Community talk:Zelda Universe Community

Neutrality

Archived Messages

Archived from Community talk:Clans of the Goddesses (ZU)

First of all, Zelda Wiki.org is an encyclopedia. All articles here have to be written a neutral, non-biased point of view. This is not to place to have clan wars or for self-promotion of your own clan. We are about the facts.Emma ^(Talk) 05:58, December 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. I'll edit the Farore Clan's description accordingly, if I may. Karptroopa 12:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to take a wild guess, and look at Sturgy while whistling... I'll add on anything I can if/once I get the information... Zien 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that I know what my own Clan is called, thankyouverymuch? It's the Nayrulian Empire. That's the official name. Pinecodestuff changed it to that. So stop changing it back to "the Nayru Clan", because doing so is, quite simply, stating things that aren't true. His Greatness, God-Emperor SacredSturgeon Ironfin the Magnificent, Supreme Overlord of the Imperium of Nayru and Wielder of the Chainsaw-Bladed Exploding Axe of Wisdom 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Why was the "SacredSturgeon declared Nayru an Empire, and the two new mods both took up the title of Emperor of Nayru. While Awkin's role in lording over the Imperium has become largely non-existent, SacredSturgeon still rules over Nayru, and makes it a point to check up on his beloved Empire at least once every day without fail." bit deleted?

The section headings are not the names. It is a quick indicator of which Goddess the clans represent. So that name can go in the first sentence, but not the header or the page intro. And the really long title you are using for your name there is highly inappropriate and I'm going to have to ask you not to use it on the wiki.

That part was removed because it didn't seem to be particularly important. The whole point of all these ZU articles like this is to stop the threads asking what a certain banner means over at ZU.Emma ^(Talk) 22:01, December 1, 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be kept "The Nayulian Empire", for that is it's technical name. But, all three clan sections (including Nayru) are slightly un-neutral. Like Matt said, please refrain from including personal views on Members and Clans in your posts. I'll be reading over and deleting anything too subjective... as the rest of the Wiki team will, so writing anything lacking in objectivity will be pointless.—Light Knight of ZU —19:57, December 4, 2008 (UTC)

Well, until the banners say different. We should stick with just Nayru Clan. Even if I was in that clan myself, this is still what should be done.Emma ^(Talk) 22:53, December 4, 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the banners is a good point. By the way it has nothing to do with the clan I'm in. As much as I support it, the wiki is the wiki. But, you can't see the clan area, and right on the discussion forum for Nayru, it says Nayrulian Empire... then again, the average wiki reader can't see that either. I suppose it's your decision Matt (obviously), but while "Nayru Clan" is accurate, so is "Nayrulian Empire" technically. —Light Knight of ZU —02:10, December 5, 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with the clans myself, but do the other two clans really not have alternate names? From an outsider's standpoint, I just wanna say that I think it's a little inconsistent to have "The Din Clan!" "The Farore Clan!" "The Nayru... lian Empire?" But yeah, the banners say "Nayru Clan", so that makes more sense to me, but I'm not going to make any decisions here mainly because of my lack of having much information on the subject. Just providing some possible extra information to help the decision-making process. —Ando (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs a lot of work! I've done a little bit. Also, I've added in one source. Is that enough to remove it from the source lacking category or not? Seen no-one changed the Nayrulian Empire to Nayru Clan I did it, as I think it should be done according to the ZU banners, and seen I'm in the Nayru clan, I think it's fine! - M E L C H I Z E D E K  (TALK) 09:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just something I wanna say here:

It's "The Nayrulian Empire". That's what it's called. Yes, the banner has "Nayru Clan" on it. The banner pre-dates the name change. The name on the banner is not the name of the Clan. So someone please tell me how you can possibly justify calling the section "Nayru Clan" when it's about the "Nayrulian Empire". It's incorrect information, basically.

Also, while this may be a matter of personal taste as well as a bit nitpicky, is there a reason the Nayru banner was moved to the left? It looked much better on the right.

Emperor SacredSturgeon of Nayru 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it will be decided during the ZWCA (Zelda Wiki Clan Article) Clan Project at ZU. Have you considered getting the banner changed to reflect that name change? Also the reason the banner is on the left is because the banners were changed so they alternated left to right, which is a better layout! - M E L C H I Z E D E K  (TALK) 02:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that this is not about your own clan's glory. It is about collecting and organizing as much positive information into a consistent and neutral form. The page title is Clans of the Goddesses. Therefore, it is most informative to have the section headers as simply The [Goddess] Clan. But there is nothing wrong with putting the actual name first in the opening sentence.

