Zelda Wiki:Discussion Center


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2

Zelda's Adventure and the Shrines
OKAY so I was browsing the wanted pages and I came across Shrine of Strength. I was curious as to exactly wtf this was, because I've never heard of it. Looked it up and found that it's one of the dungeons in Zelda's Adventure, the craptastic CD-i game where you play as Zelda that has horrible voice acting and stupid live-action cutscenes. So I did some digging, and found that there's seven of these, and we have a page for ONE. The Shrine of Earth. We DO have a page called Dungeons in Zelda's Adventure, but it's just a listing. Now I have to beg the question: do the shrines all go on that page or do we have each one individually? What are your opinions on this one? Personally, I can argue either way. The content is small and secondary (in favor of one page), or the content can be exanded upon with enemies faced, items gained, bosses, themes, etc. I had my doubts until I saw Shrine of Earth. That somewhat convinced me that it's possible. But I'll let them community decide. 15:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually the point of the dungeon listings is to act as sort of a "portal" to the individual dungeon pages. It looks like we were going for having pages for each, but it never got done. Most of what we have on the CD-i games is courtesy of the work done by Heroofstuff (who is no longer active) and Shadow Reaper a few months back. It seems the project never really got completed and now that part of the wiki is just stagnating, so what's why you're seeing what you're seeing.
 * I think they can stand on their own as separate pages, if someone cared to make them. That said, I have had thoughts about marginalizing the non-canon games. That is, decrease the number of non canon pages by lumping all the locations into one page and all the dungeons in another, like we have for the items (see here and here). Just a thought. 15:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Shrine of Earth looks like a pretty decent page, which makes me think that the rest of the shrines could stand to have their own pages...if someone makes them. :c --Dany36 16:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry guys I've been meaning to do the pages (really have been) but I got a job recently and that much CD-i is most likely unhealthy but I do need to stop being lazy and attempt to trudge on with the work. So that being said in the next few coming weeks I'll (hopefully) be adding the remaining shrines (may the goddesses have mercy on my undead soul) SHADOW REAPER OUT PEACE!! --Shadow Reaper 18:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I pity you. I tried to play the CD-i games and got very angry within five minutes. Never touched 'em again. I wish I could provide some info but there's just nothing about them on the interwebz. 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way Shadow, don't feel like you're forced to do anything you don't want to do, especially not CD-i stuff. We wouldn't wish that on our worst enemies. 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Naw thats okay HK I'm slowly waging a one man war on red links and most of them belong to me. Besides sadly........I actually WANT to play Zelda's Adventure. --Shadow Reaper 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I used to not really care about the non-canon games, but now I think it's important to have information on them on the wiki to avoid misinformation flying around. We either ignore them entirely or get it right, that's what I think. It's very hard to find stuff about them though, and because it's hard to find information, and people willing to play them in some cases, the pages are going to take more work to deal with. I don't necessarily think we should give up and lump everything together just because we haven't managed it yet, though. The fact that our wiki is lacking information should spur us on to ADD that information, should it not? Of course, it's pointless having a bunch of super stubby pages, but the dungeons in Zelda's Adventure are... interesting, at least. Try watching a play-though on Youtube. You will suffer almost as much as he who had to play them, but it's a pretty fascinating experience.
 * On the other hand, Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland is a genuinely decent game. It's no Zelda, but it's actually fun to play once you get your head around it, and has quite a few references while being it's own thing. Of course, I put the Tingle games on a WHOLE other level to the CD-i madness, because Nintendo actually had some involvement in their creation at least. They're so not canon though.
 * Unrelated, but I was thinking the canon templates maybe needed a revamp... they're kind of big. 21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they are. Abdullah and I have been trying to find different solutions to that (see here and here). 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though the CD-i and Tingle games are rather... different, as a wiki that aims to cover all aspects of The Legend of Zelda, we should provide information on them regardless. Linebeck IV 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk about security
Okay, so I've only recently returned, but I've already noticed an alarming rate of new users with generic names that I guarantee you are being created by some spam script. This leads me to believe that we need to do something to up our security. I'm willing to talk with the MediaWiki developers if I have to regarding security and possibly finding a way to stop this. Because if it's this easy for them to get through account creation (with some even able to confirm email addresses) then who knows what's next? Mass page spamming? Hijacking of admin accounts? My point here is that I expected security to be better after two years away, and it seems worse. This is kinda disturbing to me, and it should disturb any sane person as well. If anyone knows anything about secuity and how spam scripts work, please contact me either at my email address (located on my userpage or on Skype (skype name shown here). I may be able to find a way for the wiki to detect and terminate these scripts if the developers can't help me. Should be fun writing more wiki extensions, anyway. I haven't written any since I made those ones we're still using today =3 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought
I'm pretty sure this has been brought up numerous times, with no real conclusion... BUT, I was wondering if the staff would consider discussing lowering the number of required votes in order to feature an article or picture. Ten votes may have been fair at one point, but it seems that the number is only allowing the voting systems to stagnate. Either that or maybe it's time to retire the voting system? It's been losing activity for a while now, and even taking a look around I've noticed a few articles that have been in contemplation for over a year. Also, I wanted to point out that the Latest Announcements page hasn't been updated since June =) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a really good point. Not enough people vote for that. Yet another point I wanted to bring up but never got to before leaving :(
 * And as for the announcements...yeah, they need to be updated or something.
 * Good to see you again on the editing front, Mandi. Stick around, it'll be a barrel of fun. 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually would of nominated a few pictures for voting if it wasn't for the fact that it seems to require too many votes and there isn't enough activity at the moment. It's sort of a spiral of inactivity. The only way to make it more active is to lower the voting requirement, which in turn will give people more reason to vote. 02:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OKAY, so I'm going to go ahead and actually propose what changes I'd like to put into effect:
 * For starters, we knock the number of required votes to feature something down to five. Ten is outlandish for how few active users we have and how little emphasis we place on voting.
 * I'd like to keep our standards of 3 votes in opposition to fail an article. I'd also like to add an addendum: should an article receive one vote of opposition, it must have SIX votes to pass, and with two votes opposed it must have SEVEN in favor. (This one I'm tentatively adding; if you guys don't like it, say so and we won't speak of it again.)
 * I'm also proposing removing the limit of only one vote of support per month. I would like to instead add a limit to how many articles we feature each month. I'd like to say no more than 1 or 2, as it would be appropriate to keep a newly featured item on the main page for about 2 weeks. Once two items are chosen, the page is locked from editing until the next calendar month, when it will once again become open to the public voting. (This is another tentative addition just to get the ideas flowing. Once again, it can be scrapped if you guys don't like it.)
 * Everything I've said using the word "article" was also meant to apply to the image voting. These are at least something to build off of. Please leave your thoughts so we can begin shaping a new policy for Zelda Wiki. Your input is greatly valued, from the plain ol' editor to the high profile administrator. 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Justin, in that I support reducing the minimum number of support votes to 5 and setting the minimum ratio of supports vs. opposes as 5:1. 3 oppose votes being an automatic failure? That one I'll have to think about. One support vote per month is a silly limit and has obviously proven counterproductive. Kurtis (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I say yes as well. I actually supported this way back when it was first proposed two or so years ago, but back then people weren't really too much into the idea (also some bureaucrats and admins didn't like it either). 5 votes to pass sounds good to me while keeping the three-votes-needed-to-disqualify thingy. I don't think people have been following the one-vote-per-month rule anyway (and I'm pretty sure admins/patrollers weren't checking), so it's not a big deal. This will just make it official. :P --Dany36 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What Dany said. I guess it's sort of a similar concept to the voting system for Featured Content Disqualification, where a vote in favor counts as +1 and a vote against counts as -1, and the article/picture becomes featured at +5. 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At Justin's behest: I concur. :) I think 10 votes is a bit excessive, but 5 would be a nice round number. 3 opposition votes sounds good to me though. I mean if three seasoned members turn it down, it probably doesn't belong, right? :) 00:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, we need to have people actually notice what votes break the rules. Most of the featured articles may not have been featured, because one of their votes broke one or more of the guidelines.
 * The "one support a month" thing is crazy, too. I would say, one support an article/image, and if a user is abusing their voting privileges,  they are warned and or the votes in question are negated.
 * Having articles featured at +5 is a great idea. Agreed.

