Zelda Wiki

Want to contribute to this wiki?
Sign up for an account, and get started!

Come join the Zelda Wiki community Discord server!


Zelda Wiki
This page is an archive of an old Talk Page. The contents have been moved from another page to clear space and to preserve history, so this page is locked from editing. If you wish to ask about the corresponding page, or respond to an earlier message, you may direct any comments to the current talk page. If you wish to refer to a message on this page, link to Zelda Wiki:Hyrule Castle/Archive 15.

Comment templates

So gradually we've been getting a lot of "comment" templates in articles, like "Navi's Comment" and "Tatl's Comment" etc. And I'm not here to complain about them, they're quite neat to have (and hell, I contributed most of the Fi ones). However, I notice we've now got templates for Midna, various manuals and even one for Nintendoland, so I want to propose that perhaps we form a standard for these templates. Right now, they are placed in different sections of various articles, and tend to mount up (take a look at Octorok to see what I mean).

Would it be worth having a new section devoted to these templates? Or even a new template altogether, that encompasses and displays all the current content in one? At the very least, I would think it's worth merging all the existing templates into one multi-purpose comment template (if we do it right, there would functionally be no difference, and it would allow for easy expansion in the future). --Dorsal Axe 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging them sounds like a potential idea, but I'm not sure the best way of doing so. There's also the figure descriptions in TWW and TMC, too. Fizzle (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Whether it's {{Comment|Navi|Hey! Listen!}} or {{Navi|Hey! Listen!}}, I don't really see much of a difference. Why would standardizing these templates be worth editing the 300+ pages they're used on? Also, if I understand it correctly, editing a piece of a heavily-used template as opposed to a separate, smaller one = bigger job queue = bigger server strain (I might be talking through my hat on that one, though).
But I do agree the comments could use a face-lift in terms of style. If anyone had any ideas on that front they'd be greatly appreciated. This isn't the first time we've talked about needing to change the darn things, but I don't remember hearing any suggestions as to what we could actually do to them (can't really think of any myself, at the moment). :P As for their placement, I don't particularly see a problem with them being placed differently as long as it's logical and justifiable. It does look pretty bad when they pile up like that, though. Perhaps a dedicated section would indeed be order in those cases. What would we call such a section, however? Hm... — Hylian King [*] 02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the policy for enemy pages at the moment when it comes to covering different games? Some pages are split by game, others try to go for a more "general" approach. Personally I think the general approach is lacking and flawed, and find it much easier to organize and follow pages that refer to the enemy and how it changes from game to game. This would solve the issue that's being brought up here, because without dedicated sections in an article for specific games the templates have nowhere to go, and end up bunched up at the top. Fizzle (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Reorganizing these pages by game would be a big step backward since we spent a considerable amount of time and effort (and by "we" I mean Cipriano) reorganizing them into what Cip likes to call "a superior encyclopedic format." This "general" approach emphasizes in-universe writing, which in turn makes for a more engaging read. On the other hand, organizing them by game can often cause redundancy. A subject that spans several games always carry some similarities from one title to another.
There are pros and cons to either approach. If you ask me, the key is finding a balance between the two. Take the Link and Zelda articles for example. (Or the Soldier article, if I may be so bold). — Hylian King [*] 22:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a balance is vital, but I'm not necessarily sure it's our job to be TOO in-universe. I think the Hyrule Historia approach is best, stay relatively in-universe but don't be afraid to mention specific games, I mean, it's impossible NOT to mention them. I don't see the big deal of having sections covering what are effectively different "events" in the universe's history. I mean, pretending that Stalfos use either swords or maces when in fact they only use maces in ONE game (which is on ONE timeline) means the "general" approach is way too vague when you have a subject as universal and yet heavily varied as the Stalfos. Hyrule Historia doesn't pretend they're the same in each era, either. I guess I'm arguing for the same thing as you, I just don't see how having different subsections hurts that "feel" at all, it just organizes things. Not the best example because I'm not thinking in terms of timeline here, just release dates, but nobody would expect a history book to cover the changing history of a nation in a non-chronological manner. Fizzle (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an idea...for pages with multiple templates, why not use the tab template? It makes it less cluttered and allows us to save space.Justin(Talk) 02:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dividing Line of Cheats and Glitches

