Community talk:LegendOfZelda.com

There are numerous problems with the previous version of this article, which is why I cleaned up the article and is why I've rolled back from the last edit (Which was essentially a rollback from my cleanup). Given that the vast majority of the edits to this article have been made by LoZ.com staff members, I suspect a conflict of interest. There are issues with neutrality, unfounded claims and organization, in addition to serious grammatical errors. The history section titles are inconsistent - Some are based on events, others on specific dates, and some overlap in places or would flow better as a single section. The external links section has been superseded by the website infobox and is no longer necessary. All shortened references to the site should be LoZ.com, not LoZ. Forum statistics are unnecessary. They would require constant updating and add little to the article. Some excerpts with major problems:
 * "...but »-LasT-ChaNcE-« and Xízør™ run most of the day-to-day affairs of the site in Link of Hyrule's life in WoW while on a drinking binge-induced extended hiatus." - This sentence doesn't make any sense.
 * "LoZ.com culture is based around its forums, second only to the forums at Zelda Universe." - Quantitatively LoZ.com's forums are 17th to Zelda Universe; qualitatively this statement needs sources and should not be stated as fact.
 * "Humor, freedom of expression, tolerance, and love of fun are the major motifs of LoZ.com culture. However, LoZ's reputation of having strict and sometimes stolid moderators and administrators was well earned, and is not let down in the present day." - This reads as straight opinion, not fact, especially without citations.
 * "After the relaunch of 2004, LoZ saw a tremendous spike in user activity, including joining, posting, logging in, et cetera." - This sentence seems tedious and redundant. Given that we're referring to a forum, user activity must be joining, visiting and posting...
 * "The administrator Cartoons rebuilt the site within hours, but was promptly blamed by LoZ's ever pervasive n00b population as the actually perpetrator in the hacking." - Who is "LoZ's ever pervasive n00b population" and how is this group defined? This sentence also has problems with grammar and "n00b" is used derisively; not appropriate for this Wiki.
 * "Over the course of three days in the month of July, 2005, »-LasT-ChaNcE-« rebuilt the forums, struggling through code and administrative procedures, not just to rebuild the forums, but to make great new forums that would dazzle the members of LoZ.com and hopefully spark more activity." - Reads as opinion. If these were »-LasT-ChaNcE-«'s intentions, they should be described as such.
 * "(currently renamed "lozmedia.com", where all of the media for LoZ.com is stored)" - This should be placed in the section about Xero Gaming and perhaps expanded on.
 * "(better known as simply "Chance")" - This should be used with the first instance of "»-LasT-ChaNcE-«" in the article, and each instance following it should use the shortened version or none at all.
 * "LoZ activity skyrocketed and hasn't slowed down much since." - Citation needed.
 * "Despite the success of the new layout, LoZ will not undergo another layout change for a good, long while due to amount of exhausting effort required to successfully create and implement such a thing." - Where did this information come from? Has LoZ.com stated this?

Please address these issues in the previous version before using it again. - Fury Three 22:24, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I believe all issues have been addressed. They are valid claims. I apologize. My only concern is this: how do we cite the things you said require citations? All of those things are things I know to be fact based on Statistics I can view in my private Administration Panel, not from publicly accessible information. No other zelda site has to provide "citations" for their own pages; we kind of just take their word for it that as a webmaster designing their own page, they are being honest about solid facts. - Xizor 23:52, 20 Mach 2008 (PST)
 * I'm not too concerned about citations unless the statement is subjective. Finding sources for much of the history and inner workings of websites can be nearly impossible, so the policy I'm taking in this section is "I'll take your word for it." But we'd like to avoid anything that appears opinionated. The examples I singled out above fit this criteria. For example, in the sentence about skyrocketing activity, what is "skyrocketing" defined as? A more quantified statement would be useful here, eg. "Activity doubled," "increased 300%," "has been constantly increasing," or something along those lines. Fury Three 23:39, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Advertisement
Anyone else think this is just a giant, hulking plug for the website? I don't think it should have an article unless it's official, like zelda.com or nintendo.com. Otherwise, it contributes nothing. Saibh 15:26, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then let's take out every other fansite website. Otherwise, quit complaining about just LoZ.com's page. We're not the only ones worth "editing" and that "contribute nothing". Whether or not LoZ is a big site or a little site, we're a site, and therefore we are a part of the Zelda Community, and if ZU gets to have a page, if ZD gets to have a page, WE get to have a page. 'Nuff said. And again, I request an explanation as to why LoZ.com is the one site I see getting rap for not having citations. I mean what is there to cite here? - Xizor 14:21, 21 Mach 2008 (PST)
 * Just cite yourself then. It's your website. Apparently, this Wiki isn't limited to things in Zelda canon or people who directly influence it, etc. Apparently, you can add just about anything to it. Saibh 17:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Saibh - FYI there has been a Zelda Sites category from the beginning, LoZ.com is not the only article on a website.
 * Xizor - Most of the parts I've been going after for citations are highly subjective claims. Most of the content in site articles is going to be very hard to find citations for, so my primary concern has been minimizing promotional language so Wiki articles don't become giant plugs. I've been going after these on other site articles, however, there's just not very many sizable site articles at the moment, and most of them are still stubs.
 * I think I should clarify this one, though: "Despite the success of the new layout, LoZ will not undergo another layout change for a good, long while due to amount of exhausting effort required to successfully create and implement such a thing." A better phrasing would be: "Despite the success of the new layout, LoZ.com's staff has no plans to undergo another layout change in the foreseeable future, due to amount of exhausting effort required to successfully create and implement such a task." This reads more like a neutral viewpoint without needing a citation. Fury Three 23:29, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Saibh, I suggest you look around here before hurling criticism against particular articles. A quick glance around Category:Zelda Sites would show that Xizor is correct - many Zelda fan sites have an article here. We are an inclusive wiki. The in-game information adheres to canon, but that's not all you'll find here; the secondary purpose of the wiki is and always has been as a community portal (given that it was formed by the webmasters of the very sites described here). Simply put, if this content is not to your liking, stay out of this category. (I'd also recommend you steer clear of Category:Community, Category:Misc & Category:Super Smash Bros., to name a few...)
 * Also, Xizor; I don't think Fury Three was trying to single anyone out, as he added similar requests to a number of sites. I think it just happened that this article was one of the newer and more active at the time. —Adam (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)