Talk:Link/Archive 2

This page is an archive of an old Talk Page. The contents have been moved from another page to clear space and to preserve history, so this page is locked from editing. If you wish to ask about the corresponding page, or respond to an earlier message, you may direct any comments to the current talk page. If you wish to refer to a message on this page, link to Talk:Link/Archive 2.

Adding a gallery

I was thinking that maybe adding a gallery and putting all of Link's appearances throughout the series under said gallery. Mainly just artwork, because right now the page looks a bit messy and unprofessional with images all over the place. What do you guys think? I'll gladly do it if you guys agree, I'm just asking for opinions since this could be a pretty big change to the page. I wouldn't remove ALL the images, but just some of them to make the page look neat and clean. Dany36 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We actually have that here, it has a lot of images so it has its own page. I'd say it's nothing more than simply adding some images on the Link page to the gallery.— Steve 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Split

Yeah, I'd say to split this, If not outright delete it. In all seriousness, the Link transformations have more to do with Link overall than his relations with the variety of characters during brief cutscenes. I think a paragraph and a link to the main articles for both sections would be a better manner of presenting this content. Axiomist (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Known same Links

This article would be better off by putting the known same Links into one section and subsection it by game. The only major difference would be the placement of PH Link, but I think it's better that way. Axiomist (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm...no. This is rather a poor idea. How they're currently organized is better than that. All that suggestion will do is cause confusion.Mandi ^Talk 05:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, but Mandi's right. It would add an awful lot of confusion, especially among newer/younger fans. We need to think simpler. I think we can tend to over-think things here, seeing as we're so familiar with the series. Order of game releases is the best idea, methinks. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 05:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It would cause a huge amount of arguments over which games are known to be the same or not. This would do more harm than good.Emma ^(Talk) 05:48, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This would just be confusing for some people who don't know much about the series, and would cause stuff like "but I think FSA link is the same as LttP link" or whatever crap. ZestyCactus 17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I support this, and I also fail to see how this would be confusing to members, seeing as it would still be within chronological order by game.— Steve 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

SSBB image

While I agree that the image is not canonical, I would like to point out that the jpeg version of it was already in use of several image galleries as well as Featued Article. I also want to mention that the image being used on the Hyrule page, is also non-canon, so it seems to me that we've accepted using non-canon images.— Steve 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to disallow them, as the point is to properly portray the character in question. Besides, if we aren't to use non-canon images for the main pic, we can' have any for the non-canon games? We'll be dipping into very muddy waters by doing so.

The point is that the NC images are often just as good as the canon ones. We shouldn't disclude them because of their origin's story. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 22:24, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this page?

When I see this page, there is no "edit" button, and all I want to do is to add a quote from Jaggle! Maybe also a few minor tweaks, but can somebody help me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truezeldafan (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009

It's one of the pages people would like to vandalize so as a default setting it's protected, but since I'm online checking out all of the newest edits, I'll unlock it for you. Please use the Help:References guide to properly source the quotes you have. And when posting in talk pages, sign your posts with ~~~~ Axiomist (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Other appearances

Alright, the suggestion of splitting the section of Other Appearances into its own page has been there since I can remember (heck, I think since I joined the wiki). It's time to decide whether it should stay in that page or have it made into a subpage or something so that we can get rid of that pesky template. Link is currently a feature article, and it just looks wrong to have a template suggesting a split for so long. Dany36 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please place your edit in the section which represents your stance.

