Forum:What's with the bunch o'battles?

I agree, these are all technically battles fought across all the games. There is nothing wrong with the way things are being put into articles to compliment the major war articles, so I suggest keeping things going the way they are. They look much nicer as we are putting them now. There really is no such thing to me as "misusing the battle template," especially in a wiki about this particular game series. These projects are sorely needed for appearances' sake if nothing else, and they allow us to elaborate further on the battles of the many wars in Hyrule's history. Hero of Time 87 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but they are battles because they involve the military might of Ganonorf and his minions. They involve the forces working in Hyrule's favor with those of the King of Evil. I don't see any real way to determine these are not battles, because technically they are. They all have conflict from two opposing forces. These are documenting battles that are fought in the various wars of Hyrule, and I see no reason to change them because they do fit well with the articles about the wars. That is being objective: realizing that these wars are made up of these smaller battles to achieve a larger goal. I think this is a moot point to debate because there is no grounds to it. The fact that we are chronicling the battles of the Imprisoning War, Zant's Invasion of Hyrule, etc. don't seem to bother anyone else, I see no reason why it should bother you really. And as I said, when all is said and done, these do fulfill the requirements for battles, formal military or not. In instances like this, there really is no such thing as "misusing the battle template" because these are component battles of a war. Just because it doesn't have warships or laser guns doesn't mean it's not a battle, and just because there's not a grand army of elves on one side and an ugly army of a thousand Orcs on the other doesn't mean it's not a battle either. Hero of Time 87 07:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point! A "battle" is any event involving conflict between two forces, whether they be two armies fighting each other or one-on-one. Anywhere there is conflict between two groups, no matter how big or small they are, that is technically a battle. Hero of Time 87 07:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, it's still a battle whether it's your idea of one or not. This involves "two armies," just not your idea of an army. Link represents the Land of Hyrule, in case you hadn't noticed. That is why "Hyrule" is on one side, because he represents the land of Hyrule. As I said, this is a moot point because it really doesn't have any grounds. Whether you want to admit it or not, these are still battles and fulfill all requirements of one, just not in the way you'd like them to. It's time to move on with the projects and quit this senseless debate because being honest it's nothing. It's a waste of time, precious time that could be spent creating the battles of the wars. Case closed. Hero of Time 87 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Look bud, there is no intended rudeness, but you need to realize something: Final Fantasy and Lord of the Rings do not dictate the terms of what a battle is. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the Legend of Zelda, a COMPLETELY different series. Just becuase you are used to the big fancy battles you see on the big screen doesn't mean these aren't battles becuase they are, whether you like to admit it or not. And for your information, there likely will eventually be a battle by that name. ;) As I said, this case is closed.  Hero of Time 87 08:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think on that note that you know I am right and are sore about it. But the truth hurts sometimes, as they say. And it's not that difficult to draw similarities between Tolkien and Final Fantasy, in case you hadn't noticed. As I said, although it may not be your personal idea of a battle, it is nonetheless. Case Closed. Good Night. Hero of Time 87

Thank you for the compliment. Good night. Hero of Time 87 08:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin is right. A battle constitutes of two or more armies fighting. Not just Link vs. an army. The Infiltration of the Arbiter sounds more like a military operation than a battle really. The biggest tell-sign of a battle is the casualties. If there are none on either side, it's not a battle. Simple as that. Hollywood in general is really pissing me off cause it glorifies war and that's not how life is. People die, not every battle is glorious --Maverick King 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. A battle is any kind of conflict between two opposing forces. There are casualties in these battles, in case you hadn't noticed: Ganondorf's monsters. And yes, they are a battle whether you want to admit it or not. You have the side of Hyrule (Link) vs. Ganondorf and his army. It is a battle to save Hyrule from an army of darkness, and that constitutes a battle.


