Talk: Main Page

Template:Archives

Merge Voting

Anytime there was an article to be merged, it would be decided with discussion which was an effective method considering the pros and cons of merging was considered. Now, it seems like we've taken over a new system of merging in which case the merge is decided by yes/no votes. This system is convenient, sure, but it's not exactly the best option. For one, there is no discussion. Which, discussion is necessary :P I'm thinking we need to go back to the old way of doing merges (discussing the merge first as opposed to voting). Discuss!User:Mandi/sig 22:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, discussing is a more effective way of deciding things, and lets people debate with one another on important facts than simply voting.User:Steven/sig 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be quality over quantity. It's nice to separate the pros and cons, and discussion is always important. I'm repeating myself, but opinions shouldn't be counted. They should be weighed for their worth. Noble Wrot 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While discussion does follow the voting system sometimes, I'm definitely for old system that looks at the actual articles as opposed to a thin yes/no vote. It would give a more in-depth look as to why an article was chosen to merge, and if it is legitimate enough for such.User:Cipriano 119/sig 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not really sure how it started, but it seems as though whenever anything is proposed, a vote is set up immediately. There is no time to debate the changes before a decision is hastily made. Back to the old system it is, I say. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 01:04, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the general consensus is to go back to the original system/discussion system? Sounds good to me. The voting wasn't an actual written decision to begin with; people just got into the habit. So, any more comments? :)User:Mandi/sig 02:45, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I can't really say much that hasn't already been brought up here. The comments here basically echo my thoughts. But I'll say it anyway so I can make my view clear. I can say that more often than not, the quick and easy path is usually the wrong one that tends to lead to very poor decisions being made in haste. It would be better to discuss these merge and splitting actions over a protracted period of time rather than rushed. It's not like the wiki is going anywhere. For such decisions I believe people can afford to wait for a more proper decision to be made after all the implications of the proposed action have been laid out. In a voting situation, people tend to ignore the input of the other side even more so than they do in a standard discussion situation, which we well know was already rather solid to begin with. In a related note, I am almost thinking that formal voting situations like this should be strongly discouraged outside of the officially sanctioned Featured Content voting. Largely because it tends to be counterproductive, and also because it would be a practical impossibility to rigidly regulate it. A case in point is that many seem to believe that a couple people agreeing with an action is enough to move forward with it, often less than a day from its proposal. Lacking the rigid regulation such as that with featured images. People forget that wiki editing is for the large part just a hobby and it's often hard for enough people to know what is going on at once. And everyone can't be on it all the time. A substantial amount of time should be given to such major actions. I have seen very bad things happen to this place because people get impatient. Some actions involve consequences that people often ignore. A simple example is naming of pages. Often people just go trying to aim for accuracy while completely disregards things such as spoilers. We're editors of course we don't feel spoiled by the things we edit (for example Majora's Mask being the boss of that respective game, simple to us yet to someone new the game that would spoil a great deal). We take these things for granted because it feels so familiar to us. We forget that the readers are often young and new to the series. Being introduced to it with games like Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, or Spirit Tracks. A great many are not as familiar with the older games as we are. This is but one small consequence of these quickly ruled actions. There are many more. But still it shows how we careless we get in our haste to get things done. User:Matt/sig 22:16, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Docs from the 85

Dunno if you have seen this, or if this is the place, but in an interview, some ancient documents of the TLOZ series were revealed. Interview --Tucayo 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pssh. Yeah, that's old news to us :/

We're always on top of stuff like that :P—Justin^(Talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool :) --Tucayo 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SMW Interlinks

HI! I wanna ask, how did you make it so that when you go to "SMW:something" it redirects you to the SMW? I think it would be good to do the same in the SMW :) --Tucayo 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Do you mean interwiki redirects? Because those are just normal redirects with interwiki prefixes, like "#REDIRECT [[smw:Mario]]"—Justin^(Talk) 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... but that wont work in the SMW, or so it looks... --Tucayo 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Must be some sort of setting chosen in the interwiki table. Try changing the entries and checking the "is local" box.—Justin^(Talk) 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I'm gonna set something up at our Kirby Wiki (WiKirby) and see about getting it done here. It'll be a lot like the infobox field we have for Strategy wiki here. User:Axiomist/sig 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Media

