Talk:Characters in The Wind Waker

Formatting change
I have to say I'm not too thrilled with the change made to the formatting of the article. Previously, every character's name was an individual header. The advantage of this was that every character was shown in the Table of Contents, allowing the user to go directly to it. Also, I think it was a clearer and more attractive format to browse through; to me, this text grouping looks a bit odd:
 * Link

Anyone else agree? I'd like to point out that, although it was me that wrote the basic layout of this page a year ago, I don't believe that makes it "mine" in any way, hence why I haven't simply reverted this revision. —Adam (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2008 (EST)

I agree on the usefulness on the user's ability to go to a name directly but you have to realize what the page is actually used for. If a user is looking for a specific character they will either A. type the name directly into the search function, or B. use the template that I introduced earlier. These pages are to inform of who is in each game; who the Main Characters are, who the Support Cast is, who lives in Outset, etc. With that in mind I altered the format while keeping as much as the previous layout as I could. Also did you see the size of the Table of Contents, it was huge. Now it is a much managable size. Knil 19:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)


 * "Also did you see the size of the Table of Contents, it was huge."
 * What? You're using the same argument I used against your "Everything from Twilight Princess" template. Yet you seem to think that the size of it is perfectly acceptable. That doesn't really make sense to me.
 * P.S. Level 1 headings ( = only one equals sign = ) are badbadbad. No wiki wants to use them. I'm not even sure why they're still in the software. They look terrible. --Ando (Talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (EST)


 * This article has been viewed over 8,000 times, and I don't think any of us is in a position to judge what the page was being "used for" in every instance. I've reinstated the categorized navigational table of contents, as we are all agreed on its usefulness. Ando, what's wrong with L1 headings? Is it just 'cause they look crappy? (i've fixed that up a bit now) —Adam (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason that they're not commonly used (they do look better now, though, so I GUESS I'll let it slide :P). --Ando (Talk) 09:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Ando, when you learn a little more about wiki code you'll learn to realize the difference between a Table of Contents and a collapsible info template. Also, watch the use of that revert thing. All edits of the page have been reverted which include the character list template and the cleaning up of the character lists. It's not the universal solution that you might think it is. Knil 07:26, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * Please don't assume to know how much I know about wiki coding. I know enough. :P Also, check this out:
 * [[File:wtfcontents.png]]
 * So... no, don't see the difference. --Ando (Talk) 09:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * Aesthetics Ando. The difference is aesthetics. Don't irritate me. Knil 19:02, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Page format
We have character lists for each game. The following are in gallery format:


 * Characters in The Legend of Zelda (Game)
 * Characters in The Adventure of Link
 * Characters in Ocarina of Time
 * Characters in Majora's Mask
 * Characters in Twilight Princess
 * Characters in Spirit Tracks

...and the following are in listing format:


 * Characters in A Link to the Past
 * Characters in Link's Awakening
 * Characters in Oracle of Ages
 * Characters in Oracle of Seasons
 * Characters in Four Swords
 * Characters in Four Swords Adventures
 * Characters in The Minish Cap
 * Characters in Phantom Hourglass

I personally prefer the look of the gallery format, but to my knowledge there is no policy on which is the preferred structure.

If the listing format is the preferred structure then please feel free to revert my last edit to this page. 12:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A preferred format for these pages was never really decided or agreed. I raised this a while back here but I didn't really go anywhere. At the moment I think we've just tended to use whichever option seemed to best suit the particular game... 13:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are characters in the list/gallery that have pictures, yet the pictures aren't in the gallery, if you know what i mean. I can go ahead and put those in, unless there's a problem to that. Gormanbros 11:51, 16 August 2010 (EDT)Gormanbros

Main Characters
Helmaroc King is barely a character at all, much less a main character. King Bulblin has far more influence on the plot of than Helmaroc King does on the plot of  but he's not a main character. Main characters are the characters with the most importance to a story; by definition very few. Strictly speaking, only Link is the main character, with Ganondorf as the main antagonist. The rest are supporting characters. Helmaroc King sort of just appears on the behalf of Ganon with no explanation of other than he works for Ganondorf and through a series of events sends Link on a journey to rescue his sister. Outside of kidnapping Tetra and Aryll and a boss fight (both of which only happened due to Ganon ordering it), he has no impact on the story.

Aryll really isn't important either other than being an early MacGuffin. Yes, her kidnapping started the events of the game, but she is rescued and has absolutely no importance to the plot thereafter. Really the only main characters of Wind Waker are Link, Tetra, King of Red Lions and Ganondorf, in that the story revolves around them. Princess Zelda and Daphnes Nahansen Hyrule are the same people as Tetra and King of Red Lions, little point listing them twice. Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru


 * Actually there is; they have separate articles. But I agree that the Helmaroc King and Aryll are not main characters. 01:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

But they are at least secondary characters like Makar and Medli, only not Sages. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)