I'm looking at the current guidelines and what they should be changes to...


 * An article needs the approval of ten users in its favor in order to be marked as featured. (Change to five)
 * You may make a maximum of one approval per calendar month. (Unlimited)
 * You may not vote for any article which you have nominated, or for which you have already voted previously. (Keep)
 * Votes (in support or opposition) should be added in order beneath the respective relevant header (either or ), with # at the beginning of the line. (Keep, and possibly allow certain users to move votes if an user states why an article should be featured in the wrong section, vice versa)
 * All approvals MUST be signed using 00:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC). If you do not sign your opinion or second, your comments WILL NOT be counted! (And if the user adds their signature afterwards, it shall be recounted)Be sure to include a brief message stating why you agree that an article should be featured. (Keep)


 * I like Justin's idea, I'd say it'd work well. 01:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you brought this up guys, it's long overdue! For my part, I agree with what's been said so far. I like the idea of using the same "tally" system as the disqualification uses (support = +1, oppose = -1) and I agree that +5 is a more reasonable target. Personally, I'm not entirely sure about still requiring 3 opposition votes for a nomination to fail; my concern is that something inappropriate or ineligible could slip through and become featured quite quickly now, just be being popular, if we don't pay attention. That being said, I don't have a problem with leaving that as it is for now, and possibly reviewing that in future if it becomes a problem.
 * The main thing I'd like to add, which hasn't been mentioned so far, is a time limit. At the moment, if someone makles a nomination that's neither popular nor unpopular, it can be left there indefinitely with no votes either way, because nobody has an opinion on it. Case in point; River Zora was nominated for featured article around 22 months ago, and since then it's garnered one vote in support, and a few neutral comments. I think we should consider some kind of reasonable time limit after which a nomination can be removed due to disinterest. 07:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, Adam made all the points I wanted to make. Just to make my position clear, I agree with the +5 lead and unlimited voting per month. Not sure about the 3 post disqualification. If an article stagnates for 6 months, it should be disqualified. It may be renominated later after receiving improvements, with the score reset to 0. If we see that mediocre articles are going through, we can impose stricter guidelines later on. 08:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, about the time limit, Adam. I support 6 months for auto disqualification due to disinterest. 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Revised Guidelines for Featured Article/Image Voting Proposal
Going off the reactions to the previous guidelines proposed, I have made revisions and changes to my proposal. Here are the new guidelines I'd like to put forward for review:

FIRST, these are what have generally been agreed upon:
 * 1) Voting system: The voting system will be changed to resembled the article disqualification system. A vote in support adds +1 to the score while a vote in opposition subtracts a -1 from the score.
 * 2) Votes to win: An image or article must receive a score of +5 to win.
 * 3) Voting limit: There will be no voting limit. Any user may vote as often as he or she likes.