A recent edit has come to my attention that claims that cheats/hacks and glitches are independent of one another, and thus anything involving cheating devices should not constitute as being a glitch.* I disagree with this, though, and I think that even though it's initiated by a cheating device, you still can encounter glitches that would only be available under the influence of said devices; thus, it's only an issue of discerning what a glitch is (a malfunction), and even though it's by external means, the glitches likely aren't the intended result of the codes within the cheats as the latter are only meant to unlock certain abilities. These abilities simply open the range for which glitches may occur. I'd really like to hear what other people have to say about this, though. - TonyT S C 07:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a gltich is really defined as a game not behaving as intended. Using hacking or a cheat cartridge to cause strange things to occur isn't really glitching the game at all, because it's impossible on normal hardware. Numerous games are designed so that once you break the "laws" of the game you are suddenly able to witness a ton of things simply not working as intended. These are never fixed because no player would normally have access to them. For example, you can use cheat codes to access Master Hand in the original Smash Bros., but playing as Master Hand frequently causes errors. But these aren't really glitches because there's no way anyone would normally access this.
Think of it like breaking the fourth wall. A standard glitch breaks this fourth wall in normal game play, suddenly allowing you to see behind the "set" of the game. With a cheat device, you can just run around behind the set and look around and mess with things, but that isn't a glitch, that's just messing with the innards of a game and seeing what happens.
Stuff like the crooked cartridge is similar, but at least you don't have to have a cheat device to perform those glitches. I would still call those cheats rather than glitches, however, because it's not massively different, you have to go about it with a real aim to effectively break the game.
As for the glitch in question in the edit, that's definitely not a glitch. If you break the sequence of any game you can cause very similar things to occur. There would be like a billion examples. It's all to do with the way games are programmed. If you don't trigger certain "flags" or events, things won't activate, characters won't appear, etc., it's very normal behavior and often very intentional. Fizzle (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. In fact, the other day I almost removed the very section in question myself. Using external tools to push a game beyond the limits of its intended design is not a true glitch by any definition. My understanding is that the purpose of these pages is to highlight exploits caused by flaws and oversights in the game's coding (like using the hookshot through other objects, missing collision, reusing consumable items etc.) It's definitely not a cheat, and I think Darkness simply said that for want of a better word. This is more like... breaking the game through hacking?
And I'd also agree that the Crooked Cartridge trick isn't really a glitch either, since that's not strictly an issue with the software. Let's face it: If you mess with the hardware, bad things are gonna happen. But it's an interesting sequence breaking trick nonetheless, I suppose. As for this one, it's neither a trick of any use, nor something anyone is going to ever come across without deliberately going out of their way to mess with the game. --Dorsal Axe 16:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Finding Uncategorized Files

Hey all,

As you know, the FileInfo template can be used to categorize image files by game, among other things. This is great, because when you're looking for images from a certain game, there's a whole category devoted to them. But there are a LOT of files on this wiki that were uploaded before this template existed (or were not uploaded with it correctly implemented). These should be categorized by game for ease of access by the editors. Most of these files, however, still do not appear under the Special:UncategorizedFiles, because they're equipped with the (now obsolete) Copyright template, and are thus categorized under Category:Copyrighted_images, which is an extremely unhelpful category with over 14,000 entries.

