Community talk:Couples of ZU

I do not really know if the page should stay, or go... One on hand, it is a big part of the ZU community, and describes the relationships between certain members. But, on the other hand, I don't really see a point of making such a page, other then to bring attention to users. (Which, I know the page was not made for.) What does everyone else think? 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I was talking about on the Wiki Contributer thread... Well if this is going to stay, then I at least suggest that this article be reformated and reworded so that it'll go with this wiki's editing standards. The Goron Moron 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, but my thought is that it should be on ZU only. It carries no importance to anyone else, and is actually a bit silly. I guess my vote is for it to go. 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article lacks importance to us. It is unnecessary and as Alter has already said, if it has to be somewhere; it should be on ZU and not ZW. This needs to go. 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I flagged it. 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It should stay. I made this article to bring attention to users and hope it positively influences them, as well as because it's a big part of the ZU community. Deleting this is basically the same as saying you don't care about those ZUers who are in love. Deleting this would be like deleting the Graphics Teachers page or something. They are also a big part of the community. Ranny 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Did you read what Zien just said? I haven't see any of the mentioned members on ZW, and I've only seen a few on ZU- and I've been a member for quite some time. The only one I see here is you. No offense...

Ranny, it should stay on ZU. It'll have a just-as-positive influence on the members there as it will here. I see no reason for it to be on an irrelevant website. In reality, It's the same thing as it would be putting this on Zelda Dungeon. ZU is part of ZW here to help contribute to the entire fanbase- not just a few online crushes. 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

lol you obviously haven't read the article yet. All those couples save for me and Darius have met in person, so they are not "online crushes." And what you say makes no sense. ZU is part of ZW. Couples are a big part of ZU, as is Graphic Teachers, ZUHC, and just about all the articles in that category. Ranny 17:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding redundant, I will say this once more; having this article is pointless and it serves us no purpose. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, or a place to post a bunch of crap regarding online relationships. This article is silly and needs to go. 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given the article a thorough read-through already, plus I can see that you haven't read a thing I've posted. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but let's take a vote. 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about this page being deleted?


 * 1) I support it being deleted- it holds no value to ZW members, and is completely irrelevant to the site. This sort of article should remain on the website that it is directly linked to.  21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This is not ZU. Therefore, why should we have to list the couple of ZU? I'm in favor of deleting this page. --Felicia&#39;s Champion 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I support this being deleted. As previous users have already stated; we are not ZU, therefore this does not belong here. 22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I also agree this shouldn't be on this site.  Even if ZW is affiliated with ZU this is an encyclopedia used to inform people about The Legend of Zelda series.  Even if this has to do with the Zelda fanbase it it irrelevant to people no connected to ZU which I bet is most people who use this site for informational reasons.  If a random person who just got into the Zelda games came to learn about this game series I doubt they would care about two fans who are now in a couple.  This should really go back to ZU because at least in has more of a point there than it does here. --Green 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I support it staying.  ZU's graphic teachers, ZUHC, etc. are irrelevant to ZW, so why are they staying?  If they can stay, so can this article. Ranny 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)