For example, see United Kingdom on Wikipedia. Note that the page title is United Kingdom, but the full name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the same thing. The section header will stay as is, and I'll go and rewrite the opening sentence.Emma ^(Talk) 03:21, December 14, 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have membership in Nayru pending.

SacredSturgeon, I really see were you are coming from, as you can see above, I fought for keeping our full name in there, but I can't argue against Matt's logic here. That UK example is great. But we can all discuss this when the time comes once we start the ZWCA. We'll see what can be done to satisfy everyone. —Light Knight of ZU —20:46, December 14, 2008 (UTC)

Ideas

Archived Messages

Archived from Community talk:Webmaster (ZU)

Okay, I've just done quite a bit of work to all of the ZU rank pages, and have had some ideas, that apply to them all, not just this Webmaster Page.

• Firstly I think that the Images of the Banners would look better without thumbs and captions.
• Secondly, that maybe some new pages we need to look into making are the Battle Arena and Clan Arena or elaborate on them more on the respective pages!

- M E L C H I Z E D E K  (TALK) 10:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Rules

Archived Messages

Archived from Community talk:Clans of the Goddesses (ZU)

Here are some rules I scrapped up.

• Secondary clan names are out. The name that is on the banner is what it will be called on the page.
• No excessive titles for members. Only what is need-to-know.
• No diminishing another clan's section just to get at them. Only take something out if it is invalid content.
• Keep the page in a third person perspective.
• Present information in a clear, short, and to-the-point fashion.
• Use professional language fit for a Wiki.
• Keep all opinions about your clan and others off the page.
• Try not argue too much on the talk page. The wiki is not a place for clan battles.
• Do not write about yourself.
• Do not present information that is pointless to the Wiki (ex: So-and-so is funny when drunk).
• Do not hoarse around. Comedy has its place, but it is not on this article!

Any member that repeatedly breaks these rules may be subject for banning from the wiki for a period of time to be determined by the wiki's staff. Emma ^(Talk) 04:39, December 11, 2008 (UTC)

Deletion (Couples of ZU)

Archived Messages

Archived from 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? —Austin ^{(NIWA Operative)} 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. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 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.Mandi ^Talk 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I flagged it. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 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. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 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.Mandi ^Talk 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. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I guess there were some changes today. NM, it's not over. ;) Steve, I'm a member of ZU first, actually (if it's me you're referring to). ZD hasn't had much to do with me, yet. I'm not saying that all non-related articles/images should should go, but I do think that this one crosses the line. I would support the over mentioned pages being deleted, such as those from ZU, ZD, and ZI. I would actually recommend this being put on the ZU page on ZW, come to think of it. I work for Zelda in my Pocket. I hope that we decide to become a part of ZW, once we get a large enough member base. I would still oppose articles of our that are similar in nature to this one to be put on this site. Zien, I think that each fansite should have it's own SINGLE page. Not a whole bunch.

I should also add that the creator of this page directly stated that this article was created to draw attention to the users. Funny how they are one of them. My thought is that it's ok if this page stays, but where do you draw the line? My girlfriend likes Zelda... We're a big part of some Zelda communities. Maybe we should put up our own page... Are you getting my point?

Don't forget- this is a Zelda dictionary! Not a fan site —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about this page being deleted?

Support

1. This is not ZU. Therefore, why should we have to list the couple of ZU? To be quite frank, I don't care who met who on the Internet and who fell in love. I don't think people come here to find out about who's in love with who, except to maybe theorize about character romances. Really, I can only see the people who have names on this page visiting and saying "alright, that's my name. I'm popular." Honestly, I would be saying something similar if we had a "couples of Zelda Wiki" page. It's just not necessary...or worthwhile. I'm in favor of deleting this page. --Felicia's Champion 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. Trust me, better articles than this have been deleted and worser ones have stayed. I'm not too supportive of the graphics teachers and ZDs many job holders articles either. And we once discussed standards of notability here, I was saying that too many people would try to find a gimmicky way to get themselves an article. And look what we've got now.Axiomist (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

