Talk:Eastern Palace (A Link Between Worlds)

Why does this page exist?
Not that there shouldn't be a section for this area on the Wiki, but it's the same location as the, well, Eastern Palace. In fact that page already has information regarding it's appearance in ALBW. Teekay (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Giving the very same Eastern Palace two separate articles because it appears in two separate games is no different than making a different page for every time a location such Death Mountain appears in a different game. In fact, there are articles on here for places that are not actually one and the same, but they share the same page as if they are. For example, the are two incarnations of Hyrule ("old" and "new") but one page covers both of them; yet, here we have the same place being given separate articles. It seems very anti-logic. Her Grace (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that this issue was resolved a while ago and that the solution was separate articles for the dungeons in A Link Between Worlds. I could be wrong though, it might have just been regarding the Lorule versions since they were technically different than the Dark world ones but that wouldn't hold up for the first three dungeons. I'll agree though that giving the Hyrule dungeons separate articles is unneeded though due to them really just being the same dungeons with different layouts. -- Bwar (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Eastern Palace, Desert Palace, and Tower of Hera are the same edifices; the House of Gales is new, and Misery Mire is an extension of the Desert Palace now.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is outright the same building from ALttP, and even shares a lot of the same puzzles. It should be merged back into the main Eastern Palace article.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is less that they're the same location, moreso that having multiple dungeons on one page leads to very messy infoboxes and a confusion of information. While the dungeons are indeed in the same LOCATION, they are not the same dungeon, as their layouts are entirely different. It's an unusual issue to have to deal with, I know, but from a tidiness perspective it's probably a good idea to keep them split. 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic, all locations that appear more than once but share the same article page should be separated. Another issue with that manner of thinking is that entities that are not the same... are given the same article; e.g. there are two kingdoms known Hyrule but request to give them separate articles was denied because despite their huge differences in appearance, they were "essentially the same place." Here we have places such as the Eastern Palace, which are actually the same place both with small alterations, and it's given two articles. No one has a problem with pages such as as the Lost Woods all sharing an article, which is far more confusing than the same Eastern Place using one article, considering that there are multiple Lost Woods that are unique in their own right. It does seem as if there is a lot inconsistency and contraindicative logic going on here.Her Grace (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On its own, the argument of consistency is fallible for several reasons:
 * There could be any number of factors which could explain why one article would have to be handled differently from the other. Hyrule is a world spanning multiple games. Eastern Palace is a dungeon in two or three. The contents of the articles are vastly different. This brings me to:
 * You can make two articles seem as different or as alike as you need to suit your argument.
 * No decision made for any article is ever final. The Hyrule split discussion happened 2 years ago and was decided by a narrow vote. If we were to revisit it now it could easily go differently. The fact that Hyrule and New Hyrule are currently merged means nothing. They could be separate tomorrow. Same with Death Mountain or the Lost Woods.
 * Practicality trumps consistency. Consistency does make articles more predictable and thus easier to find, but it's more important that the articles themselves are well presented.
 * If merging the two articles is going to make a mess as Fizzle says, then it's not worth it. If it is in fact feasible, then perhaps it should be done. I can't take a stance because I haven't played the game. But either way, the fact that other articles are merged or separate is largely irrelevant. 05:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)