Talk:Link

Adding a gallery
I was thinking that maybe adding a gallery and putting all of Link's appearances throughout the series under said gallery. Mainly just artwork, because right now the page looks a bit messy and unprofessional with images all over the place. What do you guys think? I'll gladly do it if you guys agree, I'm just asking for opinions since this could be a pretty big change to the page. I wouldn't remove ALL the images, but just some of them to make the page look neat and clean. Dany36 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We actually have that here, it has a lot of images so it has its own page. I'd say it's nothing more than simply adding some images on the Link page to the gallery. 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Split
Yeah, I'd say to split this, If not outright delete it. In all seriousness, the Link transformations have more to do with Link overall than his relations with the variety of characters during brief cutscenes. I think a paragraph and a link to the main articles for both sections would be a better manner of presenting this content. 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Known same Links
This article would be better off by putting the known same Links into one section and subsection it by game. The only major difference would be the placement of PH Link, but I think it's better that way. 05:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm...no. This is rather a poor idea. How they're currently organized is better than that. All that suggestion will do is cause confusion. 05:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea, but Mandi's right. It would add an awful lot of confusion, especially among newer/younger fans. We need to think simpler. I think we can tend to over-think things here, seeing as we're so familiar with the series. Order of game releases is the best idea, methinks. 05:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would cause a huge amount of arguments over which games are known to be the same or not. This would do more harm than good. 05:48, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This would just be confusing for some people who don't know much about the series, and would cause stuff like "but I think FSA link is the same as LttP link" or whatever crap. Zesty  Cactus  17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this, and I also fail to see how this would be confusing to members, seeing as it would still be within chronological order by game. 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

SSBB image
While I agree that the image is not canonical, I would like to point out that the jpeg version of it was already in use of several image galleries as well as Featued Article. I also want to mention that the image being used on the Hyrule page, is also non-canon, so it seems to me that we've accepted using non-canon images. 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I see no reason to disallow them, as the point is to properly portray the character in question. Besides, if we aren't to use non-canon images for the main pic, we can' have any for the non-canon games? We'll be dipping into very muddy waters by doing so.
 * The point is that the NC images are often just as good as the canon ones. We shouldn't disclude them because of their origin's story. 22:24, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this page?
When I see this page, there is no "edit" button, and all I want to do is to add a quote from Jaggle! Maybe also a few minor tweaks, but can somebody help me?
 * It's one of the pages people would like to vandalize so as a default setting it's protected, but since I'm online checking out all of the newest edits, I'll unlock it for you. Please use the Help:References guide to properly source the quotes you have. And when posting in talk pages, sign your posts with ~ 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Other appearances
Alright, the suggestion of splitting the section of Other Appearances into its own page has been there since I can remember (heck, I think since I joined the wiki). It's time to decide whether it should stay in that page or have it made into a subpage or something so that we can get rid of that pesky template. Link is currently a feature article, and it just looks wrong to have a template suggesting a split for so long. Dany36 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please place your edit in the section which represents your stance. Support Oppose
 * 1) No-one yet.
 * 1) I could go either way, really, but I think having Link's other appearances in this same page doesn't hurt anyone. What was the main reason for wanting to split them up, anyway? Most of the sections are just linking to the main pages anyway... Dany36 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Same here. I think it's fine as it is, and it's nice to keep everything in one place if possible. If the page gets too big (which it may if I keep loading up the non-canon/ambig stuff). we'll just revisit the topic. 18:59, December 10, 2009 (UTC)