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)
2. Actually peeps... It has everything it needs to be in the ZU Community category. It is a community category that describes some of the history of a member site. It is a privilege they get for being a member site. Just like members get user pages. The pages in these categories help explain certain things that are not exactly easy to do on the sites in question. Having them here will cut down on the number of threads created asking about them. Granted, the articles have to be considerably more well organized. The wiki is supposed to be a wiki for each site involved. This is why there is a category for Zelda Universe, ZeldaInformer, and Zelda Dungeon. I still admire the enthusiasm here. From both sides.Emma ^(Talk) 19:17, February 1, 2009 (UTC)
3. I think you're all forgetting that all of you have contributed your fair share of meaningless content to the wiki. If all of you supporters agree to delete EVERYTHING unrelated to the games (including all your "precious" fan art on your user pages), then I will change my vote.— Steve 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Yeah, Matt basically hit it with the ZU category point. We've got all of those pages, and now all of the ZD category pages -- they're member sites, so they get certain privilages regarding wiki coverage. Clearly, we're not going to cover absolutely everything (random pointless topics, etc.), but the category is "Zelda Universe Community"; anything that's notable to the ZU community as a whole belongs there. —Ando (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Ok, what is with the odd font, and color of most of the talk page? Anyways, if other ZU-related pages are allowed to stay, then I see no reason for it to be deleted. This statement, would utterly destroy all of the reasoning beghide the support part of this voting. Which, would lead to the page staying. Wow, what a problem I started... :Z —Austin ^{(NIWA Operative)} 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC
6. Vote changed... Though I do think this site should be more specific to Zelda, the policy (as said by the admins above) does allow such pages for member sites. I just think this needs more work, pictures and possibly to change the abbreviated title to "Couples of Zelda Universe".- M E L C H I Z E D E K  (TALK) 09:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
7. I do not think this is even a subject that is up for debate. As was explained to me when Zelda Dungeon joined the Zelda Wiki, this is a fundamental principle of what makes the Zelda Wiki a collaborated project. It is not a 'standard' wiki like Zelda at Wikia or various other Wiki's. This is a site collaborated project, and thus, as Matt stated, the information at Zelda Wiki is NOT JUST an encyclopedia of Zelda information, but a community hub for supporting websites. As Jason pointed out at the creation of the Wiki, he wanted to eliminate the need for each site to have its individual Wiki for their site and for Zelda content. That is what Zelda Wiki is. That is what it will always be. Mases 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
8. OK, while my vote is no to this being deleted, at the same time I don't believe it's appropriate as an article in itself. I would strongly support that it be merged into the Zekda Universe article as a new subsection. —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Okay, at the risk of being redundant, too many valid points have convinced me to change my vote. This article is a part of ZU community. It should stay.Mandi ^Talk 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

Well, this is really more of a comment rather then a "neutral vote" so....I am not changing my opinion by any means, I voted for the deletion of this article and and that is where I still stand on the matter. However, I cannot deny the valid points brought up by some of the members opposing the deletion. Yes it is a part of ZU, but why should we care about the relationship status of Zelda Universe members? This is Zelda Wiki. So while this may be a large part of the Zelda Universe community, what value is it to us?Mandi ^Talk 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

7 to 5, eh? Well, with all of the reasoning behide the opposive side, I don't see how the support side can win. Besides, I think we all know what the outcome of this vote is... Unless, of course, someone comes up with a really good statment to bring the suppport side back. But, I can't see that happening... {Wow, was this neutral at all? :P} EDIT: If the opposive sides wins, should I change the name to "Couples"? (Or some sort of other name to show that the page is not all about ZU}? We could easily have sections like "Couples In ZU", and "Couples In ZD". —Austin ^{(NIWA Operative)} 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All ZU sections should have 'of ZU' or preferrably (ZU) at the end. Much like the current moderator, webmaster pages of ZU and ZD. Mases 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't have a problem with the page- I just have a problem with it having it's own page. I've been a big part of Zelda Universe, and honestly, I don't give a darn who met each other on there. If someone wants this to be a part of the ZU page, then fine. But I sure can tell you that there needs to be a fine line. Should every site that's part of the wiki have tons of pages like this? People don't care about this kind of stuff, especially if their not familiar with ZU! ZU-ers that do care would look for this stuff on their own site, anyway. They wouldn't even expect it to be on here. I should add it was 6-1 for 2 days until some votes were changed... Anyone agree that this page should at least be incorporated with Zelda Universe? —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree Alter, this page shouldn't exist as it's irrelevant to the Wiki's purpose. However, as long as ZU Community category has these kinds of pages, they are considered relevant, I see no reason why this one isn't.— Steve 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I think you are viewing the Wiki as if it was like Wikipedia or Zelda Wikia or any random gaming Wiki, but its not. As Jason has repeatedly said, its a collaborated Wiki. These pages are very relevant to the Wiki's purpose to bring together websites as a collaborated Wiki. The Wiki is supposed to be all of the websites Wiki, not just an encyclopedia of Zelda information. So having more than just standard Zelda information is perfectly fine. Mases 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... I didn't realize how many there were. You're right, as long as the rest of those pages are there, it makes no real difference. I'm not trying to pull off a major overhaul, but perhaps a large-scale merge would be a good idea. For all the pages like these. What do the rest of you think? —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all up for getting rid of it all, some of the others think so too. Merging all topics isn't a bad idea, but it would become too large and disorganized quickly. I think is we merged similar things, such as all of the ranks, then that would be a bit less troublesome.— Steve 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It'll be a process, but I'm willing to help in any way I can. :) —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC

