FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Wizzrobe

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


Same case as the Darknut article; detailed on each appearance in-game, with plenty, and I mean plenty of images. What do you guys think? —Baltro [ talk · edits ] 18:07, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. I like it. Good choice.-- C2 / CC 19:03, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I looked it over and couldn't find anything to object to. McJEFF (talk) 06:40, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  3. It's good. Only problem is the images...it was seriously better before. Sprites in gallery = stretched sprites = ugly. --AuronKaizer! 07:01, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  4. I never realized how super uber awesome looking the wizzrobes from AoL were. Dialask would've appreciated this. --Zelda311 Golden Fierce Deity Golden Fierce Deity 18:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 17:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
  5. The yellow ones are pretty anoying in Wind Waker. That's why it hasmy vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hero Of Awesome (talkcontribs)

Objection

Comments

super uber awesome? They looke identical to the Ku Klux Klan Oni Dark Link 17:31, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah super uber awesome. I do not think they look like the KKK, you racist little boy. Nah I kid. --Zelda311 Golden Fierce Deity Golden Fierce Deity 18:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 05:40, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
I take that back. They do look like they are from the KKK.--Z31T)6311 06:33, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

South of the Village

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting oppose Oppose


Now that's one freakin' good article.—Triforce 14Triforce4 11:55, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Its a pretty good article. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:43, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
  2. It's a good article, yes it's minor in the series, but it's still high quality.-- C2 / CC 22:46, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Ride the King's Highway, baby. --AuronKaizer! 01:17, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Nice bro-sizzle. --Z31T)6311 07:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.
  5. Finally made up my mind on this one. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 17:55, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Objection

  1. good yes, complete yes but I just don’t think we should have it as a featured article in comparison to some of the others we have. Oni Dark Link 18:45, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I don't see how this is well-written, in all honesty. All major-minor article arguments aside, there are plenty of other articles written the same, that look the same. —Baltro [ talk · edits ] 21:51, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I honestly don't know what to think about this one...on the one hand, it was clearly written well. But I just don't really see it as FA material, if you know what I mean. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 18:53, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't really see why it isn't featured article material?—Triforce 14Triforce4 22:40, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
He's saying because its such a minor thing in the series. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:43, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
There's no rule though saying featured articles have to be important parts of the series. I thought this was based purely off quality?—Triforce 14Triforce4 22:48, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah But a lot of people prefer to see major articles I'm sure. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:55, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
I nominate major ones, but I'm not against these smaller, well written ones.-- C2 / CC 22:57, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not just that it's minor...I don't know, I just don't see it. I can't really describe what I'm feeling here. I won't oppose though. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 22:57, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

bigger ones do look better on the main page, that should also be a factor since featured articles are the examples of the site Oni Dark Link 22:59, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

I think your oppose is a bit unfounded in it's reasoning. Good article=why not?....to me at least.-- C2 / CC 01:23, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Hes doesn't know what that means. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:26, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Umm... how 'bout "I think the reason for your oppose, isn't very good." That's Layman's terms too.-- C2 / CC 01:31, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
He usually uses the question everything tactic. And I was obviously being sarcastic. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:34, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Hah, perhaps it wasn't that obvious. --AuronKaizer! 01:50, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Unless you were being sarcastic there....-- C2 / CC 01:52, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Who can tell these days? --AuronKaizer! 01:54, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Someone who's sarcastic, and doesn't even relize it.-- C2 / CC 01:56, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm can be confusing with out hearin the tone of voices (or am i just being sarcastic?). Oni Dark Link 20:26, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

@Baltro:That's because we try to keep all articles similar. We're supposed to be uniform, its better than... well... Zelda Wiki.-- C2 / CC 22:31, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I think his point is that there are plenty of other articles that are of the same quality and look more or less the same, i.e. why was this one singled out of all things? Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this, but I think that's what he meant. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 22:43, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
I see that now, wished he had just said that they had similar quality but hey, I can understand his point of view now.-- C2 / CC 22:45, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Well in that can also argue that any article we feature has other articles just as good as it and shouldn't be featured... I'm really kind of sorry I even suggested this, and it's not that I'm just defending what I put up, I just wish you would vote on the article rather than everything else unrelated to it. Even opposing it just because you don't like it is better.—Triforce 14Triforce4 01:36, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think its long enough but other then that know objections.--Ironknuckle1 (talk) 20:16, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

I think we can call this an oppose.-- C2 / CC 16:29, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


Mask

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting oppose Oppose


I've professionalized this article and made it cleaned up. I thinks it's better now. Please edit, make it better, etc. Thankyou, --⽩㤖㒾 - 06:45, December 12, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.

