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 Most of what we have on the CD-i games is courtesy of the work done by Heroofstuff (who is no longer active) and Shadow Reaper a few months back.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)