The following is up for debate:
 * 1) Disqualification: If an article does not receive a +5 score within 4 months, it will be a failed nomination. I now propose removing the rule of 3 oppositions to fail a nomination, given the scoring system. There is also a proposal of changing the fail conditions to a score of -3. This means that instead of three opposition votes immediately killing a nomination, the article must receive enough opposition to lower the score to -3. It is possible that we could have a time limit and a possibility of a failed nomination due to low score. This is what I agree with most.

Please post your thoughts and ideas. We're slowly moving closer to a decision here! 17:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes to disqualifying after the agreed time limit and killing it early with a -3. If an article is so bad that we get a majority with legit oppositions, we don't need to wait the entire 4 months to remove it. 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. About the voting limit, do you mean we can vote only once for each proposed nomination? I also think that a vote should be able to be negated if the user is abusing privileges (i.e, a user adds an opposition comment on every proposed nomination with the message "bad"). As far as disqualification, my opinion is that we have a time limit and a possibility of a failed nomination due to low score. 22:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can vote as many times as you like, but you may only vote once on an article/image. 22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The disqualification requirements sound good to me. 21:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if the oppose votes were expressed as a percentage of the total votes. For example, if the oppose votes represent a third of the total, the article will not be featured. I'd prefer the minimum number of support votes to be 6. So with 2 oppose votes, 6 support votes would be enough in order for the article to be featured, 3 oppose votes would require 7 support votes, 4 oppose votes would require 9 support votes and 5 oppose votes would require 11 support votes. Zeldafan1982 00:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you would prefer if the support vote minimum was 6? 5 is easier, mainly because the only conditions an article will be featured with 5 support votes is if everyone agrees. Let me rethink it: Ok, that's only a one number difference, 6 is fine with me. :D


 * Anyway, shouldn't we just go ahead and feature the Ikana Kingdom article already? It has 8 supporting votes and 0 opposition votes. 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A score of 5 to qualify and a time limit of 4 months seem fair. Everything sounds good to me (and I agree that we might as well feature the Ikana Kingdom article). 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What Dannyboy said. Although what Zeldafan proposes is interesting, I feel as though many users might have difficulties understanding it. The simpler this system is, the better. 21:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then we have the new voting system ready? I suggest that we vote on the new voting system to see if the majority of voters find it fair, though that doesn't seem necessary as the majority of staff agrees with the new voting system.
 * If we are going to feature the Ikana Kingdom article, we may as well feature the image of the Great Fairies from, correct? They are both with 8 support votes and 0 opposition votes. 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest we avoid discussing what should happen to individual articles or pictures we're currently voting on; once the rules change, we can just agree to apply those new rules to the current votes, and feature or disqualify the content as applicable.
 * In terms of the rules themselves, it does seem like we have a good consensus. I'd suggest the next step would be for someone to rewrite this copy of the current rules to how we intend them to read. That way we can use that page to fine-tune the wording and details of the policy before launch. We do need to make sure it's as simple, straightforward and unambiguous as possible. 09:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft for what the rules are proposed to be changed to:  Rules: Feel free to change this copy, delete it, etc. 00:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Scoring and conditions for passing a nomination
 * All nominations start with an initial score of zero.
 * A supporting vote adds 1 to the score.
 * An opposing vote subtracts 1 from the score.
 * An article needs to achieve a score of +5 within 4 months of the nomination date in order to be featured.
 * A nomination automatically fails if the score drops to -3.
 * Voting
 * You may only vote once on a particular article.
 * You may not vote on any articles you have nominated.
 * Votes should be added beneath the relevant header (either   or   ), with # at the beginning of the line. The current score must be updated to reflect this new vote.
 * Supporting votes should include a brief message stating why the article should be featured.
 * Opposing votes must specify how the article fails to meet one or more of the qualifying criteria described above.
 * All votes MUST be signed using ~ . If you do not sign, your vote WILL NOT be counted!
 * Modified to clarify some points and make it easier to read. 11:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. It is with great pleasure that I declare this discussion officially closed. We got a lot of people to weigh in their opinions on the proposal, and we've more or less reached a majority consensus. The above guidelines (thanks to Darkness for writing them out and Abdul for cleaning them up) will officially go into effect as soon as I've finished modifying the appropriate pages. Any articles or images which have a score of at least +5 according to the new system will become featured. As far as the four month time limit...I will tentatively say that any current featured content candidates will receive a time limit of four months from today to either pass or fail. Thanks so much to everyone who took the time to lend their opinions and thoughts! 02:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wind Waker Quest Status Items Navigation Template
On the Image Requests Page, K2L left a request for start screen menu images for various games in order to build item nav templates for each game. However, K2L has left Zelda Wiki. I wish to fulfill one of his requests by implementing a navigation template for The Wind Waker 's quest status items, based on the existing TWW Items template. Is this OK? Wwtoonlinkfan 05:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to ask permission to make something. Go right on ahead! 20:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Template:Items is still very much an ongoing project. 20:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the TWW Quest Status screen. Feel free to crop or do whatever you deem necessary to do the template! --Dany36 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mobile version of Zeldawiki.org
I was just thinking. When you go to a site such as Wikipedia.com on a mobile device (eg. iPhone) you will be greeted with a nice, mobile friendly version of the site. So maybe, if it isn't too much trouble, could this be implemented site-wide to Zeldawiki.org? I often visit Zeldawiki for all sorts of things and I'm sure many others do and would welcome this.


