Talk:Shigeru Miyamoto

Non-Zelda Games
Should the list of games that Shigeru Miyamoto has worked on contain links to those games within Zelda Wiki? This wiki concentrates on Zelda-related information, expanding it to a level of detail that is not present on Wikipedia or other wikis, but this level of attention cannot be given to so many different games. I suggest that instead of having data related to games such as Donkey Kong, 1080 Snowboarding, etc., the wiki should link to a more developed source, eg. Wikipedia. What do others think? --Jin 21:14, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * There is a Nintendo category for those game articles to go in. Even if they are less developed than Wikipedia's, they can still exist. Just compare our own page on The Wind Waker to Wikipedia's current article. Ours is pathetic! Therefore, it is clearly acceptable for games that are not Zelda-related to have articles that are not as detailed as Wikipedia's, and most definately okay fo them to exist here, as the Nintendo category exists and has existed. --Jase 22:55, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * While it is realistic to expect that the Wind Waker article will be expanded on this wiki, it is less realistic to hope that similar attention will ever be given to the majority of non-Zelda videogame articles. I guess it seems like I'm on a campaign to "kill off" peripheral sections! ;) In actuality, I'm more interested in working out where the line is being drawn between Zelda-related and not-Zelda-related information, since I feel that as the wiki grows this will affect the focus of contributions. --Jin 23:22, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the line is already set, it just needs to be more enforced. Quality is what needs to go up, methinks. The system has been going and working for over a year and a half without any real problems as to what is Zelda and what is not and what is and isn't acceptable. While it's a bit more strict now, I don't think things need to be removed and rearranged this drastically. I think the system can stay as it is unless there is something truly inherantly wrong with it, and this I have yet to see. On another note, you seem to like combining articles a lot into one big article - I don't recommend this for everything. Again, unless it is TRULY appropriate to merge articles, I wouldn't do so. Even then, it should be discussed first, like it is on Wikipedia. I can get the merge template from there. However, unless it's a drastic need I wouldn't go around combining and deleting "peripheral" articles. --Jase 14:21, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If two articles contain largely the same information then it makes sense to merge them (as was the case regarding Majora's Mask (Item) and Majora's Mask (Boss)). Plus, it's easier to navigate through one medium-sized article, eg. Southern Swamp, rather than seven or so stubs. But, if you would prefer them not merged in this manner, I don't mind if you re-split them into multiple small articles. --Jin 19:26, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I think that the Majora's Mask merger was legitamite, however I think that the Southern Swamp one should be split up again, because there is a lot of room for expansion. If you merge all of the stubs, how can they cease to be stubs? Instead of merging the articles, put a summary of the article in the Southern Swamp page, and then on top of the summery put a link to the main article with "Main article: Articlename". This way you can get tidbits of info while still having their own respective pages exist. I think it's important that people be able to find information quickly and on their own page, not distracted by other information they may not be looking for. Let the stubs and short articles be until they expand - and they will - and if you think something is better suited somewhere else or in another article, suggest a merger or, if it's truly a no-brainer, then it should be fine. --Jase 20:00, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I understand where you're coming from, but I've got one last thing to input. :)


 * The wiki structure and focus that I've been advocating is based upon the assumption that the people visiting most articles on the wiki will be doing so to read for fun, rather than searching for a particular piece of information. For example, someone reading information about the Magic Hags' Potion Shop probably isn't looking for a specific detail - more likely they are browsing as nostalgic recreation. Therefore, grouping small articles by topic to create a medium-sized article gives the visitor a better article to read.
 * I certainly don't think this discourages people from expanding the stubs within the merged article. In fact, I think fewer, bigger articles will present the wiki in a more established way and stimulate greater user input! As for users being able to find specific information quickly and easily, we can use redirects (like in my example above: Magic Hags' Potion Shop links to Southern Swamp). --Jin 03:07, 28 September 2006 (CDT)