Support

1. This article is too long now. We need to move some parts somewhere else. Jeangabin 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this article is too long, and summarizing it isn't an option. I believe a split is in order. —ZENOX ^T C 20:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
3. I say split it into another section, like zeldawiki.org/Link/Other Appearances and still link it from the Link page... It will cut down a LOT of space on that page (I think... Dunno wiki ALL that well) yet still link to that information... and I don't think a lot of people actually do look in that information. - AtrumLevis  (My Talk Page) (My Contributions) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

Oppose

1. I could go either way, really, but I think having Link's other appearances in this same page doesn't hurt anyone. What was the main reason for wanting to split them up, anyway? Most of the sections are just linking to the main pages anyway... Dany36 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Same here. I think it's fine as it is, and it's nice to keep everything in one place if possible. If the page gets too big (which it may if I keep loading up the non-canon/ambig stuff). we'll just revisit the topic. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 18:59, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with a code used on this page

First of all, let me start by thanking whoever created this page. I was wondering if there was a code for random choice generator for Wikis and it seems I've found it in Link here's Infobox image, so thanks. Now my question is, is it possible to make it have more than one result? With what you've got here, it'll choose only one out of a list. I'm needing something that'll choose, say 8 things out of a list. Would that be possible to accomplish? I hope someone here can help. Thanks. Jo The Marten 06:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The way it could be done is to have two sets of <choice> tags. However, you may face the problem of having duplicates show up at the same time, and the only way to stop that would be to have only different options under each set of <choice> and <option> tags. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 21:16, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks a bunch! =) Jo The Marten 00:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pick one Link

Is it just me or is the link on the main picture on the top right changing practically every minute (Sometimes second) obviously we all favor certain links, but shouldn't we decide so the article stays more consistent? --Legosora 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's intentional. It loads a random image from a specific selection each time. • Pete ♪ | ♫ 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had just figured that out too when I came back here... now I feel like an idiot. --Legosora 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personality

For part of his personality, should we put that he is quite a heavy sleeper? in the beginning of most games, he is seen sleeping. Supermariosuperfan 00:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's most likely just a device used to open the story. - Tony^{T S C} 01:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus, for the rest of the game he doesn't sleep day or night, so it's more likely that he's actually an insomniac. =D —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm... How is it a device to open the story? Supermariosuperfan 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because that's what it is. All kinds of stories start with the main character being woken up. Reign 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prove it. Supermariosuperfan 23:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... It is highly common for stories to open with the main character sleeping. It's a poetic sense of both the main character and the observer waking up to a new world. - Tony^{T S C} 23:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of RPG begins with the main character waking up ("Chronos Trigger" for example). Jeangabin 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it is also a common device for characters (who were asleep in the beginning of the game) not to sleep for the rest of the game, not because they're insomniac, otherwise, the story could not carry on, and there are a few games that Link is not asleep, so there. Supermariosuperfan 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment was meant to be humorous. So THERE! =D Seriously, just chill. Admittedly, Navi does call him a "Lazy Boy" but I'd hardly call Link lazy. Ever. =P —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You still made a point when you said he never slept for the rest of the game (and I never said he was lazy). Supermariosuperfan 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Your point was disproved and this isn't the place for circular banter. - Tony^{T S C} 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? Supermariosuperfan 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That it's time to drop the point. It's a plot device that's used on occasion to open the story, like Pakkun said. It's not meant to be a characteristic of Link's. Just chillax, alright? No need to have an argument over something so minor.User:Justin ZW/sig 08:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But just to let you know, there is another story-opening plot device. Starting out with a letter, such as in the first two Paper Mario Games, where the main protagonist is sent a letter, and the adventure begins.Supermariosuperfan 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter; it won't affect the page in any manner. Please take your thoughts to a forum. - Tony^{T S C} 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

name and clothes

Hey i was wondering why and how is every time his name is link I mean how does he always have the same name and in most of the games except for wind waker and twilight princess for all i know usually starts in his green tunic im just unclear about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerhouse5000 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2010

Off-Topic Messages

This series of messages doesn't relate to improving the page that this talk page corresponds to. Zelda Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a forum, so please direct these messages to the Zelda Universe formus or to the #general on Discord.

Ideas such as these would be better suited for a forum, where your theories will be received in more appropriate company. Also remember to sign your posts on talk pages. - Tony^{T S C} 01:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hero of Men?

I could have sworn it's been said many times that the Hero of Men was indeed Gustaf, not Link. I was confused with this as well in the beginning, should it be changed, or are my sources incorrect? —ZENOX ^T C 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Link I = Skyward Sword?