So my question is this: Is there a way to disable the categorization of files with the Copyright template into the Category:Copyrighted_images, at least temporarily, so that these files will show up in the Uncategorized Files? Or are there better options to find these images, so we can get to sorting? Embyr 75  --Talk-- 00:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've actually brought this up before in the chat so I'm totally with you on this one. Right now Template:Copyright has two formats, the standalone format and the one used with FileInfo. It's as easy as splitting the two into separate templates and not having the FileInfo one add the "Copyrighted images" category (which we could probably do away with, it's not particularly useful as you said). — Hylian King [*] 00:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe just make "Copyrighted images" a hidden category? I believe that if pages are only in a hidden category they show up on UncategorizedFiles. Not completely sure though as I have limited experience with them. --SnorlaxMonster 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Massive Zelda Powerpoint

Hey there, I have been working on a extremely large power point over the past few weeks as a project of mine, however, with it reaching its finish, I will have to do something with it soon. And that is where Zelda Wiki comes in. I was wondering if I could have my power point uploaded to the wiki as a General Knowledge source for any Zelda fan who wants to learn more. The power point contains information on characters, items and much more.Once finished, it will need to be removed from my computer so I would like it to go on the Wiki. I would really like other people to have as much fun viewing it as i had making it. I would really appreciate it if you took the time to have a look, and maybe put it on the site and reply as soon as possible.

All my thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibly (talk) 16:18, March 20, 2013

I think it would be better if you compared the information you collected with what is already in the wiki and change or add to the respective articles if they lack info :) Zeldafan1982 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What Zeldafan said. Sadly, we cannot host a powerpoint with the MediaWiki software, and we already have pages for all the characters and whatnot. We'd be glad to have you share anything relevant that's not already on the pages, though!Justin(Talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Licensing overhaul

Alright, so lately we've been making a big effort to properly categorize our files, thanks to FileInfo. To that end, I have a few proposals for our image licensing policies, which doesn't really cover all the bases at the moment. Here they are:

  • Get rid of AV-Copyright: The same copyright laws and "fair use" doctrine apply to audio and images (to my knowledge), and since we have the type field now to distinguish sounds from images, there's no reason we can't just merge this into Copyright.
  • Get rid of Category:Copyrighted images: A category that lumps together over 90% of the wiki's files is of no particular use to anyone. At the very least, it should only be for miscellanious copyrighted files that aren't already categorized by game.
  • Get rid of WikimediaImage. This template's outdated since we have the "source" field to tell us where the file came from. I also think we should be properly licensing or images here, instead of just being lazy and sending readers to the source to find the image's status. This template would be superseded by the Public Domain template and a new copyleft/GDFL template (see below).
  • Fan Art = Derivative Work ≠ Every user-made work. It's getting to the point where almost any user-made work is getting categorized as fan art, when a lot of it isn't fan art at all. We need to establish that fan art = derivative work, that is, a piece of art depicting something copyrighted, like for exampe, a fan-made image of Link. Heavily edited images from any of the games (example) and images from fan games would also count as fan art. Photographs most personal images are original works, not derivative works and therefore NOT fan art. Those works should be put under a copyleft license. Otherwise I think our fan art policies are fine, although we should probably mention that Nintendo holds some copyright as well as the author. Copyrights can be a little tricky for derivative works so I guess it's good to play it safe and always assume the author claims copyrights, and therefore require permission before use (with the exception of fan games, which I guess could be seen as fair use).
  • Have a copyleft (more specifically a GFDL) licensing template, like this one: For any image released under the GFDL (as many Wikimedia Foundation images are). This license also applies to personal works that are neither copyrighted nor public domain (with the exception of derivative works as mentioned above). Images that would apply to this license, which are currently getting lumped in with fan art as I said, would be photographs, signatures, and other such personal images,
  • Have a "not sure" option. Got this idea from Mario Wiki, pretty self-explanatory. This would be the default if no license was selected during the upload. If we're not going to force people to select a license, we need to have something that lets us know what files haven't been properly licensed.

So there you have it, guys. I don't know how many of you care for policy-writing, but since it's an essential part of the wiki it's only right that I brought it up here first. I have some stuff already written up here if we go through with it. Any thoughts on this are welcome. — Hylian King [*] 20:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: Maybe we should start categorizing fan art by game as well.

