Talk:Blade Brothers

Merging

We should definitely merge all of the blade brothers into this page. If I don't hear any objections within the hour I'm going to do it. -Pinecove

I object. Simply because an hour isn't enough time for people to weigh in with their opinions. I think 48 hours notice would be prudent. • Pete ♪ | ♫ 17:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No. We don't act without a group consensus.

But I do agree that they need to be merged. They are all really tiny articles.User:Justin ZW/sig 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If nobody has objected in two days then. Guess we'll have to wait it out. Pinecove 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pinecove, one of the most important rules of merging is to garner adequate consensus from the users here. "Within the hour" will not give anyone enough time to weigh opinions, nor will 48 hours. I suggest waiting until there is a clear approval from a good amount of users, not just two. I agree to the merge as well, but you should really wait until more users comment below me before doing so. These articles aren't going to run away if a lot of time elapses between the casting of opinions, merging is never that urgent. =) — cipriano^talk 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So are we going to do this thing or what? It's been like a month now and nobody has objected. Pinecove 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Start asking people to comment on it. That's what I do when there's not enough agreement to merge something.User:Justin ZW/sig 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BROTHERS! TONIGHT, WE MERRRRRRGE!!! Or at least I think that's what we should do. Not EVERYONE gets their own article, after all, and everything to do with merging these people seems relevant. Heck, even The Minish Cap didn't give them individual figurines. They all were a part of one large figurine. As much as I agree that a merge like this needs a lot of discussion for at least a week before merging, people just haven't been discussing enough. They discussed giving the merge time more than the merge itself. The templates back been up for two weeks, but maybe we could get some actual opinions going here. Noble Wrot 17:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't just do something because you're tired of waiting for it. On a wiki it can sometimes take months to come to a decision on something. That's how it is. Impatience only causes mistakes and problems. I for one don't think that we should be so happy to merge things like this. Some of these guys are more prominent than the others.Emma ^(Talk) 17:43, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact is that there's been no discussion at all. Perhaps someone could make an announcement on the main page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinecove (talk) 17:45, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they should be merged. Even the game gives them a shared figurine lol Jeangabin 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you, Matt, to an extent, but there is nothing wrong with revamping interest in a merge proposal. To be honest, if Pinecove hadn't said anything, this, like many others in the past that are STILL waiting (i.e. Peahat Larva... *hint*... go weigh in over there, please too), would never see an end result, they would simply fall to the wayside. We told him to wait longer than 48 hours, and he waited half-a-month with no extra votes. We now have 4 votes positive, and one against, I'd still wait for more positives, Pinecove, but there is nothing wrong with placing a link to this on the Main Page talk page to excite interest. — cipriano^talk 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GUYS, talk about the MERGE! That's what this is about! This particular merge! Focus! Noble Wrot 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So, who here's getting a lot of snow then? • Pete ♪ | ♫ 16:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone objecting is invited to work on the pages after the much needed merge takes place. IF they can be so expanded-then DO it! Opposing a merge bc of some obscure article potential is hardly justification. Honestly, I can't see much to say about these characters as their role in the games were so minor. Axiomist (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So there's no opposition as far as I can tell. I'll take care of the merge when I'm not busy with homework. Noble Wrot 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Garrett, let Pinecove do the merge, as it was his proposal, and he was so eager to do it in the first place anyway! =) — cipriano^talk 14:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I guess I have to give people room to grow. lol Noble Wrot 16:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Scrolls

The page currently says "there are eight scrolls total: each swordsman rewards Link one, save for Swiftblade, who grants a whopping four scrolls". This isn't quite true. Swiftblade awards 4, and the other 4 come from Grimblade, Waveblade, Grayblade, and Swiftblade The First. Greatblade, Splitblade and Scarblade don't give tiger scrolls - they just teach Link how to improve on his existing skills. In the interests of accuracy, I feel that the page should reflect this. • Pete ♪ | ♫ 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Region Name Table Merge?

Is it only possible to have 4 fields in those grids? If not, could one who won't get confused in doing so (like myself) take care of that?
- Mugen Kagemaru 02:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Names Table template supports up to 6 entries per row, but being 8 brothers, it makes sense to dive them in 2 tables of 4 entries each. - Chuck * ^(Talk) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)