"but many fans used to number them according to their own timeline theories (i.e. Ocarina of Time Link is called Link I by fans who think Ocarina of Time is the first in the timeline)." Should we put that Link I is the Skyward Sword Link?..Since he's before OoT events.. --Isamisa 18:05, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Cameo Link

In Wind Waker, if you notice, inside Hyrule's Castle, there's a statue of Link that it's design is very much alike to http://www.zeldawiki.org/File:Wwadult.jpg the Old concept of Adult WW Link. Here's the image of the statue: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb133/nuclear_muffin/Adult-Link-Statue.jpg (by the way, the colored part is fanmade). So do you think we should put this information to some Trivia or Cameo for Link? --Isamisa 22:52, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

Timestuff

I'm not sure that just because the officials have named Skyward Sword before Ocarina of Time means that Skyward Sword is chronologically the first game in the series. I've seen a lot of articles stating this, but I decided to say it on Link because I first saw it here. Also, I apologize if I'm improperly using the term 'chronological'. Lord of the Stalfos Creatures - Stalfos Meeting Chamber 22:44, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Page Size

This page is a hulking mess. It needs to be trimmed down heavily. For example, the "Incarnations and Appearances" section should simply link to each of the games, and leave those game pages to divulge how Link is involved in them, because he's the hero. The redundant summaries of the games and the whimsical storytelling is superfluous and unnecessary. The Skyward Sword section is pure speculation. It should die first.

I'm dropping the axe on this page in a week if it doesn't improve. Featured Article doesn't mean Finished Article. --Xizor 07:09, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

How is the SS section speculation? All of it has been confirmed. It even has sources to back it up. Dany36 11:29, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

"Link has lived his entire life in an island above the clouds known as Skyloft and is unaware of any other world besides the island. However, one day, he discovers a land below, which is actually Hyrule,[20] but realizes that it is being overrun by evil forces and, in part due to the fact that he is searching for a lost and valuable friend, he is forced to go there. As such, the young hero must spend his journey traveling back and forth between these two regions, Skyloft and the kingdom of Hyrule, with the help of the Skyward Sword that he eventually finds in his homeland of Skyloft.[20][21] The Skyward Sword is the driving force behind Link's traveling between the two lands.[22][23]"

'Confirmed' or not, that entire bit is completely unnecessary. It can go under the Skyward Sword page. --Xizor 18:52, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

The thing about Link though, is that he's the medium from which the story is understood by the player. He transcends it, walks though it, and cannot be separated from it. Without explaining how Link goes through the storylines of these games, this page would literally turn into a disambig. If there is any trimming to be done, it should be in word choice, verbosity, and other aesthetic fixes, not content. I'm not a huge fan of how one crat can wave his magic wand and give a page "one week" before it's "axed". — cipriano^talk 23:29, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

I'm going to second what Brent said, this article is about one of the main protagonists, it shouldn't be trimmed.Mandi ^Talk 03:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we need some consensus before just attacking an article like that. And I agree with Brent, we need to have the descriptions that we do because Link is just that, the "link" between the player and the game. We can't get rid of them when they're so important to the description of Link.User:Justin ZW/sig 23:45, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

It would break it down to a disabmig page. He is the principle character. We need this detail. We shouldn't be taking it away. What we can do about page size is make sure all the wording is clean and efficient and see if there's things we can do to simplify things.Emma ^(Talk) 03:56, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Dany recommended I check this out. Unless the series starts using a new main character and never references Link again, the page is going to expand. Although Xizor's plan is brash, his foresight is justifiable. Changing the wording and all will only lead to small cuts really. I'd do that anyway, and consider my old suggestion of merging known same Link sections. Nothing would be lost except redundancy moreso in the OoX sections, and diminished returns in the OoT-MM, TWW-PH, TP-LCT ones. Template all of the random images as planned. The Other Links section could be dumped into a nav template easily, they really add nothing to the article, I'd opt for an image heavy template with captions over a text based one. I just skimmed and I'm not seeing CDi information, a gaping hole in coverage if its missing. And lastly, Strategy Wiki makes extensive use of sub-pages. If you check out their footers you could see an excellent way to offer subpage navigation.Axiomist (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2010 (EDT)

