User talk:Tharthan

How's it going?
Hey, its nice to see new faces here! We've been noticing that you've been reverting the edits of administrators here on ZeldaWiki, especially when it comes down to using the names of enemies in The Adventure of Link, many of which have names that are more canonically friendly (i.e. Wizzrobe instead of Wizzar). When it comes down to naming, it is not usually warranted to make/move content to new pages for enemies that are identical, yet with different names. Hence, your edits to the Wizzar, Babs, and Billy were all reverted in order to keep all relevant information all on the mother page, where it not only belongs, but supports all other info on the page. We are in no way attempting to discourage you from editing - we're just trying to keep everything relevant together! If you have any other questions about this, or about anything in general, reply below me here! Hope to see you around =) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They have completely different names though, thus they are different. And did you read the  Talk:Wizzrobe section? I was only talking about the "Zelda II: Adventure  of Link enemy (Which is called Uizzaru, as opposed to Uizzrobu)
 * You are right, they do have different names, and I did see the talk page. However, that is not our policy here at ZW. We try to keep all relevant information, including enemies that have different names but identical behavior on the same page for the sake of consistency and content compliance. I understand where you are coming from, however, this is just how we do things here. For future reference, "demanding" something should happen doesn't mean it should. Truly, future generations of wiki-ers will most likely merge the Wizzar information back into the Wizzrobe article as they are so much the same. 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the way you organize things on Zelda Wiki, however Wizzars do not have the exact same appearence, name, or weaknesses. I am sure  there are a few pages on here that are seperate, that are the exact same  way. Tharthan 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents: Wizzars and Wizzrobes have pretty much the exact same appearance, just a different color (at least when compared to their TLoZ version). Name is almost identical, they behave the same way. The only "major" difference is their weakness, but that doesn't really justify the need to make it into its own page. Dany36 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They pretty much have the same appearance. If you closely examine the TLoZ art and the TMC art, then of course they're not the same. Sorry, but I'm not gonna look for small details just to say that they're different. Also, when replying in talk pages, it's best to reply in the same talk page where the discussion was started. That way it's easier to keep track of the discussion. ;) Dany36 23:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

TMC? I'm talking about TAOL art, dudette. Wizzars didn't appear in TLoZ, that art above the Wizzar, is the art of the Wizzrobe from TLoZ, not a Wizzar! You can't see Wizzars faces (as apposed to Wizzrobes) they have crucifixes in the "face" area (as apposed to Wizzrobes) Wizzars have a flower-shaped mark on their robes. (as opposed to Wizzrobes that wear a medalion) Wizzars also have a distinguishably different shaped head (Wizzars have pointed heads, while Wizzrobes have a relatively circular head.)
 * Haha it was just an example, relax. ;) But anyway, those differences you're mentioning are still not enough to say that Wizzar should get special treatment and have its own page. Like I've said before, they behave and ATTACK the same way as other Wizzrobes. They have more similarities than differences. Their appearances vary SLIGHTLY. MM's and TWW's Wizzrobes look NOTHING like Wizzrobes from past games, which just goes to show that not all Wizzrobes have to HAVE the same appearance. We're not going to put them in different pages just because of that. Plus, Tatl calls them "Wizrobes", and you don't see that in its own page, do you? Dany36 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake by the translaters, just like the mistake of them calling Wizzars, Wizzrobes in the American manual. Thus that statement you made is faulty. Plus, in all of those cases you mentioned. They were still called "Uizurobu" in the japanese games, Wizzar was called "Uizuzaru" in the japanese games.
 * Tharthan, you are the very first person ever to claim such the history of this wiki, so you should not be surprised at all of this opposition. However, you must understand that without evidence, such as a quoted source from Nintendo themselves (i.e. Miyamoto), we cannot even begin to believe such a statement. I advise that before you attempt any more article moves based on the "true" translation, that you submit such claims to a Zelda forum in the community to see the kind of support there is. Without evidence, we cannot believe you - simple as that. I don't understand how you can base the "wrong" translation of Wizzrobes in LoZ, to the allegedly "right" one in AoL, since LoZ is its predecessor. 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you have got it all wrong! I'm not saying that they mistranslated the name in TLoZ, I'm stating that Wizzrobes & Wizzars are completely different enemies, with completely different Japanese names, and their names are the same in the English version of TAoL, probably due to the translators noticing the similaities between these enemies. I am very concerned that you are not reading my messages right. P.S. I meant in the cases Dany was mentioning (TWW & MM) Wizzrobes were called Wizzrobes [Uizurobu in Japan], in both English and Japanese. In the case I was mentioning (TAoL) Wizzrobes didn't appear in TAoL, instead an enemy called the Wizzar (Uizaru) that looked very different, but behaved similar, and had a different weakness, was there instead. When TAoL was brought to America, the localization team noticed the similarities between Wizzrobes & Wizzars, and called Wizzars "Wizzrobes". Tharthan 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the different names, they're the same enemies. In fact "Wizzar" is a subset of "wizzrobe." as they both mean "Magician with powers" in the case of wizzrobe however it means "Magician with magic powers wearing a cape".Pinecove 01:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my misinterpretation earlier, Tharthan. As we are an English wiki, we deal with the American terms anyway, which even more proves my point that these two should be in the same article: as you said, the localization team labeled Wizzars as Wizzrobes during the port over, mistake or not. People in America play these games with such American titles in them, not the Japanese ones, and since we are an American/English wiki, we must cater to that as canon. Still, as Pinecove and Dany stated earlier, this enemy, regardless of name, not only looks similar, acts similar, but even carries a similar name root, even in the Japanese! It only makes sense to keep them on the same page. Sorry, Tharthan, but it is ZeldaWiki policy. I hope to see you around! =) 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, there's obviously some problem here. You continue to move these pages without even asking anyone or bringing up a discussion. You need to do several things before you even consider moving a page:
 * Discuss the move on the talk page of the article.
 * Obtain a consensus on the move.
 * Abide by the decision of the majority.
 * You have skipped all these steps, and you continue to move the pages without listening to us. You need to read our quality standards and figure out how we do things. Also, you need to leave Biri and Bari alone. Your move has been reverted multiple times now, and it's getting out of hand. Please follow the three rules above and read up on the quality standards before moving any more pages, alright? 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciations
Hi,

I noticed your edits to the Agahnim and Volvagia pages. Would you mind telling me where you're getting those pronunciations? It would be nice if we could reference those things. 11:49, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Your'e right about this, but...
Please italicize game names. I'd also like to remind you that references should be cited like so.

Interesting addition, though! Good trivia is what it's all about. 11:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)