Everything you said sounds good with me, so I support. Mandi Talk 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The image you used as an example for "photographs" would be fan art, as costumes are technically a form of art, and therefore a fan costume would be fan art. Also, the problem with the "fan art" category could also be addressed by changing the name of the category/changing what the template says to allow for more files to be covered by that category. I brought up the problem here. Everything else looks fine, however, so I support. —Darkness(Talk) 01:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the part of the reason why I brought this all up in the first place. And yes, it depends on how you interpret the word "Fan art", but in this context I'm saying Fan art should only be for derivative works because the legality of them is a little different than flat-out copyrighted, public domain, and copyleft works, and that's really the only reason to have a separate license for them in the first place. It's not even a proper license, which is why we should be tagging images with a clearer license (either copyright, public domain, or copyleft) whenever possible. That's why I'm proposing we change the Fan Art license to include less images as opposed to more.
I guess a photograph of someone dressed up as Hylia might be considered a derivative work, and some signatures too, if they have copyrighted material in them. Images such as File:Hee hee.jpg, however, are certainly not fan art nor derivative works. — Hylian King [*] 01:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm for all these changes. Especially the one about getting rid of the massive and unhelpful Category:Copyrighted images. :P Embyr 75  --Talk-- 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, these suggestions are all great and we should work to getting them done sooner, rather than later. --Xizor 11:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said: there is no need to give sound files different licenses, being from Wikipedia is not a license, Fan Art is not a license, there are several copyleft images hosted on ZW that should be correctly tagged, and an unknown license option would be good so that staff can figure out how the image should be licensed to ensure correct licensing.
I'd also like to see the abolition of Website; it is just as unclear as Template:Fan Art. For example, File:Bulbapedia.png was classified as fan art when it is actually copyrighted to Bulbagarden. Likewise, another license I think that should be added would be one indicating it is property of Zelda Wiki (e.g. for File:3dlogo.png) - perhaps {{Template:Copyright-ZW}}? Also, whether fan art is copyrighted or fair use is complex, but is discussed in detail here; cosplay is discussed here.
Also, I think it would be best to specify the specific license rather than just "Copyleft" (and this could be particularly problematic if Creative Commons images are permitted, and I think they should be). Also, I think it would be best to specify the version number of the license too, but I understand if you want to keep it simple.
In regards to using images from Wikipedia, apparently dual licensing means that when re-using it you get to chose which one you want to use. So currently that would be GFDL, when applicable.
Also, I suggest adding the file type of "photograph". While game content is unlikely to considered this, merchandise and the games themselves, as well as cosplays, will fall into this category.
Also, I really think the link at the bottom of every page should be to Zelda Wiki:GNU Free Documentation License not the Wikipedia page. --SnorlaxMonster 02:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Template:Website could be replaced with Copyright, and in some cases copyleft. Having a template for ZW copyrights might be a good idea, though I can't imagine it would be used for more than a handful of images. We should probably leave it off the upload form for that reason. A Creative Commons license sounds fine, although I think we should only use it when we need to and leave the GFDL as our principal copyleft license. We also may or may not want to put that one on the upload form for the sake of keeping it simple, since very few of our images seem to require a CC license at the moment.
A "photographs" type might be useful. For those who aren't on the Skype chat, a "personal image" type has also been suggested for the various user images that don't have any use in the mainspace. This would solve the problem of having to sort out these miscellaneous images. "Printed Media" has also been suggested as a replacement for "Scans". This type would cover scans of all manga, comics, manuals, and other books, as well as cover art (including box art).
Well, I think we've covered just about everything we need to for now. Time to move forward with this, I think, unless anyone has something else to add. — Hylian King [*] 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've made the corresponding changes to FileInfo and the upload form, and added some new guidelines. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Now we come to the hard part: categorizing everything! — Hylian King [*] 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the copyrighted images category is now limited to the pages that just use the Copyright template instead of FileInfo. So you can use that to see which files still need to be properly categorized by game and type. — Hylian King [*] 21:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