 * Absolutely. As a matter of fact, the staff has been recently been talking about doing just that. We're aware of how necessary a mobile skin is at this point; one of our admins is currently working on making one. Until that comes into fruition, we apologize for any inconvenience. I know firsthand how much it sucks to navigate the wiki on a phone. :P
 * For future reference, all you need to do to sign your posts is leave four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. This automatically generates a signature with your username and a timestamp. 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Custom Edit Buttons
Okay, so no one's paying any attention to this in the chats, so... I've adapted some javascript from Wikipedia and worked with RAP to create custom edit buttons for the toolbar at the top of the edit box. The buttons insert our various citation templates into the edit box (like cite, cite web, cite person, etc.), and I think it would be nice to see this publically implemented. Not only would it greatly encourage users to source their additions to pages, but it would assist editors who are editing without the help of a copy/paste function, much like myself when I edit through my Xbox's internet. The buttons are as follows:

I think it's pretty obvious what each one is, but I linked them to the appropriate template just in case. Thoughts? (By the way, I should probably give Adam some credit, as well, since I found the link to the javascript on his userpage :P) 02:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it. They certainly can't hurt, anyway. 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be a helpful addition. Definitely a good idea. Zeldafan1982 15:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. --Dany36 01:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Excessively long articles
So I've noticed that we have a lot of extremely long articles. Normally, this is a good thing, but there is a time when an article becomes too long. Any article which exceeds 96kb is prone to technical glitches, performance issues, and excessive load times. Given how many users browse the wiki on mobile devices, it is unacceptable to ignore the problems which this poses. We have a list of excessively long pages, all of which I'd like to see cut down to a more user-friendly size. I'm not proposing gutting the articles and removing important information; what I propose instead is that we find ways to move sections of the articles onto their own pages and simply provide a link to them on the main article, much like we've done with Hyrule and its Hyrule/Appearances by Game. This is an important project which will require the input and cooperation of all users. If you would like to assist, find a page which you'd like to help cut down and post possible ways to reduce the size on the talk page of the article. Note that this is only necessary for articles which are over 96,000 bytes (aka 96kb), although articles approaching this limit should also be taken into consideration. 22:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said on the staff chat, one thing we can do for Link, Ganon and Zelda is to take out all the noncanon and ambig content and move them somewhere else. "Ganon/Other Appearances" would be pretty good page, with the main article linking to it. Not many care for noncanon stuff, it its lower priority than anything else on there. However, it would still be accessible this way for those who care. 21:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although it hurts to say it, I agree with what Abdul said. I believe we can do the same for the Triforce article, no? --Dany36 21:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've come up with a few ideas regarding the Zelda Timeline and placed them on its Talk Page. As for the other pages: we can easily make sub-pages for noncanon appearances for Link, Princess Zelda, Ganon and the Triforce, and the different sections of the Skyward Sword Translations could be split into their own pages (e.g. "Skyward Sword Translations/Characters"). This could also be done to The Wind Waker Translations if necessary. 18:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, so if we're all agreed on moving the "Other Appearances" to a subpage for Link, Zelda, Ganon, and Triforce, I'd like for us to take care of this ASAP. These are important, featured articles and the "oversized" tag is, well, huge, and very distracting. To that end, I'm more than willing to lend a hand in the moving. 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Modifying some notice templates
Our notice templates, namely ,    and   , kinda suck. That's why Hylian King and I have been doing some experimentation (links: first, second, & third). The idea here is to make them non-intrusive. As a result of some goofing around, we also managed to give them the added capability of hiding text. For example, if one section is full of spoilers, you might do the following: 

Spoiler text

This would wrap "Spoiler text" with code that allows you to hide and show it by clicking the template. If the whole article is full of spoilers, you can still opt for the standard at the top of the article, without wrapping anything.