Support

  1. Kind of a lame pick for a featured article, but there's nothing wrong with the article, as such. --AuronKaizer! 11:17, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This page is a disambig with more words. Pass. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:46, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I just don't see this as FA material for the some reason as Joe. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:01, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Nothing wrong with it, but eh..... not awhole lot of content for featured page.-- C2 / CC 02:04, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  4. What they said. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 17:55, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Gah. Lame? ... That's cold. Well I should probably keep working on it, nothing wrong about making an article better right? --⽩㤖㒾 - 15:41, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, it's a glorified list that for some reason doesn't work as a disambiguation page. --AuronKaizer! 15:43, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I'll work on it. --⽩㤖㒾 - 15:54, December 12, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.
Now it's a tad more interesting. --⽩㤖㒾 - 16:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.
Farfetch'd™ theories isn't what I had in mind when I said that. --AuronKaizer! 16:14, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
That was a tad more innapropriate at best. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:15, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Should we just delete the lists of masks? --⽩㤖㒾 - 16:27, December 12, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.

Happy Mask Salesman

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


Meets the criteria, and is a generally good article. It has some theory, but it is not the majority of the article.-- C2 / CC 16:21, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Aww, I was going to do that. The article is my "baby" and all that. But oh well, I guess it's as good as it's going to get right now. --AuronKaizer! 16:24, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  2. This is a great article. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:01, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Good Article. Mr kmil Spin Attack (A Link to the Past) 17:06, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
  4. All opposition must be eradicated. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 17:55, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
  5. Definately, one of my favorite wikis. Some cool theory and great insight!!--The Gerudo Guy (talk) 21:26, December 15, 2009 (UTC)The Gerudo Guy I REALLY NEED MY TALK BUBBLE!!!
  6. Def'nately this one. --⽩㤖㒾 - 02:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.

Oppose

Comments

I have a question, how often does the Featured Article change? --⽩㤖㒾 - 00:03, December 30, 2009 (UTC), your man of the world.

Every month Oni Dark Link 15:10, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Which coming to thnk of it should mean we chould change it today since its January now Oni Dark Link 15:13, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hero's Shade

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


Well-written, exhaustive character article, with proper illustration and all. A bit heavy on the theory side, but that's to be expected of such a mysterious character. --AuronKaizer! 16:16, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Not going to get much better than this I say. I think this is the version that should be featured.-- C2 / CC 01:01, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice job shortening the theory section, AK. This page has my vote. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:02, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 04:15, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I have no issues with this. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 04:35, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  5. It looks nice and clean to me. --Birdman5589 (talk) 05:42, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Good article. No big mistakes and a general clean look. Something great to feature :)Draconicus (talk) 06:14, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Triforce 14Triforce4 16:26, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Pictogram voting neutral Neutral: A bit heavy might be an understatement. I dont think theory sections should be twice as long as the rest of the article but Im not entirely set on opposing it. Oni Dark Link 16:23, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

They can always be trimmed a bit. --AuronKaizer! 16:25, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know that, but I have to oppose at this point in time because it doesn't meat the criteria of having a smaller theory section then the rest of the content article.-- C2 / CC 16:31, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Spin Attack

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


A nice article that covers in detail every game it appears in except Four Swords (I would like if someone who has played that game would fill that in I’m sure there's not much to it). Mentions similar articles and covers non canon info also in detail. An all around nice article. Oni Dark Link 23:47, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. It's good. I like it myself. --AuronKaizer! 23:49, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Sure. As for the FS section, I'm sure someone could easily look at a YouTube video to see what it looks like. Jedimasterlink (talk) 00:31, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Good article, I don't mind the Four Swords section, I can let it slide.-- C2 / CC 00:36, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Sure. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:34, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 04:15, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Could use more images, but I like it.—Triforce 14Triforce4 16:26, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Call me crazy but were sword skills transfered between both games on the Link to the Past/Four Swords game cartridge. Wouldn't that mean it would have to have the spin attack. I think I remember it having it but I can't go back and check as I don't know anybody to link up with anymore. --Birdman5589 (talk) 06:15, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thats the thinig I dont know Ive never played the game. I assume so since it also has the Whirlwind Sword Attack but I just dont know exactly how it works. Oni Dark Link 11:58, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

