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)

Too many new users sign their posts wrong. They do something like this:
 *  ~ Username

No offense to anyone that has done this, but I'm getting sick of explaining it every time. One solution is to edit this page and add detail instructions on how not to make this mistake. We could use bold letters, underlining, bright and contrasting colors, etc. to make it impossible not to notice it. 22:09, September 21, 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article's Talk Page is used a lot more then this.  13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question
When looking for pictures, can I just get them off of various sites via google or do I have to own them by scaninng or etc? Sephiner Shaeld 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can get them off of any site you like, provided you license them correctly. Also note that any site with images under the Creative Commons license may not be used, as we are under the GNU Free Document License, and the two licenses are not compatible. Other than that, you're fine. :) 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition of 'Race'
When defining the races of Hyrule, what requirements does a race candidate need to meet. I mean, do they need to be able to speak? If so, the Gibdos from Majora's Mask must be a 'race' as if Link puts on the Gibdo Mask it is possible to converse with them. 11:31, Feb 12, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a category on lore?
At the moment im desperate to find some zelda lore that doesnt involve any information about the gameplay and such, im pretty sure i once was on a lore page on this wiki, but now i cant find it? Please help ^_^ Tar-kynd 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what exactly you mean, is there any thing you can think of that would be an example? 20:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

***The Fate of the Theory Sections in Articles***
This could potentially be the largest project to face the wiki in some time. There has been conversation off-wiki between myself and a bunch of other users, including admins, about how to more beneficially present the theory portions of articles to the average viewer on the wiki, as in their present form, they are all scattered on the individual articles they relate to and nothing more. While this current system does keep relevant theory on each page, it hardly aids in connecting related theories together in one place in the way forums and other avenues of conversation do - creating a linear progression of such a theory so that one can follow the length and proof from beginning to end, instead of in useless, unsupported fragments as we currently have.

The proposal is to create a "theory portal" of sorts similar to ZeldaWiki.org's Help Guide, with a nav, in which one can not only locate an individual theory going from general categories to specific ones, but it interlocks all theory into one area, keeping it all centralized and interconnected, as theory should be.

For example: Theories Portal (the main page) >>> Race-Specific Theories (subpage) >>> Zora (heading) >>> Rito/Zora Evolution in TWW

It would be highly organized, keep theories off of factual wiki main pages, and provide a central source for the Mastermind sites and users to circulate popular theories, as this wiki for a long time has been the central hub of popular, referenced postulates - our theory pages are amongst the highest-viewed on the site. Take the Zelda Timeline sub-series of articles for example. It is a small, similar version of what this plan will aim to accomplish. While the consolidation of theory across the wiki may appear to be a daunting task, I believe we will be able to pull a project such as this off.

Secondly, if this proposal is to go through, it would be best to move this to the Community Namespace, as theory in particular is quite possibly the most definitive aspect of The Legend of Zelda to fans in the community, aside from actually playing the games. Not only would this move generate a traffic boost to the Mastermind sites and respective pages here on ZW.org (as they make up the community), these pages can link to the forums on those sites in order to provide the most encompassing look on Zelda theorizing possible - an aspect of the current setup that is not possible/reasonable given the amount of theory scatter across the wiki.

All in all, centralizing theory on the wiki would not only keep theory off the factual mainspace and into its own, focused portal, but keep it organized and provide easy navigation to related and interconnected elements. As we are still discussing this proposal, we'd like to see discussion below. Cheers! 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I came up with this idea a few days ago after we had difficulty with the way theories are organized. Cip's organization of it seems far better than the way I was thinking, though, and I really must applaud this. What do you guys all think about it? The logic of course is that since theories are the most controversial of topics, they cause the most edit wars. If we do this, it will at least keep the theories off of our high-traffic pages such as the game pages, so that way readers won't end up confused by constant reverts which make the articles change every minute. This way will at least provide us with pages which will be less-viewed, so that we don't look indecisive and change our main pages constantly. All in all, it's the concern for our readers which drove me to seek this out. While this won't get rid of edit wars, it will still allow us to organize the theories in a better manner and deal with complications as they arise. In addition, it could also stop them, as they would describe the theories themselves, and with theories off of the main articles, no one can argue over what theory is more plausible for the page. I hope you all seriously consider this before shooting it down, because it's had a lot of thought put into it. I'm eager to hear your opinions! 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sad but true, this isn't up to the regular editors discretion. The last time the staff took a vote we didn't reach a majority decision, so the theories stayed. This was before getting a massive public endorsement specifically related to theories. Adding "See Also" is what you do when sections aren't able to present other related details to the subject matter. The precedent that removing the theories could apply to any other populist choices such as collapsing spoilers, removing references, etc. Let's face it more people come around to add theories than references. So by that logic we could eliminate the reference sections. As far as changes on Mainspace pages, well it's a wiki, not a static article site. The problem begins with edit wars and the spectators jumping in-circling the same facts over and over and little to no mediating being done. Disputes are going to happen- wikis are projects aiming for an end result. Forums and the like can frown on disputes because they are conversation and community gathering places. The disputes on wikis need to be settled and compromised on to reach a satisfactory conclusion to all parties. Sorry, but that's just how it is. The wiki might be the wrong place for those who think otherwise. 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel you're missing the point, Ax. It's not about total elimination of theory. We're just moving it to a theory-inclusive area, where it is all centralized, relevant, but yet still on the wiki for all to see. In truth, the reason for this is not to stop edit wars and not to eliminate indecisiveness, as that stuff is going to happen regardless, but to get the theory into an easily navigable area of only theory so that the facutal portion and the speculative portion of this wiki stays separate, as I believe it should be. I think that's a more realsitic proposal. 04:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Real World Weapons
Where was the page on the Zelda weapons used in the real world? Thank you. WolfLink 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean this page:

Zelda Weapons in the Middle Ages.

