do is cause problems. As for e-mail though, that might get on peoples nerves. Also, e-mail is through a third party. ZW wouldn't be responsible if anything happened. (not that they would anyway.) —Alter 05:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm back!
missed me? (strange thought this place would be the same as i left it) i finally solved our small problem with the FAs! we can do a score system! each support vote has a score of +1 and each oppose vote has a score of -2. if an article gets a score of +5 it gets featured. an article with a score of -5 is clearly not worthy. that way you get your "greater wheight to opposetion" and we can still give support voters a chance! Dragonstetraforce 20:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Valiant Comics Canon?
I'm seriously taking into consideration that perhaps we shouldn't have a "non-canon" label on the pages that have to do with the Valiant Comics (e.g. Seline, Calatia, Arn, Medila, part of Bagu, etc.) The reasons for this being:


 * 1. The comics are endorsed by Nintendo.
 * 2. The comics all line up with the other games perfectly.
 * 3. Nintendo has never mentioned anything about them not being canon, whereas they have with the mangas.
 * 4. A very large part (I'd estimate about half) of the Zelda fan community supports these comics. Most of the others either have a) never heard of them, or b) say "OMG HE LOOKS LIK TEH CD-I LINK! KILL IT!!!111".
 * 5. The stories are actually quite good, although this has nothing to do with whether they are canon or not.

It seems like it might be a mistake to go ahead and classify them as non-canon. After recent research, I have found myself changing my take on this subject. We should at lease re-evaluate it, I think. What are your thoughts on this? 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. Nay. They're only American-made licensed comics without the Miyamoto touch. I'm sure Nintendo as a whole had little part in. The licensing bit of it is where its involvement ends, I would guess. They based the comics around the games and the stupid TV series. For example, King Harkinian was never mentioned in any Zelda canon, but he is mentioned in the TV series. The Triforce of Wisdom fricken talks in both of them, and it even suggests that Zelda kill Link at one point. Then, there's Link's annoying lovesick "give me a kiss" personality taken from the TV series. Do you really want that to be considered canon? DO YOU?! We might as well be saying "EXUUUUUUUUUSE ME, PRINCESS!" to express and fandom.


 * Also, Link said Zelda from the comics was cursed to sleep by a wizard and he woke her up, but that was actually the very first Zelda, not the one from the first game, as mentioned in the manual of TAoL. Noble Wrot 01:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing you're such an expert because you pirated the comics online? Actually, I do believe that the comics came first. They staring in January 1990, and the videos started in 1990 (probably in September), judging by the copyright date.


 * Also, no- they did not model his personality on the TV series- if you pay attention, you'll realize this. I'm not sure what you mean by "Link said Zelda from the...one from the first game". You'll have to explain yourself better. If we're going to go by manuals, it states that Link was traveling (in the LoZ), and it is hinted that Hyrule is not his home country. In the comics, it gives a good explanation.


 * What I'm saying is that I really see no reason to classify them as non-canon. I see no reason why we should, other than the fact that it appears to have some relation to a few of Nintendo's more embarrassing moments. Besides, I believe that Nintendo would have stated so if they non-canon to the story. They have with other things. 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Help!
HELP!!!!

i need to know everything posible about Link. PLEASE!Someone list all of the games in order of which they were madwhithout this inormation i will die. I will love whoever does this for me. from, AdamLambert980--AdamLambert980 02:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is Link and The Legend of Zelda (Series). That's about it. 03:35, May 9, 2009 (UTC)

well i think it goes like this: legend of zelda

legend of zelda: links adventure

legend of zelda: a link to the past

legend of zelda:links awakening

legend of zelda: ocarina of time

legend of zelda: majoras mask

legend of zelda: oracle of ages and seasons

legend of zelda: Four swords

legend of zelda: Wind waker

legend of zelda: four swords adventure

Legend of zelda: Minish cap

Legend of zelda: twilight princess

Legend of zelda: Phantom hourglass

and comin soon (dramatic pause) Legend of zelda: spirit tracks

Hope this helped. Calibure 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote Link
Have you all voted link? here --Tucayo 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ERROR
The Main Page says that Twilight Princess is the most recent Zelda game. As every Zelda fan knows, this is false. Spoon Link 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, We've just added a rule against that sort of wording in articles. I'll correct the Ganon Article now. 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

help stop stubs
Me and our goo ole' admin Axiomist have come up with a way of stopping stubs, what we do is each month (or week) we put up 10 stubs that desperatly need improving, and well, we work on them. so if you want to help stop stubs, put your name down on this page http://www.zeldawiki.org/User:Axiomist/Sandbox#Editors_willing_to_participate_in_this_project thankyou for your time Calibure 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but it seems as though most pages that are stubs can't be improved, other than adding images/character boxes. However, I say we give it a try. 22:29, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have "Stubs must die!" tattooed on my chest. The meaning of the tattoo is often misconstrued...but I'm in! Noble Wrot 02:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MarioWiki affiliation
Hello I am Tucayo, patroller of the Super Mario Wiki and Director of its newspaper, I saw you posted a proposal in the MarioWiki to become an affiliate. Porplemontage (Steve) said he wasnt really interested in linking each other from articles, but I seem this like a good idea, I will try to convince him. BTW, I wanted to create an account as "Saria" but it told me it was in use, I checked and I couldn't find anyone named like that :/ --Tucayo 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Demon King
Hey, Calibure here, I was on a page that had the box at the bottom that gives links to the major Characters, and the demon King isn't in the Major enemies/bosses section, is it because the game hasn't been released or something? Calibure 10:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's actually because it was revealed that Malladus is the Demon King's name, so we moved the page, and edited all the pages with the new name. 14:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, that explains that, but what i meant was the box that appears under major characters, its title being "Legend of Zelda Characters" Calibure 14:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