If this page has to stay, yes it should be incorporated with ZU. Alter is talking about one single page containing all of these said articles, that would never work; too large and too messy.Mandi ^Talk 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe we will received anymore support(s)/opposition(s) so maybe consider closing this in a day? Guess this page gets to stay ;P

I know. When I said that, I didn't realize how many there were. That's what we were discussing. I do think that several of the pages should be merged. There are FAR too many for ZU at the moment. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 00:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't just apply to ZU, it would apply to all community categories. ZD has rank articles that can be merged as well.— Steve 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I did just say ZU. I meant all of the fansites by that. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"I do think that several of the pages should be merged. There are FAR too many for ZU at the moment."

This is where I disagree. I understand that Zelda Universe and Zelda Wiki are related sites but, I still fail to see the reason why we should care that two people (on different, yet related sites) met through the internet, and are now in a relationship. I mean, did anyone even see the red links on that user page? I believe out of the....what is it...eight couples? One or two have a Zelda Wiki account. To some people, that point may seem irrelevant however, that just seems to me that these said people do not care to meddle in the affairs of ZW. If that is the case, why should we meddle in theirs?Mandi ^Talk 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've stated several times how stupid I think that is. Not many people really care about it. What I'm doing is coming up with solutions on how it can be made more relevant, seeing as how many people want it to stay. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zelda Encyclopedia or Collaborated Wiki

Archived Messages

Archived from Community talk:Couples of ZU

This was mentioned a few times and I think it deserves its own section. One thing about the Zelda Wiki that I'm not sure is clear, is that it is not an ordinary Wiki like Zelda Wikia or Mario Wiki, etc... This is a collaborated Wiki amongst currently Five Zelda websites. The original vision by Jason at the time of release, was to get rid of all of our individual smaller Wiki's that our site had. This includes the Encyclopedia of Zelda information that makes up 90% of the current Wiki. However, this also includes the site Wiki sections that we had. Stuff like what this page is about. Also, stuff like a listing of Zelda fansites is also on here. You wouldn't find any of these at a 'regular' Wiki, but the vision of Zelda Wiki was not to be like a regular Wiki. Thus, these types of articles are perfectly fine. In response to the idea that this should be merged with the Zelda Universe page, I don't like that idea. It's a big enough page to be able to stand on its own.

I think these types of pages are great ways to get members of the collaborating websites more involved with the Wiki. I'm sure some members from the Universe would come here and edit this page and other related pages if it was promoted. Likewise, this is exactly the type of page that I would like to have at Zelda Dungeon in the future. Not just a 'Couples' page, but something that is personal to the Zelda Dungeon Community, just like this page. To help bring more Zelda Dungeon members to the Wiki and help reach the full purpose that Zelda Wiki is supposed to be. a Truly collaborated project amongst Zelda websites, where the actual Zelda Websites actually 'own' the Wiki and can use it for their own communities. Mases 23:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If I see too many of these types of pages -which I do- I will be turned off by this site. From this vantage point, it appears that this wiki is catering to it's own founders, rather than the entire Zelda community. I do not have a problem with the "main" sites having a little extra content, but in my humble opinion, this page is rather silly to begin with. Now it would make a difference if most of the mentioned members were a part of ZW. I see only one (Fox McCloud does NOT link to a user), who happens to be the creator of this page. Now here is a quote from Ranny: "I made this article to bring attention to users". I don't think that the wiki should be used for this purpose. These people aren't famous- only a small handful of them have I met over a period of several years while at ZU. Let's not forget that this page isn't particularly large, nor extremely well-written.

