Talk:Eastern Temple

Merge with Eastern Palace?
Now, I'm not clear on the wiki policy when it comes to dungeons, but with enemies, if they have the same name in Japanese, we usually merge them with the most "up to date" English name, so as to avoid having multiple pages about the same enemy (a good example are Helmasaurs, which are also known as Iron Masks and Hiploops depending on what game you're playing, but their most recent appearance went back to the Helmasaur name). Is there any particular reason this is not the case with dungeons? Its pretty clear that the Eastern Palace and Eastern Temple are meant to be the same dungeon (same for the Desert Temple). After all, the only reason the dungeons were called Palaces in Zelda II and ALttP was because of NoA's policy of avoiding any mention of religion the time, which they gave up pretty soon after. Fizzle 10:18, 5 January 2012 (EST)


 * Pretty sure there's no policy for that. It's just no one ever thought about merging the two, that's all. :P
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. The similarities between the two dungeons are pretty obvious. 10:44, 5 January 2012 (EST)
 * After all, the only reason the dungeons were called Palaces in Zelda II and ALttP was because of NoA's policy of avoiding any mention of religion the time, which they gave up pretty soon after. I'd merge the dungeon pages, but not for this reason. We can't make our own assumptions on something just because we dislike the way Nintendo does things. I'm quite tired of "purists" pretending that they know more than the developers just because that makes them feel "cooler" than the rest. -- 20:42, 5 January 2012 (EST)
 * Um... With due respect, what are you talking about? Where did you get all that from? Its EXTREMELY common knowledge that Nintendo had a policy of avoiding religious mentions and extensive censorship for stuff like blood at the time and insisted on censoring many things for international releases of games. A Link to the Past suffered from a number of changes specifically to remove any religious connections; go check the main page for the game for more examples, such as the Church becoming the Sanctuary. I'm not saying these changes are BAD per se, just that they happened. In all future games, they don't call the temples palaces anymore. They kept it in the re-release despite changing some other things, but when FSA came out they changed it, so its the most up-to-date name. I'm not suggesting we change all the other Palaces to Temples because that would just confuse people, but I am saying that Palace and Temple is basically the same thing. Its certainly the case that none of the dungeons in Zelda II or ALttP were actually intended as home for royalty, despite them being called palaces. I wouldn't want to live in a place filled with traps and monsters. But I am not suggesting we switch to the Japanese terms just for the sake of it. I'm just giving that as a reason for why the discrepancy happened in the first place.
 * Also, arguing about video games on the net doesn't make anyone cool. So lets try to avoid that and I'll merge this soon then when I get a moment. Fizzle 09:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)
 * No, you'll merge this IF the community agrees with you. And the community abides to this. English names provided by the NOA versions are the ones we'll use. If you want that to be changed, then start a discussion there first. Thank you. -- 22:05, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * Hylian King said it was okay and SO DID YOU (not for the same reasons, however). I thought this was the discussion. Apparently the community discusses things elsewhere that I am not privy to? There is no need to get on my neck about stuff like this, show me the set rules for when something is "decided" and I shall follow, but I was seeing a general consensus on the original point (nevermind our little side-issue) between three people and was willing to go along with it, as I've done so far. I didn't go ahead and rush to do it anyway, however, I haven't even put a merge template down, I was simply offering to do the manual stuff when the issue was decided. Fizzle 18:45, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * Although, now that I've had a little time to think about it, I'm not sure I agree with the merge.
 * Sure, they're similar in some aspects, identical even, but the "themes and navigation" are essentially different, the bosses are different, and the item obtained is different. If we were to merge them, we'd have to have two infoboxes on one page, and that's never a good sign. The Eastern Temple in FSA, like the Desert Temple, is obviously a throwback to the dungeons in ALTTP, but if you think about it they're not the same, really.
 * At this point, even if it was called "Eastern Temple" in ALTTP and they were merged, I'd vote to have them split to "Eastern Temple (A Link to the Past)" and "Eastern Temple (Four Swords Adventures)". 13:56, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * At last we're all using the head. The reason why these two articles, as well as Desert Palace and Desert Temple, get separated is because of the Canon Policy. If these articles were to be merged, then a reform to that Policy will be necessary. -- 15:25, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * The Canon Policy has nothing to do with this (and it isn't followed universally anyway, ex: the Oocca and Shad quote), since the reasoning for the merge is that they are the same place. That interpretation of the canon policy would require "Princess Zelda" and "Zelda (SS)" to be different articles, after all.
 * For the infoboxes...why not just use the "per game" Triforce templates used on all other merged articles, like Link or Zelda? Why is that a stumbling block, if you already have a working solution for it used on articles where the issue is even more vexing?

The Japanese versions of the Zelda games are a higher form of canon than the English localizations, as they are the originals. However, since Zelda Wiki is an English wiki based in the United States, we will use the commonly placed agreement that the English titles take precedence. This means: This canon policy says nothing about the issue at hand; all it says is that English names and translations will be used where applicable. That simply doesn't apply to this case, which is about whether two temples with the same appearance, location, and basically the same name are the same. The Japanese material leaves this as not even a question.
 * Canon Policy:
 * Articles are to be named and written, and games quoted, using Nintendo of America’s translations.
 * The Japanese names of characters and places can be included in the article using the same format that is seen in the Link article.
 * Although the original Japanese can greatly differ from the English translations, these differences are not to be mentioned or noted in the main body of the article, however, significant differences can be mentioned in the trivia section of the article.
 * Besides, we accept the Japanese material as saying "Yes, these two things that the English translation does not specify the connection for are in fact the same" for Rauru-Kaepora Gaebora and Hero's Shade-Link. Are we to unmerge those as well, unless the Historia gets localized?KrytenKoro 16:49, 15 January 2012 (EST)
 * I think there's an elephant in the room that we're not mentioning here, and that is that other dungeons, such as the Forest Temple, all share the same page despite NOT being the same dungeons (TP is questionable, but in some cases, such as Spirit Tracks, this would be physically impossible, and they only share the same name in the NoA version and not even all English versions, although thats a whole other elephant), while these dungeons, clearly the same in virtually all respects (albeit on two different timelines) are deemed seperate. It is an unusual hypocrisy that I personally find awkward and I think it needs sorting out. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Personally again, I would take a small issue with the canon policy itself; I think SOME Japanese details are too big not to be mentioned anywhere aside from the trivia sections (especially in the light of Hyrule Historia, which has yet to see a hint of a localisation), but perhaps that is also a discussion for elsewhere rather than this specific issue. Fizzle 18:45, 15 January 2012 (EST)


 * I am well aware of the current state of those articles. There is currently a discussion about a potential merge/split policy change which would have all these articles split. My mistake, I thought you were aware for it. 19:58, 15 January 2012 (EST)