wiat, no, its done now, thankyou to whoever did it Calibure 14:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spirit Tracks!
So... since this game is finally released, who wants to help take down all the Future Game Template placed on all the Spirit Tracks pages? 18:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Zelda Wiki Vs. Zeldapedia
You guys probably know this, but there is another Zelda wiki by the name of Zeldapedia. I don't know if you've addressed this yet, but I think you should merge or something. It seems that this wiki has more theory type things listed, while the other has more raw data, but I haven't done a lot of looking into it yet. Just a thought. --Oboromaru 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Oboromaru. We have had cases in which a merge between us and Zeldapedia was considered, however no such action has taken place, nor are any merge-plans currently are in development. Recently, we've had multiple disputes between our two wikis, and are currently being negotiated. Thank you for your consideration, and perhaps it may be put into discussion. 02:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

AoL Medallion Picture?
On the top row, with all of the medallions with Links face, on the main page, the Adventure of Link medallion doesnt show up. Is this just me? Nicktheslayer 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see it, but if you tell us what browser you have or anything else we could test out, we'll be able to fix the problem. 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Im on a Mac OS X, (its a school laptop, so the image may be blocked for some reason). Im using Firefox. Nicktheslayer 20:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very odd then, bc normally its old IE versions with issues, but do these show up: Template:GameNav and File:NavAoL.png 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they dont show up still, but its not a problem. Its just on my computer. It does this a lot, especially wiki sites, but it says it contains errors. That just means its not loading it right, but it does work. Theres nothing wrong. Nicktheslayer 21:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Voting
Anytime there was an article to be merged, it would be decided with discussion which was an effective method considering the pros and cons of merging was considered. Now, it seems like we've taken over a new system of merging in which case the merge is decided by yes/no votes. This system is convenient, sure, but it's not exactly the best option. For one, there is no discussion. Which, discussion is necessary :P I'm thinking we need to go back to the old way of doing merges (discussing the merge first as opposed to voting). Discuss! 22:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, discussing is a more effective way of deciding things, and lets people debate with one another on important facts than simply voting. 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be quality over quantity. It's nice to separate the pros and cons, and discussion is always important. I'm repeating myself, but opinions shouldn't be counted. They should be weighed for their worth. Noble Wrot 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While discussion does follow the voting system sometimes, I'm definitely for old system that looks at the actual articles as opposed to a thin yes/no vote. It would give a more in-depth look as to why an article was chosen to merge, and if it is legitimate enough for such. 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm not really sure how it started, but it seems as though whenever anything is proposed, a vote is set up immediately. There is no time to debate the changes before a decision is hastily made. Back to the old system it is, I say. 01:04, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the general consensus is to go back to the original system/discussion system? Sounds good to me. The voting wasn't an actual written decision to begin with; people just got into the habit. So, any more comments? :) 02:45, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't really say much that hasn't already been brought up here. The comments here basically echo my thoughts. But I'll say it anyway so I can make my view clear. I can say that more often than not, the quick and easy path is usually the wrong one that tends to lead to very poor decisions being made in haste. It would be better to discuss these merge and splitting actions over a protracted period of time rather than rushed. It's not like the wiki is going anywhere. For such decisions I believe people can afford to wait for a more proper decision to be made after all the implications of the proposed action have been laid out. In a voting situation, people tend to ignore the input of the other side even more so than they do in a standard discussion situation, which we well know was already rather solid to begin with. In a related note, I am almost thinking that formal voting situations like this should be strongly discouraged outside of the officially sanctioned Featured Content voting. Largely because it tends to be counterproductive, and also because it would be a practical impossibility to rigidly regulate it. A case in point is that many seem to believe that a couple people agreeing with an action is enough to move forward with it, often less than a day from its proposal. Lacking the rigid regulation such as that with featured images. People forget that wiki editing is for the large part just a hobby and it's often hard for enough people to know what is going on at once. And everyone can't be on it all the time. A substantial amount of time should be given to such major actions. I have seen very bad things happen to this place because people get impatient. Some actions involve consequences that people often ignore. A simple example is naming of pages. Often people just go trying to aim for accuracy while completely disregards things such as spoilers. We're editors of course we don't feel spoiled by the things we edit (for example Majora's Mask being the boss of that respective game, simple to us yet to someone new the game that would spoil a great deal). We take these things for granted because it feels so familiar to us. We forget that the readers are often young and new to the series. Being introduced to it with games like Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, or Spirit Tracks. A great many are not as familiar with the older games as we are. This is but one small consequence of these quickly ruled actions. There are many more. But still it shows how we careless we get in our haste to get things done. 22:16, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Docs from the 85
Dunno if you have seen this, or if this is the place, but in an interview, some ancient documents of the TLOZ series were revealed. Interview --Tucayo 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pssh. Yeah, that's old news to us :/
 * We're always on top of stuff like that :P 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool :) --Tucayo 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SMW Interlinks
HI! I wanna ask, how did you make it so that when you go to "SMW:something" it redirects you to the SMW? I think it would be good to do the same in the SMW :) --Tucayo 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Do you mean interwiki redirects? Because those are just normal redirects with interwiki prefixes, like "#REDIRECT smw:Mario" 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... but that wont work in the SMW, or so it looks... --Tucayo 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Must be some sort of setting chosen in the interwiki table. Try changing the entries and checking the "is local" box. 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me, I'm gonna set something up at our Kirby Wiki (WiKirby) and see about getting it done here. It'll be a lot like the infobox field we have for Strategy wiki here. 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)