New Page Suggestion: Enemy HP

Considering that there is already a page based around Weapon Strength, I'd like to propose another page similar that depicts the various number of 'Hit Points' required to defeat the multitude of enemies in Zelda. The health is simply calculated by the amount of hits the enemy takes and the strength of the weapon used i.e. it takes 10 hits from the Biggoron's Sword, 20 hits from the Master Sword (40 hits from the Kokiri Sword) equalling 40 hit points. Completing an article with all the enemies of Zelda's HP would result in quite a large page, however another suggestion brought by Hylian King is to add an extra section within the Enemy infobox that incorporates the HP in the existing enemy pages. Thoughts? --Smighty 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I quite like the sound of the second suggestion. Having a large page showing the HP of every single enemy in the entire series would be excessive if we're simply able to place the information on their individual pages. I feel that having the values within the individual infoboxes would be far more useful and practical. However, how would go about defining "1 hit." Looking at the Weapon Strength page, and using Spirit Tracks as an example, I believe that it would make the most sense if we were to either base it around the weakest sword (i.e. the Recruit's Sword) or the weakest weapon (i.e. the Whip). By this I mean that 1 hit point would be equal to one hit from the Recruit's Sword and two from the Whip, or one from the Whip and a half from the Recruit's Sword. Personally, I prefer the latter method: whatever the weakest object, item or weapon in the game is, (even if it isn't a sword) one hit from it would be equal to one hit point. So long as we can agree on the definition of a "hit," I don't see why we can't do this. Dannyboy601Talk 10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I like the notion, but this is something that's going to be much easier said than done.
The information that is of use to readers is how much hits it takes to kill an enemy with any given weapon. To make them understand that from a single HP value based on, say, the number of hits from the first sword, they need to understand the Weapon Strength. As such, we have to make the Weapon Strength stats readily available with every mention of HP. I can only vaguely think of how we're going to do that. Ideas, anyone?
Another issue is getting readers to understand our point of reference in the first place. A number in an infobox is not going to mean anything to anyone. We have to somehow make it plain to see that the stat equals the number of hits it takes to kill the enemy with the most basic sword (or however we decide to define a "hit", though I would recommend the weakest sword because that's how the Weapon Strength page is organized for the most part).
Thirdly, we need to figure out how to deal with enemies that appear in several games. I would suggest that for pages such as Moblin we have an entire section dedicated to HP, and provide a link to that section in the infobox, so as to not overload the latter.
So there's a few issues we need to address if this is going to work. — Hylian King [*] 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's my take. If we add the HP to the infobox, we need to add a link which takes the user to the weapon strength page. Perhaps we do an asterisk (*) and then at the bottom of the infobox provide a link saying "See how HP is calculated: Weapon Strength." My point is that if we just flat out list an HP value, people are going to go "Wait, where did they get that?" There has to be some form of clarification. Don't get me wrong, though, I still think it's a good idea. We just need to be very clear with it.Justin(Talk) 12:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we should continue in the same scheme as the Weapon Strength page and follow with the weakest sword’s rating as a “Hit” Point. It would be most understandable for the readers if we went with what Justin said and linked the Weapon Strength page to the stat. However it is not required to use the weakest weapon to determine the Hit Points of an enemy as the weapon strength has already been well established on this Wiki, for example:

2 hits from Kokiri = 1 Master, 2 hits from Master = 1 Biggoron/Giant’s So, if you kill something with 4 hits from the Biggoron then that’s 8 from Master and 16 from Kokiti = 16 Hit points altogether. Divide Biggoron's by 4. OoT is my example because it is what I'm MOST familiar with, I understand there will be complications for other weaponry within various Zelda titles such as Spirit Tracks.

Some enemies may propose a strategical combat issue if the HP is to be included into the Enemies’ existing Info box. Then, some enemies of the same kind might require two separate HP stats by the method of killing, for example:

The Deku Baba can be cut down with one swing of the Kokiri Sword (The weakest sword of OoT) while in stalk stance (creating Deku Stick), however to attack while it is lunging requires two swings (creating Deku Nut). Does this suggest the Small Deku Baba has 2 HP, and the stalk is merely a weak point?