About the CDi information being absent...yes, I can't believe we don't have that covered in the article. I was actually surprised to see that even though Zelda and Ganon had their own (although small) section about the animated series, Link didn't have anything on it! So I recently added that on to his other appearances. Although school has kept me busy, my current goal is to cover as much non-canon media as I can: as others know might know, I had been working on the animated series episode articles, and had to stop after working on the Link and Zelda articles due to school and lack of internet. Next on my list after the animated series and the Captain N show (where Link and Zelda appear in like two or three episodes) are the Valiant Comics (another important section that Zelda and Ganon have but not Link), the ALttP Comic, and lastly, the CD-i games. So...the CD-i problem will be taken care of...eventually. :/ Which only means that Link's other appearances section will get much bigger. :P Dany36 11:10, 12 September 2010 (EDT)

Okay, I'm gonna say some rough things, no one get mad. Xizor, you need to get a handle on what constitutes a large article. I know the message says that 32 KB is the point where you get errors, but that isn't correct. Not anymore, and we need to update that message. Back in 2005, around the time where that was programmed, it was true. But in the computer realm five years is an eternity. Today it's not the right number. It's just not a priority for MediaWiki to update. The real number now is 96 KB where you start to run into technical problems. And it's not anywhere near it. So it is not too big of a page. And Ax, we're not merging the "same Links" together. That didn't fly last time and it won't this time. This is a high traffic page and it can't be sloppy like that, it would confuse some users, and anger others. I already moved the images to the template. We're safe for page size now.Emma ^(Talk) 17:06, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's a few things we need to understand. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We don't have traditional space limitations. Our page sizes are limited by one thing and one thing only: how much text browsers can handle. Going past this limit will cause some glitches, most notablly an auto-page wipe when trying to save. This is because the browser couldn't handle all the data and it was lost before being totally sent, some remnants that made it through could remain though. Edits work by saving ALL the text on the page at each save, not just what changed. Browsers could handle 96 KB a year ago. We DO NOT have to worry about new games pushing us past this, the capacity will expand as time goes on. By the time Skyward Sword comes out, we should be able to safely handle up to 128 KB. And by the one after that, we should be safe with 160 KB. As of now, we can easily handle anything under 96 KB. And sizes between 96 KB and 128 KB should be good for the most part, but some browsers like IE and a couple others might have problems. Past 128 KB, it's really hit and miss if it does an auto-wipe on a page save or not. So as for now, size templates applied to pages that don't match this criteria are removed. And by the way, if you want a over-stuffed page that needs trimming to sink your teeth into, Community:Zelda Dungeon Community still far exceeds the safe limit and really needs a good trimming.Emma ^(Talk) 17:53, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

And what about the readability of an article? Maybe this only goes for me, but when I see a page that is loooooooong, I am less inclined to read it or enjoy the read, whereas the same amount of text spread into multiple, smaller is far more appealing. I do like the idea of subpaging the really big articles, not because it is needed, but because it will make the pages more appealing. IfIHaveTo 14:16, 12 September 2010 (EDT)

That matter would be a subject of personal taste, and we can't mark pages for being too big just because one person thinks so. If a large consensus thinks so, then it could be something. But that already isn't the case here. Long articles can still be appealing if they don't bore the reader. This can be done by having good wording, efficient structure, and abundant, but not excessive, pictures to make it less intimidating. If it's a huge must, we can use the overflow template on sections to make the page feel shorter.Emma ^(Talk) 18:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