 * 1) Is there an objective? Yes
 * 2) Are there two opposing forces? Yes
 * 3) Are there casualties? Yes

There's nothing that says anywhere there ahas to be a huge army on both sides for it to be a battle. Haven't you ever heard of a "battle of wills." That is a battle, and yet there are no armies in that. So I'm sorry to say that your statement that these are not battles is incorrect. Hero of Time 87 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is still a battle, and the definitions (both) fit it. There is nothing that says what the terms of an "army" are or how that army is composed. It is a struggle/combat, and thus is still a battle, regardless of what some may say. There is nothing that says the "army" has to be fully engaged nor that it has to be made up of more than a few people. So you're telling me that the "Battle Mode" in MarioKart is not a battle? That is a battle, and a one-on-one as well. These are all still battles of a war, and I stand by that. Hero of Time 87 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The battle of wills is between two competing ideas or people. That's commonsense. You are not wanting to admit that these battles really do meet the standards of one, just in a different way from what you're used to. And yes, this is a waste of time because they are battles, regardless of what is said, because they meet the definitions of one. And this is Zeldapedia, if you don't like that we are elaborating more on the battles of the wars, there's plenty of others out there. And no, that means we keep up as we are going and end this pointless discussion because I for one think it makes the wiki look much better because we are able to elaborate more on the conflicts of the wars and go more in detail. There comes a point where "enough's enough," and I think this discussion has reached that point. Hero of Time 87 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You were off mine the moment you said we were "misusing the battle form." There's no such thing in a series like this, I'm afraid. And every argument I have given is valid, so I would suggest you re-evaluate your own. And either way you put it, just as Oath to Order said, it still remains a battle because that is the Legend of Zelda's version of a battle. They can be kept as battles as far as I am concerned becuase that's what they are. Link is in effect a "one-man army" that represents the land of Hyrule whose sole purpose is to save it from darkness. He has powers that allow him to become that one-man army, such as the Triforce of Courage, and his ultimate weapon, the Master Sword. He uses these tools in combat against the forces of evil, and that is a battle. Hero of Time 87 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to brace yourself, because I don't see it supporting you at all. I think you really are "sore" that you aren't having a great deal of success in disproving these conflicts to be battles. If you don't like the Legend of Zelda's form of a battle, then go back to your Final Fantasy and quit wasting the time of those that really do love the Legend of Zelda. It is astounding to me that you can't comprehend that a battle is not always something that involves a bunch of armies, hence the example of a battle of wills. So I would suggest either drying up or moving on. Hero of Time 87 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Point being: There are MANY kinds of battles, and not all involve a huge army, especially when one side has magical tools at their disposal that the other side doesn't.  And I agree with Oath's definition of a war in the Legend of Zelda series. A war in the Legend of Zelda is not going to be fought the same way as one in Final Fantasy or the Lord of the Rings. These are small, subtle battles of various wars that further the war effort in Hyrule's favor over the forces of Ganondorf.

Actually, two users have been trying to decide between the arguments, and some have changed when confronted with the actual definitions of a battle. They actually disprove what you are saying and give credence to my statement that there are several kinds of battles, not soley what you think it is. There's no "us" and "them" in this, just you making things difficult for no good reason because there's really no grounds to your argument. And I will do to my posts what I wish, thank you very much. Hero of Time 87 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are those of us that disagree with you there because they satisfy the terms of a battle. And I'm very sure you were doing it just for sport, as am I. I enjoy a good debate, especially when I know for a fact that one side has evidence and the other does not. Hero of Time 87 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which proves to be a lot actually. I apologize if the same can't be said for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case. I say enough of the time-wasting on this pointless debate however and that we move forward with completing the battles of the Imprisoning War and the War of the Wizard. Hero of Time 87 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes to the first, no to the second just to appease one person. Changing the template is one thing, and that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable to merge all these battles with other articles. It's a lot of unnecessary work just to appease one person. I'm open to having a new template drawn up, but not to merging them all with just the game articles. What's more, the articles would WAY too long. We have just summaries on the war pages now, and even they are long. But these would make it entirely too long if we merged them all within one article. They need to stay separate as they are but have a different battle template made up. Hero of Time 87 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that is a place, this is a mission/battle. They are two different things. The whole point of our efforts are to chronicle the missions of the wars, and merging them with the dungeon articles would cause confusion about the differences between the mission and the dungeon itself. I maintain they need to be kept separated but have a new template that better fits the series. Merging would be WAY too much work and cause A LOT of confusion. I still see no real reason to even change the template, but if that's what it takes to appease some of the complainers, then so be it. But merging the battle articles of the wars with merely the dungeon articles would be a bad decision because it would create more confusion than you think and would undermine our efforts to expand the information about the wars on their pages, hence it needs to be ruled out. If you want to create a new, better battle template, then by all means feel free. I agree it would look better with different terms than "commander" or whatever else, but the articles need to stay the way they are otherwise. Hero of Time 87 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, because there are several definitions to the word "battle" as shown above. Yours is no more correct than those, and yours is only one type of battle, which we have concluded there are many kinds. Hence, you were "wrong" in suggesting a battle is only between armies. And yes, it would be confusing to those trying to follow the story step-by-step, hence that's not really part of the question. People trying to follow the events of the war will look to the battle section and see step by step how to proceed, whereas if you merge they will not know where all to proceed, and plus there's information for some locations for more than one game. It would become too big of a mess, and hence is not worth considering. Too much work and bad idea to begin with really, due to the mess of information it would make on certain pages. Hence, your "simple idea" would become a "complex mess." Hero of Time 87 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why I didn't see that you're a couple of inplacable hypocrites that didn't "win" anything but rather ran around in circles trying to prove a point you failed to prove. I think nothing of the kind about the articles, but I know a bad idea when I see one, and I am here to say that it's a "stupid" idea in addition to a bad one. And if you don't want your inbox spammed, then leave the forum. Hero of Time 87 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash: Not everyone agrees with you either. You are hypocritical to try to say there's only one type of battle, then admit there's more than one, then try to say you "win." That's purely hypocritical.

