Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center

Protected Pages Requiring Editing

 * This section is to be used to request the editing or correcting of a protected page. Requesting this here is faster and more likely to be noticed by an admin. Note to admins: It would be best to never archive this section.

As you may have noticed from the Recent Changes, I corrected many links linking to the Twilight Princess disambiguation page. I'm sort of a perfectionist, so I like to be thorough. It was already agreed upon that fixing these links on talk pages and user pages will help those users to remember how to correctly link to the respective page. There are still four pages left to be fixed at Pages that link to Twilight Princess. The one on the talk page stays because it is clearly said that that link is a link to the disambiguation page. But the rest are protected news pages. 15:15, July 20, 2008 (UTC)


 * The two pages in the category Wiki Exclusives need their links to "The Legend of Zelda series" corrected to "The Legend of Zelda (Series)". 17:39, August 13, 2008 (UTC)

Zelda Music Links
Did anyone else notice that nearly all of our links to Zelda music files are dead? This must be do to the recent changes to the Zelda Universe.net interface. We'll have to go through all the music links and replace them with good versions. 00:33, August 5, 2008 (UTC)


 * FRIGGIN' ZELDA UNIVERSE NEEDS TO GET A MAKEOVER AND JASON DECIDES NOT TO TELL US OUR LINKS ARE DEAD ARGHLARGHGAH!


 * Well, if most of the links go to the same place, Jason should be able to help us. I hope. 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already had to do this a number of times in the past. It'll be quite tricky to find all the affected pages. It may be an idea to create a template for "play this song" links - not only would this standardize the formatting, but it would allow pages containing such file links to be categorized if required, making this process easier in future. Matt? 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. 22:37, August 12, 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We don't need to put it in a category. All we need is the proposed template's "What links here" page. Simple· 22:58, August 12, 2008 (UTC)

Fav Icon
Has anyone else noticed that, on subpages, the site's favicon doesn't show up? Why does it do this? I'll tell you why. On the pages that it does show up, the software looks for this file:  http://zeldawiki.org/skins/monobook/favicon.ico . But, on a subpage, it looks for a file like this:  http://zeldawiki.org/ Base_Page_Name  /skins/monobook/favicon.ico . So every subpage it looks in a unique place for the favicon file and it just isn't going to find it. I'm not exactly sure how to fix this. But... ...The favicon will show up on subpages when editing them. This means that the problem has to be in the coding for our site's short URLs. So that is the place to start. 04:17, August 27, 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done some research. This seems to be an issue of our choice to have the article name follow the domain name. I think I have a solution. We need to make a rewrite rule. Here is the guide to making a rewrite rule: Apache Rewrite rules . That will hopefully solve the problem. 04:36, August 27, 2008 (UTC)


 * ...which is also a part of the & problem, which Jason is (supposedly?) getting around to fixing. 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because I said "short URL" and "rewrite rule" doesn't mean that they are the same problem. They are two different problems caused by the same thing. We'll need a different rewrite rule for each one. 14:38, August 27, 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
Are the new galleries going to be changed? The new ones don't look as good as the original, and the text on the current ones are too light anyway. 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. I'm afraid the consensus among the staff is that the new style galleries are preferred. Also, I can't see any problem with the text? Were you talking about before they were changed to blue from the default white/grey? 09:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories and Sub-Categories
They're a mess. More to the point: What determines if an article is categorized in a category in addition to that category's parent category? There are things like Category:2D games and Category:Enemies in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, which are, but then Category:Forests, which aren't, and even ones like Category:Mario and Category:Villages which are sometimes. So, is there standard, or have people just been shoving these randomly together? (The latter seems more likely, honestly.) --Douken 04:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question, and yeah, it's just been up to the discretion of the editor. We should decide what to do, though. In my opinion, adding something to a category and its parent category... kind of defeats the purpose of having the sub-category to begin with. I vote that all offending articles have the sub-category's parent category removed. All in favor? 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds better than any alternatives I see, but this would mean... quite a bit of work. If this goes through, we should probably conform most of the category descriptions, as many of them are either vague or unspecific. Whenever reasonably possible, I believe "This should list all  found  ." or something like it should be used; it seems to be the most professional and specific phrasing currently used. --Douken 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd actually be inclined to suggest that we do the opposite. Let me explain why I think it's important that (in most cases) articles have both the parent and sub-category. Using only sub-categories greatly restricts the ability of less-knowledgeable users to browse content. For example, I want to find a Person, but can't quite remember the name - now I also need to know what game(s) they appear in. Or even more simply - I want to be able to see all Places in one list, rather than being restricted by what type/classification of place they are. To me, it's just making things less user-friendly for no discernible benefit (I haven't seen anything above that justifies why it needs to be done). Also, most articles currently have both categories - this would be a LOT of work... 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone can't identify the name or game of a Person, they'd still have to scroll through 377+ articles in Category:People in hopes of finding a specific one? I can't reasonably imagine anyone that casual about this series would be that patient/desperate to find the associated article. Ando's way should be done because it's much more efficient and reliable to have it set either one way or the other, and because categorizing everything in Zelda into Nintendo, and everything in Nintendo into Video Game Companies doesn't sound practical.  It's also less confusing Ando's way, if you ask me.  --Douken 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)