The page is too big. This is something that the majority of Staff approved of in the past, especially cutting out unnecessary information. There is more written about his time in the Animated series, a mere 20 or so episodes, than there is about his appearance in Ocarina of Time, one of the most significant Zelda games. The consistency between game sections is inconsistent. Some games have multiple paragraphs, some only have two lines. All the games should have minimal information reproduced here that you can find on ANOTHER PAGE. This is not proposing it become a disambiguation page; the rest of that lovely information about Link is still there, such as his background, his characteristics, etc. It is not unreasonable to want to cut out unnecessary gobblettygook, and if nobody else will edit it out, I will do it myself on Saturday. 65,000+ is too long. It can be cut down. I saw this page and immediately wanted to leave it. The contents themselves are overwhelming, nevermind the rest of the article! The purpose of an encyclopedia is to glean information. We are not a textbook. The page is too large. --Xizor 04:23, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

If Link's background, characteristics and development can be described without repeating unnecessary, redundant portions of the story, do it. It's all in the wording, really. I do not, however, believe that everything should be trimmed out and replaced with a link to the right game. Also, one section being larger than the other is NOT a good reason to remove information, regardless of the source's reputation. This page can be improved in terms of structure, too, so I don't see why content is being looked down upon. Are lectures boring because they contain a lot of information? Should they be broken down into 3 minute talks so they don't bore the listener? No. If the lecturer can make ideas flow smoothly, relate some things to others and divide information into easily-digestible portions, even the dullest of students can pay attention and enjoy the lesson. Make things look appealing and information easily accessible, and not just short for the sake of it. — Abdullah ^{[T] [C] [S]}  06:04, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

It was just a reference point for comparison as far as the Cartoon and Game went. However, the disparity between the actual game sections themselves? Yeah, each game has a story like the rest of them, so when one game gets 40 sentences and another only gets 2, that's inconsistent and thus bad editing. Furthermore, I never said I'd just go through and randomly remove stuff until I hit a magic number of bytes. I may go through and find only about 5,000 bytes I can remove comfortably. At that point, it becomes a discussion about how to reorganize the page. It is just too long. It's not even about the stupid load time, it's just about it being an unattractive mess. --Xizor 06:40, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

I wouldn't call it "bad editing" if a section has 40 compared to 2. In context of this article, Link's role in the games may be less prominent, or less deserving of description than others. Compare Ocarina of Time to Four Swords Adventures. The first is a very rich, detailed story well deserving of the couple paragraphs of description, while the latter is a strict, arcade-style game where Link statically travels through levels, without much plot development. While I don't agree that this page is a "hulking mess" as you say, as it is organized pretty well by characteristics, game, etc. for the amount of content that is here, all this page needs is minor trimming for content and a reorganization. I really can't see you taking out too much without compromising the content, which IMO needs to stay because Link is irremovable from story elements. — cipriano^talk 08:56, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

I think it depends more on the enthusiasm people feel for a certain game. Most sections could be done more detailed, while OOT could probably lose about 50% of its text, only by removing repetition and telling the tale in order of events rather than as the game reveals things. But people are more enthusiast about OOT than *cough*the actually good*cough* other games in the series, so that section is more likely to get a lot of/multitude of attention than another. This could be called bad editing, but that is something all articles that are primarily a product of independent additions will suffer from. IfIHaveTo 10:10, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

I might as well chime in, since I have had several people message me about this discussion. While I agree the page could use some revisions in terms of what get displayed here versus what is explained on a particular game's page (ensuring were not just saying the same thing twice), I disagree that the pure length of this article is in fact a real issue. I've read articles that are longer at places such as bulbapedia, and at wikipedia itself. On top of that, we have released articles that were much longer than this on Zelda Informer, and thousands of people still read it. Hell, Message of Majora's Mask, one of the all time greatest articles ever written, is almost double the length of this page in text. What makes this page appear much bigger than it really is is naturally the fact that text can't be displayed next to the table of contents - that is really what makes this page appear to be a mess.