Could we add links to separate media, such as 'How to Draw' pages, Important Articles, Wallpaper pages, etc, that are directly related to the article we place them in? An example would be like in the Spirit Tracks or Legend of Zelda pages, (For the Individual Games themselves), we could post links into a Separate Media section leading to the fan-art galleries in Zelda Dungeon. Could we do this? Nicktheslayer 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it may be a long read, all questions concerning our take on fan-art, other media and the like can be found here. Good question, and I do believe it has been answered at that location. User:Cipriano 119/sig 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, i understand the point of that 'debate', but thats not what im asking. Im asking if we should add a new type of section to each article, (If Possible), labeled "Other Media", for things like drawing tutiorials, videos (Such as game trailers, video walkthroughs, etc), craft tutorials, music downloads, etc... It wouldnt add to much to the info on the site, but it would make it less boring, and ge people more involved with the series as a whole. Nicktheslayer 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for the Community Namespace. I'm thinking that might be just what we need to give the Community space a jolt of life. I suppose a few dedicated to the task and a strong organization plan would be the first step. Also this might help to get more affiliates, which we always want. User:Axiomist/sig 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I Personally dont know how to get this project going, and if there is a team, i wouldnt be a very reliable member, (At least i wouldnt be until tomorrow, that is, if my internet works then.) If youd like though, i can make a list of examples of Other Media, (Not links, but what we could link to), that we could use to add to the sections. Ill start on that now. Nicktheslayer 15:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, here are some ideas i had:

Examples of Other Media.

FanArt Galleries

How to Draw Tutorials (Video, or Illustrated)

CraftMaking Tutorials (Video, or Illustrated)

Recipes (Video, or Illustrated)

Music Downloads (Such as ZREO)

Im also thinking about Fanart galleries. I know the Midna picture that was fan-art was removed from the gallery for that reason, but im talking about a separate gallery just for fanart. Each picture would have the Title, Creator, and the site it came from in the caption. Like this: (Awesome Fanart by nicktheslayer of ZeldaWiki), or something along those lines. That way people can find what they are looking for, while staying on the site, and the creator would still be credited. Any comments on this?? Nicktheslayer 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Need to Update More

Hey guys. I think that you should update ZeldaWiki.org more often since I saw that Zelda.Wikia.com is updating. I also heard that Zelda.Wikia.com is better than ZeldaWiki.org from some YouTube users. Please put this suggestion into consederation. Thanks for your consederation! :D ZeldaHearts2010 8:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean about updating more often. If by that you mean making more edits, then I think that won't be a problem soon enough now that summer vacation is here for must of us. :D As for which wiki is better, that is pretty silly to argue since people are full of bias. ;) So don't worry too much about what other folk are saying. We'd really appreciate your help in making this wiki better, though! :) Thank you for your thoughts! Dany36 18:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is something interesting on the Gamespot forum. Jeangabin 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: I like the addition of the "Did you know?" section to the main page. It makes it seem that yes, we are updating and making good articles. Rdnckj258 14:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...Or has the Mastermind Dashboard suddenly stopped working? User:Smashbrother101/sig 02:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It does go off and on sometimes, I've noticed as well. Since Zelda Universe and Zelda Wiki share a server, it may occur as a product of their nightly backup, or it may be an unrelated issue, such as the recent Skyward Sword information influx, which has more than clogged the RSS feed for the past few days. It is back up and working on my computer, though.User:Cipriano 119/sig 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So guys

How does it feel to have Nintendo popping out a remake of the "golden center" of all things Zelda as well as a new "revolutionary" Zelda game on the same console as the last main one? Sounds pretty familiar to me. Template:Bp Template:Bp TTEchidna 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No joke! I can't believe that the OoT remake is finally happening. Can't wait for more news! Dany36 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I nearly fainted when I saw the 3DS OOT screens! I'm pretty sure I'm looking forward to this more than Skyward Sword... I mean I have been waiting for it for 12 years... I'm so esctatic they finally decided to do it! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think OoT remake is enough reason to get a 3DS :P --Tucayo 17:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

MAJOR ALERT!: OoT is back on top!

Guys! The Legend of Zelda: Ocarnia of Time is back on top! The 2 latest reviews got them back to 3rd place! Post it on the Master Dashboard. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarnia of Time is still the best video game in the world! (Scource: www.gamerankings.com) --AnymousPerson 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (I'm new!)