Other wiki exclusives can be found here:

http://zeldawiki.org/Category:Wiki_Exclusives

Hope that was helpful. :) Dany36 19:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured Voting Reform!
Alright guys, well, I'm not sure if users get a say in big changes such as these in the wiki, but I figured it was worth a shot. We tried to change it before, but we only got as far as allowing ANYONE with an account to vote, so why not try again?

The thing is that Featured Voting for both Featured Articles and Featured Pictures has become stagnant, and I, along with several other users and admins, feel that a change in the Featured Voting rules is much needed. I mean, we have vague statements in the Featured Content Disqualification pages stating that "if something has had a score of -3 for a sufficient amount of time, it will be replaced with the new content. If something has had a score of +4 for at least a week, it will be considered a Failed Disqualification." Just what exactly is "sufficient amount of time" is left up for much debate, and the fact that the next sentence states that only a week is needed for something to be classified as a failed disqualification isn't very consistent at all. It is also very worrisome that some pictures, such as this, and some articles, such as Twinrova, have been sitting in the featured nomination pages for OVER A YEAR.

So pretty much the major change we're asking for is a TIME LIMIT. If a nominated article has more supportive votes than opposed votes for at least 6 months, it will become featured. If a nominated picture has more supportive votes than opposed votes for at least 3 months, it will become featured. We feel that having a time limit might promote users to vote. Say something gets featured that they don't like, they'll oppose it so that it won't get featured just because it's been sitting there with all supportive votes.

Of course, this is just a rough draft of what we thought up, and it's obvious that it's subject to change if other users feel that the proposed time limit is insufficient or not to their liking. It's simple: the more input we get, the more polished these new policy/policies will be. So let's see what we can do about this, and let's not let this one die like other proposals, folks! (That is, if users get to have a say in this at all, which I think they should because it's THEIR wiki ;) Dany36 04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the Featured Nomination pages have become solemn graveyards for good articles lately, this is a breath of fresh air. Thing is, I'm not convinced that even a time limit will encourage users to vote more. The only thing I can see happening is more and more articles not having enough votes at the end of a "time limit", and then what? The majority of support and opposition determines what is featured and what is not? What if there is 2 support and 2 opposing, what makes or breaks the deal at the end of the time period? It's still a bit fuzzy to me.
 * The only thing that I can see working to get Featured Nominations voted for successfully and frequently is some sort of incentive for doing so on the part of the user. I know we had considered the Barnstar award system that Wikipedia uses for user involvement and accomplishments, but I don't know what happened with that; I could see that as viable. Maybe restricting the types of pages a user can edit until they've voted, such as the more heavily visited pages like Hyrule or Ganon? I think the answer here lies outside of time limits and such, as that seems like an avenue that may fall apart just as the way we are currently doing things is. 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Cip, I'm afraid that restricting page editing with voting is a little extreme. Incentives should be something positive, not a lifted restriction. That goes against the wiki philosophy, in my opinion. 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Founder
So who made the wiki?

Nevermind. Found it.

Japanese names
Alright, it's time to settle this once and for all. The guidelines in Zelda Wiki.org's Quality Standards state the following:


 * Zelda Wiki.org is an English-language wiki, based in the United States of America, which sets a few standards for language:


 * ''All content is to be written in formal American English, not British English, Australian English or any other variation of the English language.


 * Even though the games of the Zelda series are originally published in Japanese, the translations and localizations of Nintendo of America are taken to be canon at Zelda Wiki.org.


 * Articles are to be named and written, and games quoted, using Nintendo of America’s translations.


 * 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.

Having said that, let me bring up some articles that have been merged with the basis that Nintendo of America made some "translation mistakes", specifically, saying that "Volvagia" was "Barba". This lead to the merger of those two pages into one page: Volvagia, with the relevant talk page discussion found here. Note that at the bottom of that discussion, Steve said that the merger contradicted our policy, and that if this was to be ignored, then a change in the policy was needed. But no one replied to Steve's claim and well, here we are almost a year later after the merge has been done so that we can actually discussing this matter.

Now, I supported the merger because...ahem...I didn't know the above policy existed. More recently another page has been merged in the same sort of basis: that Wart is the Japanese name for Arrghus. So what I'm pretty much asking is...are these merges going to be allowed despite that they go against our policy? Or are we going to change the policy to go along with the above merges? Dany36 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem using Japanese titles/quotes over the English translations. However, many other pages follow the policy we have in place, and more pages will need merging, splitting and moving, especially A Link to the Past, which will need to be moved to the original Japanese title: Triforce of the Gods. 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a mostly English audience, and most of them from North America. Most of our audience is only going to be aware of the NoA versions of the games. Mixing up with too much of the original Japanese is just going to confuse the readers and hurt our search results. We should stay with the original policy. 20:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Matt makes a good point. It really doesn't matter to me, but as Steve said, we need to keep things consistent, not have some merged by the Japanese and others separate by the English. 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I say we go for consistency. We shouldn't have some articles using the Japanese names and others using the American names. That's rather confusing. So, we should probably just stick with the current policy. 21:04, June 30, 2010 (UTC)