Perhaps the Strategy Section or the Overview should contain the details of their variations and the Enemy Infobox should contain their direct suspected HP. Obviously, what we're trying to establish as HP is simply what the programmers had hidden in the coding: How many hits to defeat, and by extension, with what? Zelda isn't some math driven RPG, but to give any kind realistic combat system there must have been enemy HP for all expected opponents.
Another, easier solution is to merely have a HP stat for Bosses. Only issue is with some like Gohma who are all in the one page and the best way to not clutter said page is using what HK said and create another page containing their HP. --Smighty 23:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've thought about this before, but it's REALLY difficult to do for most games, since, as mentioned, different weapons to different damage. The Japanese guide for A Link to the Past has an HP damage listing for every weapon type, for example, rather than a single number. Even the swords are inconsistent. Without having a big infobox increase or some kind of... very complex table hidden in a drop down, the only game that would really fit into a simple HP listing would be Zelda II, since that game has basic damage information that doesn't vary on method of attack.

An alternate thing that would be easier to add would be the damage CAUSED by an enemy. This is usually much simpler, as most enemies only have one attack, and the heart damage doesn't vary too wildly from game to game. Fizzle (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, and as you said, it would be much easier to implement. However, I still think that both ideas could work if we just do them correctly. Taking both ideas into account, I've come up with the following solutions:
  • Include a section in the infobox containing the enemy's HP. If the enemy has appeared in three games or less, then all the values could be located in the infobox. If the enemy appears in more than three games, then the infobox would contain the HP value in its most recent appearance. There would also be a note here linking to the Weapon Strength article (as Justin suggested). There could also be a tooltip saying something like "based on the number of hits from the standard Sword."
  • For enemies appearing in more than three games, include a section within the article listing the enemy's HP in older appearances. This could possibly come in the form of a table, which would also link to the Weapon Strength article, and be a subsection of "Weaknesses," or a separate section altogether, like HK suggested.
  • Include a section in the infobox listing the enemy's attack power.
  • For bosses or enemies with multiple attacks, include a section within the article listing all of the enemy's attacks, as well as their power. This could come in the form of a table, like the HP, and be located in either the "Strategy" heading or its own separate section.
  • For enemy articles arranged by game, and with a different attack power in each game, a single table would be used (similar to the HP table), listing the attack power in each game.
  • As Smighty mentioned, any exceptions to the standard HP (such as Deku Babas' weak stalks) would be noted under the "Weaknesses" heading.
Obviously these are just some rough ideas, but I think they could work if expanded upon. Dannyboy601Talk 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's some great stuff, let's start by narrowing down on how to exhibit enemy attacks and their strength. Danny mentioned a graph containing to ALL of an enemies attacks, thought I might knock something up as an example:

Bongo Bongo's Attacks
One Handed Attacks Damage Type Additional Effects
Sweep -1 Heart On contact
Punch -1 Heart On contact
Downward Slap -2 Heart On contact
Throw -2 Heart On grapple Throws Link
Crush -2 Heart On grapple -1/2 heart while grappled
Two Handed Moves
Clap -2 Heart On contact
Scripted Attacks (Hands stunned)
Charge -3 Heart On contact

If we were to keep the graph smaller, because generally it wouldn't need to be this large, would we state simply their maximum and minimum damage, or is this preferable? --Smighty 11:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding pdf files?