This has been here with five supports for five days now. Should it be added to the que? Oni Dark Link 10:05, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Read the rules more carefully. It says a week, not five days. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 10:08, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I must of seen five and regestered it as the only number in the sentance Oni Dark Link 10:10, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Its been a week now since this has been up too. Its allowed to be counted as feature right? Oni Dark Link 22:17, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Not a full 168 hours(a week) yet. In an other hour, if nobody opposes, then yes it will be featured.-- C2 / CC 22:20, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yay :) Oni Dark Link 23:34, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Zant

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


Re-nominateling because it recieved 25 supports and 6 opposes when it orginally was nominated, so that alone means it should be added the Queue. It's a good, well-written article too.-- C2 / CC 01:10, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. The previous suggestion failed because of completely dumb reasons. Let's not waste any more time by denying the featuredness of Zant's article. --AuronKaizer! 01:37, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  2. what AK said. Jedimasterlink (talk) 04:12, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Of those opposes, only, like, one of them was actually anything comparable to credible. The article deserves to be featured whether you like Zant or not. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 04:15, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  4. This is an obvious featured article. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 04:35, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I still don't like that gallery at the end though --Birdman5589 (talk) 06:13, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Iss good Oni Dark Link 11:53, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Triforce 14Triforce4 16:26, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

There are a few things causing me not to support it yet. First. Is the gallery with only one image necessary as there is already an unmasked image earlier in the article. The other issue I have is having a septate page for him as a boss. Still a good article and worthy of being a featured article but I need to look over it a little more and wondered what other people thought of those things. --Birdman5589 (talk) 05:55, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of other bosses have separate battle articles. --AuronKaizer! 05:58, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that and I think that's OK if there is the same boss in multiple games but where Zant is only in one it seems a little odd to me. The more I look between the two articles the less it bugs me though as having on the main page would look kinda messy. Still have to look over a little more though. --Birdman5589 (talk) 06:07, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Zant is an important character, not just a boss. --AuronKaizer! 06:08, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
We try and give every boss a seprate page useually detailing how to beat them and a video showing the best way. Oni Dark Link 11:53, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we only do that with bosses that have backstory, dialouge, etc. And there are more than enough of those though.-- C2 / CC 01:32, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
And bosses who appear as mini bosses or normal enemies in other games get a seperate page. Oni Dark Link 09:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
As for what you said for a boss appearing in multiple games, we have separate articles for each of Vaati's and Ganondorf's battles. So, this makes sense. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Think of it as a page going over the boss aspect of the person or monster and one for the character aspect of the person or monster Oni Dark Link 11:07, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Iron Knuckle

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


This is a great article with many good pictures and descriptions--Ironknuckle1 01:28, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. It's nothing special, but it does fulfill the criteria. Heh, imagine a guy named Ironknuckle nominating the Iron Knuckle article. --AuronKaizer! 01:31, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
  2. These guys just so happen to be my favorite enemy ontop of that it is a nice page. The majora's mask section looks a tad small though. Cant be helped since so few appear in game i supose Oni Dark Link 19:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Not the best article we've ever used as a Featured Article, but it's definitely well written and fits all the criteria. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 19:38, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm game.-- C2 / CC 01:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  5. It's a pretty good article, and it meets the conditions. I sense possible bias in the person who nominated this article, however... ;-) Jedimasterlink (talk) 04:32, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Triforce

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting oppose Oppose, article already featured


An extremely comprehensive article that is very interesting, has length and pictures. I love this article, it's one of my favorites and I personally am surprised that it hasn't been nominated yet. --⽩㤖㒾 - 23:00, January 31, 2010 (UTC), your man of the world.