I do not disagree that fansites should be here. I think that they do need to be kept to a minimum, though. You said that it will get more members involved- how so? I would have never known -or even assumed- that a page such as this existed here. If I wanted such content, I would be searching Zelda Universe's website, and even if I was here, I wouldn't expect this page to be located here.

I would not object to this page being moved/merged with another ZU one, nor would I object to it becoming a "Couples of Zelda" page- an all around couple list for all of the Zelda sites.

To make myself clear, I do not wish to stir up any trouble or indulge in pointless arguments- I only want this wiki to perform to the best of its ability. With this page, however, I do not see that happening. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair statement to think that way, but I think the things I mentioned in my previous post are fundamental parts as to what makes Zelda Wiki... Zelda Wiki. Also, its worth mentioning that of the 2600+ articles here at the Wiki... about 100 or so consist of pages from ZU, ZD, or are fan websites. Under 5% of the total. Hardly enough to be catering to its own founders in my opinion.

(Will complete later)Mases 05:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, everyone knows that I was dead against this article (and, I can't believe the words coming out of me mouth here :P) but, I can not deny the valid points brought up by Matt and Mases. Come on supporters, maybe this article isn't that bad after all.Mandi ^Talk 06:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can live with this page, too. Just keep in mind that this opens new doors and stretches the boundaries (not always a good thing!). Perhaps this should be debated later on, after we see the directon these sort of pages may take. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If a couples page for... Zelda Power or The Hylia or something was started here at the Wiki. Then those are the type of pages that would be deleted since they are not part of the collaborated group of sites that support the Wiki. In terms of the boundaries, I think this is close to the edge. If one couple or something had a really elaborate and interesting story... I don't think that would warrant a new page. I cannot think of many things off hand that would go further than this. Mases 18:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll just see. I still think this article pushes the limit, but perhaps not. For now, I'll let the rest of you debate the merge that Adam just suggested. As you already know, I'm for it. lol Thank you for making this discussion interesting! —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion (ZUHC)

Archived Messages

Archived from Community talk:ZUHC (ZU)

I'm not sure why Austin flagged this for deletion. If it is no longer active... that could be stated. Since it is a community page... and it was deserving of an article when it was created and edited... then it should remain as an article even now, regardless of its current status. Mases 05:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know why I made the page, don't I have a right (or something) to remove it since it's my project? Yeah, it's not hurting anything, but I would rather not have it on the wiki if that's ok. —Austin ^{(NIWA Operative)} 05:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the importance of this event at the Zelda Universe forums. Can somebody clarify if this is something that is ongoing? Perhaps rather than outright deleting this page, a merger with the Zelda Universe article. Perhaps it should be mentioned in a small section of the 'features' section of the ZU page. Just... shrunken down in size. From glancing over it... it seems to fit the criteria of a community page... but COULD be condensed into a broader community page. Mases 05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to give better reasons than "I'd rather not have it on the wiki". Axiomist (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that once you put a small project on the wiki from a site like ZU, you can't withdraw it. This does not seem too fair. Not every little project should go on the wiki, but a few don't hurt, I know. However, (not to sound rude) even if it is hosted on ZU, I still have ownership over it. The wiki will not change without it, and also won't grow with it, but adding one small page to its contents. A simple author's request should be all that is needed. This is not a big project which has everyone involoved, so it is not even recognizable. I'm sure you would argue to keep a big project, but a small one like this is no different than Brother Woolf's Canadian-Orange-project-thing. (Which was deletd) —Austin ^{(NIWA Operative)} 05:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more the idea of the deletion process, rather than the content of the article that is the issue. Nevertheless, I will label it with a merge tag. Mases 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That seemed to be a silly little thing, I can restore it easily. I'm aware of ZU having a banner for the ZUHC.Axiomist (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity doesn't warrant deletion. I have removed the banner, but the article will need to be reworked to say that this is a past project. Same thing happened with the Zelda Katsu page. Just because it's over doesn't mean it should be deleted. It goes down in the encyclopedic ZW history of Zelda communities. - M E L C H I Z E D E K  (TALK) 09:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)