Community talk:Zelda.com

Revision of "Bad repuation" statements
After reading through these statements, about half seem to be legitimate fabrications by Nintendo, and the other half seem to be actual, plausible (though ridiculous) explanations for occurences in-game of which we are provided no explanation. For example, Gomess could've been a powerful vampire at one point... of course, nothing hints this in-game, but if Nintendo wants to make it so, they surely can; it is their game after all and it is their site to do what they wish. Another example: the one about Impa chasing Gerudo thieves out of Gerudo village - this could've happened as well, again, no evidence in-game (at all), but we can't conclusively say it didn't happen just because there is no evidence for it. I believe this page needs a clean-up to discern what is creative license and what are just blatant lies. 01:38, 29 October 2011 (EDT) EDIT: Every statement needs to be referenced as well to legitimize our claim that Zelda.com is creating fabrications. We can't simply list statements without references, readers could just as easily call us out for trying to emphasize the hypocrisy of Zelda.com by "creating false false statements". 01:54, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
 * It would be useful to revise the available info, even if fans are likely to continue contesting the site's reliability anyway. It has to be remembered that the credibility of these statements isn't their only problem. According to the page, Zelda.com has very few, if any, updates. -- 02:08, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Perhaps, some statements should be put under a "ambiguously canon content" section. Zeldafan1982 23:06, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
 * Ok, I've been able to at least reference most of the statements that were in this article, using definitions still present on the site. I've deleted any unsourcable statement (for those, I looked in several places, including the FAQ and the Walkthrough section of the encyclopedia, in an attempt to garner some sort of reference, to no avail), and revised the intro. This is so that if we do decide to further trim the statements in here for validity, they all have some source at the actual site. 01:47, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

New Layout
Do we want to add the new layout of the site to the gallery and/or mention it changed? It now sucks by the way, no encyclopedia, walkthroughs, wallpaper download gallery, etc. WWHD is not listed under Wii U games, nor is OoT VC. And it crashes the New 3DS browser trying to load it on there. Does anyone care about this all? JasonBall (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The page needs to be updated accordingly to the new site. It also might be a good idea to remove the bad reputation section as the encyclopedia is no more in it. 06:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it is historical and relevant information to zelda.com, then we should keep it (well, in some form), right? Maybe you meant to reformat it to historical information, though I don't think anything needs to be cut out - I'm kinda thinking, if it accurately described what it was at the time, then it should continue to accurately describe what it was at that time... Especially since the encyclopedia wasn't updated (just removed), so the list of contradictions is still relevant and we aren't fixing citations on ZW that used that encyclopedia. Also noting that even though the encyclopedia is gone, we still have citations on the wiki that refers to it, so it helps to be aware of possible contradictions (and that it's not a preferable should one decide to continue to use the encyclopedia as a reference in the future - which either should still be a valid source, or stop being a valid source in which case all citations on the wiki would have to be removed from ZW?
 * Well, at least I hope I'm conveying the essence of the idea...
 * -- 12:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok to ref some parts of the encyclopedia?
They do offer some bios on the more obscure parts of the Zelda series, like the Kanalet Castle soldiers, and the Zelda 2 enemies? Delsait (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We have used it before, so I don't see why not, although it is pretty outdated by now. You will also have to use an archived version since it is not longer available. 01:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)