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 check your batteries, 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)