The designs and ideas are still in their infancy, so feedback is appreciated. 21:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * On the first link, I really like the second one, but I'm not sure if it gives away that the users are supposed to hover over the words to clarify what Ambiguously Content means? Like, maybe put some dots under it like the exp template or something. The first one is great too so I'm cool with either. --Dany36 21:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what bugs me? And this unfortunately isn't really solved yet by those options, but it's the colours and the size. The main issue I have is that they're garish and big. The green and pink are ugly and the boxes are HUGE and cover the whole width of the page (at least with the first option). It actually draws more attention to the sections when it should, ideally, be doing the opposite. Also, I'm not sure I like the idea of a template that hides an entire section by default, I'm not sure if the templates do that or not? I thought I saw that on the first link but visiting it again it seems to be visible by default, nevermind. 01:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with the "spoiler" template is that we would have to incase most of the wiki's content in them. Nearly all of the content can be identified as a spoiler. It would take a tremendous amount of work to place them on every page, however the other templates are great. 01:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * About the templates drawing more attention than they should, isn't that the whole purpose? "HEY DUDE YOU'RE KIND OF READING INFORMATION THAT IS NONCANON WATCH OUT" As for everything being considered a spoiler, yeah that's kind of the problem I had with the spoiler template. At one point it was sort of decided that we would not mark spoilers anymore (we even put up a sitenotice saying HEY THIS WIKI HAS UNMARKED SPOILERS EVERYONE WATCH OUT) but...I guess we just sort of went back to marking spoilers? Zeldapedia does that (mark everything as spoilers, I mean) which I consider to be kind of unnecessary, but spoiler tags and whether they should be used is another whole discussion :P --Dany36 16:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fizzle, actually made the same comment a while back in the chat, although I rather like the colors. Makes things lively. Also Dany, what about ambig canon? "HEY DUDE THIS IS SORT OF CANON BUT NOT REALLY SO DON'T WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT". Kind of a mixed message, no? Anyway, that's why I put forward the version in that second link Abdul posted and in my sandbox, I think it's visible enough to be a good warning but subtle enough not to really draw much attention. The problem is it's pretty puny for something that takes up a fair bit of space lengthwise. Thought it would be cool if it could sit on the header line to make everything more streamlined. That's proving to be extremely difficult to pull of without some kind of complication, though. 17:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I meant more along the lines of letting the users KNOW FOR SURE what kind of material they are reading, not so much as to whether they should pay attention to it or not. It's their choice, after all. ;p --Dany36 17:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. And Fizzle, the idea is that users will be able to choose in their preferences which sections they want to be hidden on page-load. But they will all be shown on default. 17:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I tried remedying the size/color issue with these last two attempts. I also added some images and dotted lines, just to mix things up. Tell me if you think they're better, and if not, what needs to be fixed. 15:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These things are a bit subjective of course. Anyway, I like the last three more. They take little space and have rounded corners. I think the fifth would be better without the dotted line. Between the fifth and the last one, the fifth is a little more attractive. Zeldafan1982 16:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I very much like the second out of the three new options you placed down. The first is nice too, although not sure if Tingle should be the image for sure, but it seems nice, either one is good in my eyes. Both of those seem still noticeable but less garish than the usual templates and hopefully they won't take up too much space (is it possible to make them marginally thinner at all or is that pushing it?). 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also sold on the second of the newest ones.


 * At this point, I think the new notice templates are ready for the wiki. There's no point in holding it back over minor details, we can always work those out later. If we can agree that we're all at least mostly satisfied, if not wholly satisfied with the newest style, then it should be taken to the next step. 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And all relevant templates have been updated. Please keep an eye out for unforeseen effects. 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hovertext ads on tab titles
I've been getting hovertext ads on tab titles recently. I don't have any problem with hovertext ads in general, but it means it is actually impossible to navigate to that tab without refreshing to move the ad somewhere else. Is there any way to prevent these ads from appearing on tab names? -- Snorlax Monster  04:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. We have a template that does just that: AdFilter. Thanks for pointing it out; that's guaranteed to tick off any reader! 04:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bosses aren't people too
Currently on the wiki, all the boss listings (e.g. Bosses in Skyward Sword) have been transcluded onto the corresponding character listings, meaning that all the bosses and minibosses are currently listed as characters. I think it's been like this for about as long as I've been here, but I'm just now realizing that this is pointless. The vast majority of bosses, and especially minibosses, are more enemies than they are characters. Those that can be considered characters are already listed on the page anyway. For example, it makes no sense for Moldarach to be listed as one of the Characters in Skyward Sword, and Ghirahim and Demise are already listed under "Main Characters" anyway.

So if no one is opposed to it, I'd like to remove the boss listings from the character pages and put them with the enemy listings instead. 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm down. Doesn't make senses to call a monster a character. 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Makes more sense to have the bosses in the enemy listings than in the character listing. --Dany36 21:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to offer a contrary opinion, a fair few Japanese sources tend to list all enemies as "characters". Also, another concern this leads to is to which point does a boss become a character? How much dialogue is required to be a "character"? Some minor bosses have more dialogue and a bigger role than many NPCs in certain games. Is Vaati a character or a boss in FSA? It's not that I disagree with your general point, I'm just wondering about those bosses that are also deemed characters and what will happen with them. 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These bosses are already on the page anyway. What I'm proposing will prevent them from appearing twice. If you look at Characters in Four Swords Adventures, you'll see Vaati is listed at the top and at the bottom. Removing the transclusion would only remove one at the bottom. 22:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine then, but what about something like Link's Awakening? Almost all the bosses talk in that game, some more than others. 00:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, their ability to speak a few lines is not enough to consider them as "characters" like other NPCs. They're still mainly just hostile monsters and their only role in the game is to get in Link's way, like most other enemies that can't speak. 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strategy sections in boss articles
I've noticed that we have an awful lot of boss articles with sections on how to beat the boss. A couple years ago, I remember that there was a shaky consensus against it, although no action was ever taken to remove them. So now I want to bring this up and end it once and for all. In my opinion, we are an encyclopedia, not a walkthrough site. As such, I don't think providing a play-by-play of how to beat a boss or a dungeon appropriate, especially when one of our wiki affiliates specializes in walkthroughs and nothing else (Strategy Wiki). So what I propose is that we eliminate these sections and instead provide something like "For help defeating this boss" or "For help completing this temple see its page at strategy wiki" and provide a link. We give an affiliate more traffic and we hold true to our encyclopedic nature. So what do you guys think? 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The strategy sections never seemed out of place to me, so I'm afraid I don't follow. As an encyclopedia, our purpose is to provide information. Knowledge of a boss's weak points, how these weak points can be reached, and what weapons they're affected by is arguably the most useful information a boss page can have.


 * I'm worried that removing strategy sections entirely would turn many pages into perpetual stubs and leave a gaping hole in our content. How can you describe a boss's weak point without mentioning what weapons affect it? Why would it be OK to describe a boss's attacks, but not OK to describe how they can be defended against? How can you explain that a boss transforms mid-fight without explaining what causes it to change? These things go hand in hand.