Support

Oppose

Comments

Hmm, look at this. --AuronKaizer! 23:03, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if there are any rules against it being featured twice. We seriously need to think up some guide lines for the featured articles.-- C2 / CC 23:24, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, apparently Baldtro removed the nomination tag? You know, that was a real mess. I don't think it was even featured on the main page. This needs to be redone under our new rule system in my opinion. --AuronKaizer! 23:32, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. -- C2 / CC 23:37, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Ah... I didn't know- there was nothing on the Triforce page 'cause normally if something's featured I believe there's a little triforce gif thing at the top right hand corner. Well I suppose there should be rules to this sort of thing...
There's just some guidelines, no rules really.-- C2 / CC 00:00, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
We think of them more as...guidelines, Mr. Turner. --AuronKaizer! 00:04, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion here's a little dated, but my view is that it shouldn't matter if something was featured before. Sometimes, an article can be featured, but then the standards are raised and the article loses its status. Then, it later becomes a great article again through tireless editing and becomes worthy by the new standards. That's just the way I see it :PDraconicus (talk) 22:45, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I just had a total brain fart and realized I didn't even really think about what I was saying >_<
So yeah, articles should NOT be featured more than once. >_>Draconicus (talk) 22:50, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
(...)I disagree. Once is enough, and there are plenty of other high quality articles out there.-- C2 / CC 22:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Tetra

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


It hasn't been featured and you seem to need an article really badly. It is a nice article. Ray Talk 2 me 02:37, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. It's good. --AuronKaizer! 03:10, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Looks short in comparison with others, but comprehensive. Good outweighs the bad. --DekuStick Master
  3. Looks good. Only I dont think it would hurt to add to the Spirit Tracks section a bit more includeing the possabilty that it was her who discovered the new land and got the spirit pipes Oni Dark Link 11:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I totally think Tetra should be featured. --Alexweber77 (talk) 21:16, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Wow, I got so caught up in my comment about how we're not desperate for FAs that I forgot to vote or something. Anyways yeah. Good article. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 23:14, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. No serious oversights, and is lenghty enough. Good article.-- C2 / CC 15:33, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
  7. I agree. Tetra is one of the coolest characters and unlike most of the Zeldas, she actually looks good. ~Pgans
  8. I'd like to see this featured. It's informative and it's about a good character, so it's got my full support. Portal-Kombat
  9. The article is good. Informative and has the right amount of pictures. - McGillivray227 02:26, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Great article, nice pictures, done. Jedimasterlink (talk) 21:50, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Ummm, just FYI, we don't need articles really badly. See Queue. All the articles there with no parentheses stating when they were on the Main Page have yet to be placed on said Main Page. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:45, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... Well. Now we have a good article, though. Ray Talk 2 me 05:56, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Windfall Island

The result of the discussion was: Pictogram voting support Support


Stunning. I think you all know most of my adjectives by now, so you can just assume that I think it's a good article. —Baltro [ talk · edits ] 22:10, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nice placement of images, and a good amount of them at that. Also, a good wealth of wording. -- Haru Mclean Namikaze Kana: ナミカゼ ハ ル マクリーン, Romaji: Namikaze Haru Makurīn
  2. Interesting and good! TheMidna Laughing 22:45, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's not perfect, but it's good enough at present. --AuronKaizer! 22:48, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Looks tight. Not too big or missing anything completely, but then its not too small or having stuff it doesn't need. Nice! - McGillivray227 00:39, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Works for me; nothing wrong with it as far as I can tell. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:22, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  6. I refuse to assume you think it's a good article! You're just adding this article out of a complex plan to take over the wiki that none of us can understand, aren't you? You don't actually think the article is good!..............Or I could be spouting off nonsense in a pseudo-mockery of your presumption that we will follow your advice and assume you think the article is good. I guess that's possible too. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 05:41, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  7. We need a new featured every now and again, otherwise the same page will get stale. This is a decent article for featured. ~Pgans 14:21, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  8. The page is verry clean looking and detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShutUpNavi (talkcontribs)
  9. Yeah.... this is a good article.-- C2 / CC 01:59, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Rito

The result of the discussion was: Removed as a result of nominator's discretion and discussion


I have been working on this page for a while and now think its good enough to be a featured article. The article has about as much information on the Rito as you can find. Do you think its good enough to become a featured article or dose it need something more?--ShutUpNavi (talk) 00:03, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Great job, ShutUpNavi! TheMidna Laughing 01:35, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Quite lengthy and the right amount of wordage. -- Haru Mclean Namikaze anonymoustiny.png Kana: ナミカゼ ハ ル マクリーン, Romaji: Namikaze Haru Makurīn
  3. Lots of good information. I like it. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.