I hate pages that have mile long table of contents, but I would be okay if we ever figured out a way for text to be displayed next to it. That being said, the actual content of this page isn't really that long. I read through the entirety of the page in the mere 7 minutes. That isn't much of my time. Also what is the context of the new too long template? I've seen it appearing on pages that it has no business appearing on, including some of the community pages of which it should have zero bearing. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 10:26, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

The page is too long, as in, stretched to the bottom. It looks sloppy. Each Zelda game is a Zelda game, and one editor's perception of Link's prominence is very subjective. If he's the protagonist, he's the main focus, and I don't see how that makes him anything but extremely prominent. I just see some of the stuff on this page and it reminds me of the "storytelling" we get from some people, which is completely unnecessary and cluttering. As far as the Size template goes, it is currently in its original form. As far as it being inappropriately used, I don't know where it is being used other than where I've seen it and put it. The only Community Page I saw it on was a page about Zelda Dungeon's Community, which was at nearly 150,000 bytes in size. --Xizor 11:05, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

The page is not sloppy, it is renders us a lot of page views because it is about the series's protagonist and to scale this article down to your standards is going to nearly turn it into a stub. Scaling it down for the sheer fact that you think it's too long doesn't simply give you the right to do so. It's only valid if there's a strong consensus to do so. The consensus in your head =/= the consensus of Zelda Wiki.org.Mandi ^Talk 20:20, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

According to Special:Statistics, it's our third most viewed page. Which means the quality of this page reflects on the quality of the whole wiki. It also means that it helps our search results for this and many other pages. Having it stripped down to the level of a stub will hurt us badly. Major changes to such a page would require a consensus to do so, and you don't have that consensus.Emma ^(Talk) 20:31, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

After bringing this issue up to the ZW Staff as a whole, we have decided that pages of this size are no longer what we want to consider "oversized". I wish to briefly explain that in the past, we would have, and thus that was the precedent I was acting on. I don't really need to launch into a rant in defense of myself. I'm fully aware of my own capabilities and judgment. I have nothing but this Wiki's interests at heart when I make any action, and I typically only act when I feel very strongly. I do not want, however, for anyone to mistakenly think I was being roguish or whatever. I was simply acting on a precedent that others no longer wanted to follow. Minor communication break down, and now it's settled.

I will still examine this page and see if I can't trim down some of the more verbose sections into more concise and professional passages, and possibly try to reorganize it so that it looks more attractive at a glance. I definitely still feel that Featured Article does not mean Finished Article. =P

Sorry for all the confusion, guys. =] --Xizor 20:30, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

Ah, yeah, that sounds better. More professional looking wording really helps the flow of the page. Makes for less attention wandering. I can certainly see us changing some things here and there around to make it look more appealing. So long as we don't take away from the quantity of information that's good. And of course quantity is useless if it doesn't have quality. That much I like. This being a major page, professionalism is important and the page shouldn't look obnoxious. It should be a gem, so it should polished. Full steam ahead!Emma ^(Talk) 00:55, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Now isn't THIS interesting....Maybe there is such a thing as justice in the world after all. I seem to remember confronting our trigger-happy friend about this very issue on several other articles very similar to this one many months ago, and not a one stepped up to the plate to support the counter-arguments I made, which were the very ones presented against him here. I'm glad to see that everyone is coming to the realization (however late) that simply gutting an article and allowing a trigger-happy bureaucrat who does little to nothing for this site in terms of real work run amok doing anything he pleases without regard to proper procedure is not in the best interests of this wiki nor the vast majority of its users. I have no plans to come back here to work at present (I'm far happier writing for ZIMP where the work is actually appreciated) due to the grossly unfair way in which I was treated by some over this very issue many months ago. However I thought I'd drop in and give my two cents on the arrival of justice at last. Finally someone has put this guy in his place, and what a happy day that is for this great wiki. Link87 17:01, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

You're welcome for putting myself in my place. --Xizor 01:29, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps you mean "forced" to put yourself in your place, as you now find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion. Link87 12:55, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

OK, it's over

If no one disagrees, I will put the above walls mountains of text into an archived page in 10 minutes. --K2L (Interrogatory) 13:15, 16 September 2010 (EDT)