 * Although I definitely think we should link to SW more often, I really don't like the idea of relying so heavily on them for content. I think it's entirely possible to convey strategic information in an encyclopedic manner. If certain article sections don't achieve this and sound like walkthroughs, then fine, let's rewrite them. Not eliminate them. 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As wikis go, we tend to include less details on enemy and boss strength and strategies and most. Other wikis, including some like the Mario Wiki, or say Bulbapedia, have information on HP, detailed weaknesses and strategies. If we didn't include information on boss attacks and weaknesses the pages would barely have any information at all rather than just describing what they look like. So I agree with HK, it's generally unavoidable. On the other hand, we don't need to go overboard. Basically, sections that describe a bosses behavior should cover it's weaknesses and how to generally defeat it in the same section.
 * You know, I kind of wish there was a way to include boss statistics, but the way most games calculate HP I'm not sure how feasible that is. 03:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Trading Sequences
And here I am again proposing another change. Some trading sequences have pages for every item in the sequence in addition to a page about the sequence itself which also lists all the items. This is incredibly redundant and it serves only to boost our article count falsely, so I want to redirect the tiny pages to the appropriate section of the corresponding trading sequence page. Anyone opposed to this?
 * Just to clarify, I have no intention of taking down any decent articles, like fish (which is part of the OoS trading sequence). 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, Justin, since you're always talking about assuming good faith, I think you know as well as I do that if these pages were made, it's because someone felt like it was justified. So even if the reasoning was misguided, I think you could find better words to describe it than "obviously very dumb." 13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal is obviously very dumb and we shouldn't even be discussing it.


 * Just kidding. It's fine by me either way. :P --Dany36 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't meant to sound rude, HK, I was editing at 3 in the morning and couldn't find the proper words to say what I meant, so I summarized and it perhaps came off as harsh. Sorry. But if I really thought it was completely stupid I wouldn't have even posted here. I would've just redirected the pages, so give me some credit. 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New Sidebar
I noticed that the text in the wiki sidebar has changed. I'd like to ask if it is possible to change it back, due to the fact that...
 * It has TWO links to blank pages.
 * It is VERY hard to get to common pages, and nearly impossible to check out a Random Image.
 * WHAT happened to our Masterminds? They have totally disappeared from the sidebar.

With those things in consideration, does anyone else think that the sidebar should be changed? 12:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The sidebar change doesn't happen on purpose. Sometimes the links on the sidebar just disappear. We haven't quite figured out why yet. They should reappear shortly, in any case. 13:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh... Because some of the links changed their names and new ones appeared, I was pretty sure it was purposeful... Oops. 13:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries! There's no way you could have known that. Also, good news: a solution has been found! Whenever you see the sidebar links disappear, you can fix it by going to MediaWiki:Sidebar and purging the cache (the keyboard shortcut Alt+0 does the trick). 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Dungeon Element" system
This is something that Fizz brought up last month (or was it a couple months ago?) that I keep seeing. A lot of the dungeon pages are being labeled as a bunch of different elements arbitrarily (case in point: Great Bay Temple is labeled as a Water Dungeon and an Electric Dungeon). We need to come up with conventions for this "element" system, or we need to scrap it altogether.

What bothers me first of all is that there are dungeons which just don't have a theme (such as Thieves' Town and Gnarled Root Dungeon). However, I think that this system is making people feel as though they should add something under the "element" field just by its existence. However, I don't necessarily think it should be scrapped, but I instead think it needs a definitive policy on what qualifies as a "themed" dungeon. If we are to make such a policy, I propose:
 * 1) A dungeon should only be labeled as elementally themed if the element is thrown in your face and there can be absolutely 0 disputing it. Examples: Water Temples, Fire Temples, Ice Temples, etc.
 * 2) There CAN be dungeons without a theme, and if there is not an obvious one, users shouldn't be stretching the system.
 * 3) We should remove some of the currently existing elements. "Desert" is not an element, and it just further proves that we're basing this whole system off of OoT's dungeons, which shouldn't be the whole point of having it.