Thanks for the heads up! It really isn't up to ZW to post this on the dashboard, though, since the dashboard news come directly from the mastermind websites. Also, to link to the Ocarina of Time page, all you have to do is type this: {{subst:OOT}}, or just {{OOT}}, which will show up as Ocarina of Time. Simple, eh? ;) Dany36 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I was trying to say Ocarnina of Time and to appear as OoT. And I think it's like this: [[The Legend of Zelda: Ocarnia of Time|OoT]] Well, thanks! --AnymousPerson 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reguarding Some Glitch & Hack Pages

I made these vile pages a [long] while ago, and pretty much forgot about them. I have some things to request and to talk about. Some of these could go on the talk page of each individual article, but it could very easily get confusing.

1. Disproved Glitches: found here-the page is highly empty, only containing one so called "disproved glitch", and I doubt anyone ever saw it before. ...Let alone know it exists. The whole thing is pointless, as it depends on how one determines if a glitch is "disproved", which is actually quite stupid in itself for everyone really just care about the glitches which work. I think it should be deleted, and erased from the Glitches Template.
2. The Glitches Project Page: found here- This page is actually in the deletion category, but has been ignored. It features, in the most horrid way possible, a list of glitches which have yet to been categorized as "proven"/"disprove" in the form of a page filled with yellow links which leads to who knows where. Oh, I almost forgot, it also has an empty section which is supposed to list "possible phony" glitches, and a list of how many glitches each glitch page has. Really… I don't know what I was thinking when I set this up, but you guys have let this sit in the wiki for several months without a single thought. The entire system is dead, as the last edit was by me on Jan 18 2010. This should also be deleted and removed from the Glitches Template.
3. The Hacks Pages: found here-The entire system was modeled after the Glitches system, so the Hacks Project Page should also be deleted for the same reasons why the Glitch Project Page should be. Another flaw is the system of how we post hacks and reference them to other websites. So far, as seen here, all the hacks are under a single reference by one website, who is named in a section with the front as the page title itself. It looks sloppy, as there is no way to reference them in such a way which actually looks good. Also, as explained by Matt/Steve/one of the staff, since we are dealing with hacks/hacking in general, there is really an endless amount of possibilities. With this, there is no way we can possibly list each one. One last thing is similar to the Glitches Project Page, I doubt anyone has looked at them recently. With all of that in mind, I think the pages I requested to be deleted should be deleted, and the Hacks page deleted or reorganized. Your Energetic Wiki Editor, User:Austin/sig 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You make quite a few good points. I pretty support everything you said, as it all makes sense. Empty pages, unneeded stuff, impossible pages, etc.User:Justin/sig 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid this conversation as much as possible, but I guess now is the time to talk about it. It's pretty obvious that the wiki's Glitch/Hack section is the most lacking part of the wiki in all aspects. I agree with you, Austin. I think it needs a real overhaul and remodification of EVERYTHING. But the thing is, who is knowledgeable enough in glitches and hacks to actually look into every hack/glitch and legitimize each one, etc. It's a tough call - we definitely need these pages though, I mean look at the guys over at Zelda Chaos (look for their link in the Affiliates section of the wiki) - they specialize in glitch work and seem to be coming along just fine. Perhaps we can borrow ideas from them... User:Cipriano 119/sig 04:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it came back to light. ...I just don't know why some of you were apparently ingoring it until I came back from my ZW hibernation. User:Austin/sig 04:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We were worrying about other projects :PUser:Justin/sig 04:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Zelda Universe Online Game?

(Sorry if this isn't the proper place to post this, but I'm new here and every wiki I've been to seems to have their own rules for what you can and can't put on the main talk page) I'm not sure, but I think the ESRB may have leaked an upcoming Zelda Online Game. When searching the ESRB website for Zelda game ratings, one of the games listed was called "Zelda Universe". The website claims that it's published by Nintendo, so it's unlikely that it is 3rd party or an unrelated game with a similar title. For proof, just search "zelda" at [1]. It's near the bottom of the resulting list, between Majora's Mask and Oracle of Seasons. If anyone has more info on this game, that would also be appreciated, as I've never heard of this before.--Kirbychu HR'D 13:10, 9 August 2010 (EDT)