Talk:Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda

Names

Uh... why are these all called labyrinths? Is this some fan fabrication? Where's the source for that? All I could find in the official guides was the names, Level 1: Eagle, Level 2: Moon, Level 3: Manji, etc. No "labyrinth" name tagged onto it. I suggest we move ALL of the pages listed here to something more simple and less fan-based like "Eagle Dungeon" or "Eagle (Dungeon)", or something like that.User:Matt/sig 06:21, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

After a google search, the "Labyrinth" subtitle seems to be used in walkthroughs and similar fan articles. So the name may be conjectural, but at least is well-known. Also, calling them "X Dungeon" each helps little, since the levels aren't named in-game anyway (only numbered), and the manual only names them through the shapes. Worst case scenario, we would be forced to name the dungeons as simply "Eagle", "Moon", "Manji", etc., which would lead to the messy task of creating disambiguation pages (we already have, for example, an article about a Moon). Finally, if a renaming is inevitable, then this article is going to suffer a heavy removal of information. --User:K2L/sig 11:27, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Second Quest and naming

Sorry to bring this up again, but I agree with Matt on this one. In fact, in the original game, Death Mountain is only used to refer to the dungeon under Spectacle Rock, rather than the mountain itself (even Hyrule Historia keeps this naming pattern, not referring to the mountains as Death Mountain, just the dungeon). Death Mountain itself, according to Zelda II, is further north. However, aside from that issue, which is more vague, I want to really bring up the point that the Second Quest dungeons do not have names, nor do they correspond to the ones in the First Quest. The original dungeons are named after their shape, Eagle, Moon, etc., but the ones in the Second Quest simply do not have names, and are instead known as Level 1, Level 2, etc. Therefore I have two proposals here.

• Name the original dungeons under their original names, Eagle Labyrinth to Eagle, Moon Labyrinth to Moon (Dungeon), Manji Labyrinth to Manji (as there is no contradiction) and so on and simply leave a prompt at the top of the pages like the Moon page linking to the dungeons (like with the Thief page) or simply create disambiguation pages where necessary. In most cases actually there aren't any real contraditions, Moon is the only one that stands out. Many of the other pages pertain to Tingle games or other information that can be moved to seperate pages if necessary, or disambiguation pages that already exist.
• Name the Second Quest dungeons as Level 1 (Second Quest), Level 2 (Second Quest), etc. They have virtually no relation to the original dungeons, almost all of them are in entirely different locations, all have new layouts and enemies and bosses and treasures, and it certainly makes no sense to name them after shapes when they instead are either in the shape of letters, spirals or Ganon himself.

While I can live with the labyrinth name for the others, its the Second Quest ones that bug me the most right now. Any thoughts? Fizzle 16:50, 31 January 2012 (EST)

If we were to split those pages we should probably call them, for example, Level 1 (First Quest) & Level 1 (Second Quest) instead of Eagle & Level 2 (Second Quest) for consistency. However, I'm sure some would rather see them stay on the same page, and stick to renaming them only (Level 1, Level 2, etc.). Although accuracy is certainly a priority, we also have to worry about what's best for the readers: keeping information as easily accessible as possible. And so this second part of your proposal kind of turns this into another classic splittist/mergist debate. Personally I have no problem with splitting them as it falls under this concept (the Exp templates are quite overused in these dungeons' infoboxes), but some others might share this point of view.

I think pretty much everyone can agree that these pages at least need to be moved, though. That much I think we can agree on without too much debate. Perhaps we should start with that. — Hylian King ^[*] 17:55, 31 January 2012 (EST)