So let's discuss this and what you guys think. 05:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, and I don't mean this to come across as offensive, but I think the entire thing is needless. The only dungeons with really blatant "elements" usually are so painfully obvious it's barely worth mentioning. The Fire Temple is a fire element temple? What a shock! Pretty much the only ones that aren't painfully obvious even by the NAME of the dungeon are the two Earth Temples. Anything that isn't obvious usually doesn't have an element anyway.
 * Also, is "electric" really an element that applies to dungeons? There have been electric-based enemies ever since ALttP but suddenly with Skyward Sword it counts as an entire "element"? I'm not sure. I really don't think the series has any defined "elements" any more than Mario games do. They're just common gaming tropes, fire, ice, desert, etc., Ocarina and Spirit Tracks are the only games in the series that really place any emphasis on "elements" and even then the word "element" is never used. I think our use of the world element places way too much attention on these tropes as if they're some kind of inherent world design of the Zelda series, which they are not, and never really have been. 14:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bulk file uploader
For the past few days I have been adding literally hundreds of concept images to the Gallery:Hyrule Historia page. Now, because I can only upload one image at a time this makes it a huge pain. I have to go through every single image and upload, cite the source, select the game, the type and the licensing separately... and I still have lots more images to upload! So can a Bulk Uploader please be installed for the site? I'm thinking a MAX of 10 images at a time to prevent spam caused by vandalists. If it's too much work then don't worry about it. Sikora 13:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There already is. I was just about to tell you, actually. It should be in the Toolbox on the sidebar under "Upload multiple files". 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ... What? ... NOOOooo! I've wasted so much energy! x_x Oh well. Thanks for the link though, lol :-) Sikora 14:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Real world references to The Legend of Zelda?
I brought this up on the Cameos of The Legend of Zelda talk page but didn't get a reply there, but I feel like the page is getting a bit out of hand with anything beyond the first party games. Numerous things are subjective and questionable without any "proof" to back most of them up, and most of all it bothers me because they're not "cameos". They are homages to Zelda in other series, not appearances of Zelda things in other media. There needs to be a distinction between a legitimate cameo (such as Link appearing in Scribblenauts Unlimited) and a character simply holding a chicken above his head in a cartoon somewhere. So I think we should split the page, but I was wondering for the best way to do it and what the new page should be called. 14:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A cameo might not be the same thing as a reference, but the way I see it, the two subjects are pretty similar. And what about Cameos in The Legend of Zelda? Would we split that into two pages, too? I'm not sure I like the idea of having three or four different pages that all carry similar subjects. Why not just separate cameos and references into two sections and rename the page to "Cameos and References of The Legend of Zelda"? 16:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I like Caleb's idea (for the reasons he stated). It keeps the content (because I certainly find it to be worth mentioning all of the references to Zelda) and it separates actual cameo appearances from simple references without causing a lot of clutter. 17:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess my main issue is that, frankly, if we included every reference to the series in every piece of media ever made the page would go on FOREVER. What we have there right now is just barely scratching the surface. And where does it stop? It just seems like an endless rabbit hole if you include everything. There must be a zillion web series out there that homage Zelda in various ways, and hundreds of mangas and some anime. The point is that these are not cameos. Link appearing in another game as officially granted by Nintendo? That's a cameo, and that's what the page is for. It's subjective and easy to organise. Everything else is a homage, or simply other media using the Zelda characters unofficially under the act of parody. It's quite different from Nintendo actively including Zelda media in other Nintendo or third party games. As it is, the page makes no distinction between the appearance in Scribblenauts Unlimited, with is an officially licensed appearance endorsed and supported by Nintendo, and the Zelda homage in World of Warcraft, which is a parody and was done without Nintendo's involvement. I see these things as being very different. The difference between Link making a playable appearance appearing in Smash Bros. and the Triforce shape making an appearance in Google logos, for example. Very different.
 * Not only does splitting them make it clear which appearances are "official" and which aren't, it will stop the homages and parodies being longer than the rest of the article, and it will get that way eventually. And frankly checking all these random shows to see if these homages are genuine and not someone just making wishful thinking about a blonde elf girl being based on Zelda is very tedious and often open to interpretation. 23:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blond elf girls are vague enough to maintain skepticism about it, thus we could remove them on account of not being a legitimate direct reference. Much less, given the nature of the page, we could add a note asking people to provide a citation or risk their contribution being deleted.
 * However, I think we should simply rename the page to "References to The Legend of Zelda" as it would cover both references in media and cameos, as you have described. I don't think the page is quite long enough to warrant splitting yet. If we just kept it on the same page and maintained having sections devoted to cameos and simple references, I think it would work just fine.
 * I don't think it's necessarily bad to chronicle the so-called "endless rabbit hole", as that's what we're for. We do this for a reason: we're a wiki specifically for the Zelda series, so why omit Zelda-related information? 18:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, but I just think it'd be nice if we could have a page specifically limited to "official" crossovers, such as those in other Nintendo games. Rather than being simple references, these are often true crossovers, such as Link in Soul Calibur II, and I think people would like to see a page covering these without them being confused with other random references without it being clear which ones are official and which ones are just homages. I'm fine with them being covered, I just don't think they qualify as the same thing, that's my point I suppose. 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that the two should be separated. But I think we can do that without splitting the page simply by having two different sections of a same page. Like that, if you only want to read about the full-blown cameos and not all the random references, then stop reading after the first section. If you do want to read about the references, well, they're right there for you. Kind of like the non-canon/ambiguous canon sections of articles. I'm really hesitant about splitting the page because to me that's more confusing, if anything. If it was perfectly clear to everyone that the two things were very different, the page would never be in the state that it's in. 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, if the sections are split in a canon/non-canon manner I would be fine with that for now. But I do feel like potential splits might arise in future as each section gets bigger and bigger. We'll see. 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Template within Name Templates
Something that's kinda came up recently is that there seems to be a disagreement on how we should handle using the Japanese Template in the titular section. Specifically, Bakeneko has been omitting the romaji for the Japanese names, but I don't think this is necessary. I think we should include the romaji so it's readable, except, perhaps in situation where the name is too long (bosses). I believe that Hylian King has also expressed concerns that if we were to employ the scenario where we hid the romaji on a larger scale, we should make that the default option. Thoughts? 18:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be prudent to pick one style and use it consistently. Not just for consistency's sake, but also because if ever do decide to use the third format of Template:Japanese more frequently, it will be easier to make the change if the default is already used whenever possible. That way, only one template has to be edited to make the change, instead of having to edit each page individually. 19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable enough. I will stop adding "|3" to the template. Just preferred "|3" because it looks more clean inside tables. Would be nice tho', if you could specify stuff like this here, so that people instantly know what to do. Bakeneko 05:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with Pakkun, the romanji is too useful for non-Japanese speakers (like myself) who are still curious about the naming differences to omit it. We can't expect our readers to make any sense of Japanese text and we can't assume our translations are 100% accurate. We should always include it where possible. If it wasn't for romanji I wouldn't of ever even begun to understand Japanese, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. 18:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