We've agreed that a new battle template could be in order, so I see no reason to continue this pointless debate. Hero of Time 87 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We've agreed that a new battle template is in order. One of us will probably try to construct a better-fitting one. But moving all those pages into a discombobulated mess like you're suggesting ought to be out of the question. I think that's more than fair to both sides to alter the battle template but leave the pages alone and quit bickering over nothing. Hero of Time 87 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort, you probably did it yourself. I won't apologize for something I didn't do intentionally or at all. And in that case, just look above if you want the answer to that question. As I said, it's time to end this bickering since we have worked out a fair way of resolving the issue, so I implore you to be reasonable. Hero of Time 87 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by the fact that I did "not" delete anyone's message and never would. If it was deleted, it was during an edit conflict then and not by me.

And I see no reason for a vote on anything about them, and it's not your call either. No one else seems to have a problem with them as they are but you. And they don't need to be merged over one person's objections. They are just fine the way they are, and I say we end this discussion and let the rest of us get back to work on making the pages better. All you're doing is wasting valuable time when you could be helping us make them rather than try to ruin them by forcing them into another article where they really don't belong. As I said, it's not your call either, and I see no need for a vote of any kind because any page can be created on here. It's not for you to say it should be shoved in somewhere else. For example: Ganon's Tower. Do you know how many Ganon's Towers there are throughout the series? And the Forest Temple? and the Temple of Time? The point is, many of these places overlap into other games, and trying to put battle information into a page like that would confuse the person trying to follow the wars. It's just not a practical idea. Hero of Time 87 22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference of letting them stand on their own then? There is none. It's a lot of work for nothing, no gain at all. All it's going to do is confuse a lot of people. It's not a good idea and they need to be left alone as they are. New readers that may not know a lot about the series would really be confused more than any, trying to decipher what happened when and where. In their interests, this is a very bad idea, and I still believe the pages should be left alone to expand them as events and not just as places. Hero of Time 87 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how you spin it, it's going to confuse several readers, especially new ones that are new to the series to begin with. If I came here not knowing much of anything outside of playing Twilight Princess, I know I would have a very difficult time trying to read about events from that game or others if it was just lumped in with places I'm not familiar with. It's just a bad idea overall, and as I said they need to be left alone. That's too much work to do and with no payoff to it. All you're proposing is a method that's going to confuse people, and that's not needed here. Hero of Time 87 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just it: They "don't" cover the same aspect. At least not very many of them do, and that's what I'm trying to tell you. They need to be separated because they occur in different wars in different games. And there's overlap from several games in several places, it would just get to be confusing, especially for someone new to the series. That's why I've said it's an unnecessary thing that would in the end be a detriment to some people. Hero of Time 87 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)