Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center

Disambiguation rules
Apparently I have caused some... consternation by moving "King Zora" to "King Zora (Ocarina Of Time)". I haven't been able to locate any disambiguation rules on this wiki, so assuming they don't exist (and if they do exist, this is still gonna be relevant), I'd like to discuss our options for the best possible system. What I think will work best is if disambiguation titles are going to be about the first appearance of the subject.

The advantages are that there is virtually no chance the first choice disamb titles won't do, as I don't recall an instance in which one game introduced two things with the same name. Nor do I ever expect this to happen. Secondly, a chosen disamb title has no chance of ever needing revising. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if TWW Missy or TP Fado would return in the series. If disamb'ed by first appearance, nothing has to be moved.

I'm guessing some people might object to this because they feel it might be confusing for the visitors that they have to look for "King Zora (Ocarina Of Time)" to find the guy from OOA. True, but how much more easy would it be for them to do guess work as to where the page they are looking for could be located? I'm not much for making problems look larger than they are: if "King Zora (Ocarina Of Time)" were to be moved to, say, "King Zora (sea Zora)", it would be one of the very few cases in which disambs have to get creative. It is also not as if people won't be able to find the page at all, since "King Zora" itself should provide the proper redirects anyway. But my belief is that this is overcomplicating matters. Disamb'ing by initial appearance provides a clear, almost flawless answer to any disamb case. For that matter, I'd also like to point out it's a mistake to believe a disamb title has to be informative, as some people think. If all is coded well, only the page itself should display the disamb title, which should only be chosen on practical grounds to provide the most consistency.

The only page I could think of right now that, while it'd work, should arguably not be disamb'ed this way is Link (Goron), because the difference in the levels of fame among the fandom between him and the Hero of Time is rather huge. IfIHaveTo 10:54, 4 September 2010 (EDT)


 * No one seems to be commenting on this, so I will. Personally, I think things were fine the way they were. I don't like the idea simply because the title contradicts the content of the page. But hey, what do I know? Maybe the Quality Standards page should be updated? Try writing something on Adam's or Jason's talk page, since it seems they do most of the editing around the Quality Standards. Hylian King 07:31, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Bunch of questions
As the header says:


 * 1) The above "disambiguation rules" matter. Any has an opinion?
 * 2) Can anyone tell how to get an image to function as a link to a page?
 * 3) I've noticed a lot of pages have trivia items that mention a likeness between two subjects that I find highly... nonexistent. Either because the likeness is not there or because there is no reason at all to assume the subjects have anything to do with each other (like the Garo and the Subrosians). Are there any quality standards for adding such content?
 * 4) In the same vein, a good number of pages have items in the trivia section such as "this is the only out of three that does..." How relevant is such information? What value has the observation that dungeon X is the only dungeon that cannot by entered before doing Y or is one out of only two dungeons that has the entrance on the left or some such details?
 * 5) The canon policy of the wiki... It's unclear, its consequences are unclear and its reasons are unclear. Anybody'd feel insulted if I'd try to work out a new policy and present it for consideration instead of discussing a new one? IfIHaveTo 16:08, 15 September 2010 (EDT)


 * Well.... First off, I edited your post there so it would have proper line breaks and formatting so people can read it. Here's what I have to say:
 * I don't know there. It's a complex issue.
 * You're looking for Template:ImageLink.
 * It sort of says it in Theories in Articles, but it's not clearly clarified that Trivia is not a place for theories. We may need to make a separate set of standards just for trivia.
 * See #3.
 * Can't see how more clarification can hurt. It was put together in a short time frame. But we can't get too specific if we are to remain in a neutral point of view.
 * There's what I can say on that so far. 21:41, September 15, 2010 (UTC)