New Zeldas!
With the Wednesday Nintendo Direct, we've learned of two new upcoming Zelda titles—the HD remake of TWW and an original Wii U Zelda. While the latter is still untitled and probably years away, I think we should make a page for it in the style of Zelda 3DS. And the TWW remake will probably match the significance of OoT 3D, so it should have its own page as well. Linebeck IV 01:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little curious as to why Ocarina of Time 3D has it's own page while Link's Awakening DX and A Link to the Past on the GBA do not. Arguably they actually include more new content than OoT3D. I really think they are different enough to warrant a page each, especially if OoT3D does. 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if the Wii U Zelda is confirmed I don't think anyone can contest that an article should be made. I believe we've had a page for SS since pretty much the moment it was first announced. As for TWW HD... There isn't enough content at the moment for it to have its own article, so for the time being I think it should stay here. I think we'll just have to wait and see about that one.


 * LADX does have a page, by the way (see here). 18:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it does. Would anyone be against one for ALttP and Four Swords? It would have enough content to cover the differences, which are sometimes overlooked but are almost as significant as those in the DX game, plus it could include information about how the game connects to Four Swords. It even has it's own title screen and everything. I think the changes are less well known than the LADX ones. The game is counted as a single, separate release from ALttP on Nintendo's official websites too.
 * I don't think there would be much harm having a Wind Waker one eventually as I'm sure it'll be different enough to warrant one, but perhaps we should wait to see what it'll be called first. I'm not sure having speculative pages about the next Wii U and 3DS Zeldas is particularly meaningful at the moment though. At least when SS was announced it had that artwork, right? Then again, do we have a page for the E3 Zelda tech demo?
 * Anyway, the only games I don't see needing a page for re-releases would be the Virtual Console releases, obviously, and the NES Classics releases, as they are 99% unchanged. 23:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind a separate ALTTP GBA article, I guess. 01:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Same. Go for it. --Dany36 01:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment templates
So gradually we've been getting a lot of "comment" templates in articles, like "Navi's Comment" and "Tatl's Comment" etc. And I'm not here to complain about them, they're quite neat to have (and hell, I contributed most of the Fi ones). However, I notice we've now got templates for Midna, various manuals and even one for Nintendoland, so I want to propose that perhaps we form a standard for these templates. Right now, they are placed in different sections of various articles, and tend to mount up (take a look at Octorok to see what I mean).

Would it be worth having a new section devoted to these templates? Or even a new template altogether, that encompasses and displays all the current content in one? At the very least, I would think it's worth merging all the existing templates into one multi-purpose comment template (if we do it right, there would functionally be no difference, and it would allow for easy expansion in the future). --Dorsal Axe 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merging them sounds like a potential idea, but I'm not sure the best way of doing so. There's also the figure descriptions in TWW and TMC, too. 01:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether it's or , I don't really see much of a difference. Why would standardizing these templates be worth editing  the 300+ pages they're used on? Also, if I understand it correctly, editing a piece of a heavily-used template as opposed to a separate, smaller one = bigger job queue = bigger server strain (I might be talking through my hat on that one, though).


 * But I do agree the comments could use a face-lift in terms of style. If anyone had any ideas on that front they'd be greatly appreciated. This isn't the first time we've talked about needing to change the darn things, but I don't remember hearing any suggestions as to what we could actually do to them (can't really think of any myself, at the moment). :P As for their placement, I don't particularly see a problem with them being placed differently as long as it's logical and justifiable. It does look pretty bad when they pile up like that, though. Perhaps a dedicated section would indeed be order in those cases. What would we call such a section, however? Hm...  02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the policy for enemy pages at the moment when it comes to covering different games? Some pages are split by game, others try to go for a more "general" approach. Personally I think the general approach is lacking and flawed, and find it much easier to organize and follow pages that refer to the enemy and how it changes from game to game. This would solve the issue that's being brought up here, because without dedicated sections in an article for specific games the templates have nowhere to go, and end up bunched up at the top. 01:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reorganizing these pages by game would be a big step backward since we spent a considerable amount of time and effort (and by "we" I mean Cipriano) reorganizing them into what Cip likes to call "a superior encyclopedic format." This "general" approach emphasizes in-universe writing, which in turn makes for a more engaging read. On the other hand, organizing them by game can often cause redundancy. A subject that spans several games always carry some similarities from one title to another.


 * There are pros and cons to either approach. If you ask me, the key is finding a balance between the two. Take the Link and Zelda articles for example. (Or the Soldier article, if I may be so bold). 22:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, a balance is vital, but I'm not necessarily sure it's our job to be TOO in-universe. I think the Hyrule Historia approach is best, stay relatively in-universe but don't be afraid to mention specific games, I mean, it's impossible NOT to mention them. I don't see the big deal of having sections covering what are effectively different "events" in the universe's history. I mean, pretending that Stalfos use either swords or maces when in fact they only use maces in ONE game (which is on ONE timeline) means the "general" approach is way too vague when you have a subject as universal and yet heavily varied as the Stalfos. Hyrule Historia doesn't pretend they're the same in each era, either. I guess I'm arguing for the same thing as you, I just don't see how having different subsections hurts that "feel" at all, it just organizes things. Not the best example because I'm not thinking in terms of timeline here, just release dates, but nobody would expect a history book to cover the changing history of a nation in a non-chronological manner. 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an idea...for pages with multiple templates, why not use the tab template? It makes it less cluttered and allows us to save space. 02:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)