I was recently working on a page for The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Nintendo Player's Guide, and I was wondering if it would be possible to have the pdf file of the guide available on the wiki. The reasoning behind this is because it was originally offered for free on Nintendo's own Zelda website, so it's effectively public domain. This also applies to the Link's Awakening guide, and two smaller sections from another guide for the NES games. At the moment I don't think pdfs can be uploaded at all, but I really think these wouldn't be a bad thing to have on the wiki. Fizzle (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on if allowing PDFs is a good idea or not right now, but I just what to correct you on a factual error. Just because you give something away for free doesn't make it Public Domain; you can do that and have it still be completely copyrighted (although typically you would use a free license like GFDL or Creative Commons to encourage redistribution while still maintaining rights to it). Also, it's entirely possible to just convert PDFs to another file type if you want to upload them.
On a related note, I have the PDF for The Legend of Zelda Game Watch which is only two pages, and if people want it I'm happy to upload it. --SnorlaxMonster 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay, my terminology was wrong, but basically Nintendo has given it away for free, so I don't think there's anything illegal about the pdf files in this instance. Fizzle (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Copyright law, but I don't believe that using the guides would be illegal so long as we used the same format as all of our other Copyrighted files. As for the PDF idea, I think it's good. I'm curious as to how the files would be uploaded though. What file formats are there that could be used? Other than that, the only issue I can see is file size. So long as the files aren't excessively large, it makes sense for them to be uploaded. They're useful, informative, and would make it much easier for editors to find references and scans if necessary. Furthermore, this idea isn't just limited to Strategy Guides, and could be expanded to incorporate other things in the future. Dannyboy601Talk 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, ideally if we could upload pdfs that would be fine since that covers most of these things, but it would also be possible to zip them up if that cannot be done. I've seen other wikis offer zips but I'm not sure if the wiki we have supports it or not, so... at the moment, none of the offered formats would work, obviously. pdfs or a zip format would be ideal (preferably both). Nintendo have offered The Minish Cap manual for download as a pdf on their site, so we could have that here too. Zips could be used for other things, but not entirely sure what exactly. Perhaps things that were once offered on Zelda websites, such as wallpapers and icons, but that's far less important. They'd have to be monitored carefully, however, I think it should be limited to higher level users, because it could be open to abuse from, well, you know, the usual. Fizzle (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to enable PDF downloads on a wiki. This extension provides a side-by-side layout of the pages. Here's an example of it in use.

Uploading an entire book is not exactly the same as uploading an image of, say, Skyloft. Having a Skyloft image here for all to see doesn't prevent Nintendo from selling Skyward Sword (it promotes sales of the product if anything). Since we're using that image for educational purposes and not for profit, we can easily call that fair use of Nintendo's copyright. Distributing an entire published work is different, because you're preventing the sale of that product by making it freely available to anyone.

I'm no expert on copyright laws, either, but I'm pretty sure uploading the entire guide is still technically illegal. Zelda.com had the right to make it available for free because it's their copyright. We do not have that right; just because it was free at some point doesn't mean it's free for us to distribute, even if the book is long out of print.

It would be nice to have this resource available on the wiki, and I'd imagine the likelihood of us getting sued by Nintendo for this are slim to none. However, I personally don't think it's worth taking on the liability. Anyone who wants the guide can easily find it on their own. Same goes for manuals, although I guess they're a little different. We'd probably have a better chance calling that fair use since Nintendo doesn't sell them. They do distribute some of them for free here. Perhaps if we referred people to that site for those manuals, then uploaded the rest ourselves... — Hylian King [*] 11:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Names Template Meaning Field

Something that's been a bit of an issue recently has been whether or not to include the English translations in the Meaning field of the Names Template when the foreign name is the equivalent of the English one. I think we should get this issue out of the way before it gets too out of hand.
So, what does everyone think we should do? Personally, I feel like we should follow the example of other wikis and at least state that it's the same as the English one ("Same as English" would suffice). I feel that leaving it blank just looks...unfinished, and that it almost begs the reader to fill it. - TonyT S C 02:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good... My only concern is that when all or most of the foreign names are equivalents of the NoA name, which happens quite frequently, we would end up with something like this:
TMC Forest Minish Artwork.png Names in Other Regions TMC Jabber Nut Sprite.png
Language Name Meaning
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland EnglishUK Ancient Tomb
Japan Japanese 古代の墓 (Inishie no Haka) Same as English.
French-speaking countries French Tombe Ancienne Same as English.
Federal Republic of Germany German Antikes Grabmal Same as English.
Italian Republic Italian Tomba Antica Same as English.
Spanish-speaking countries Spanish Tumba Antigua Same as English.
It's functional, but also very repetitive and inelegant. Perhaps we can add another parameter that defines the meaning for all the languages, so we'd only have one "Same as English" spanning the entire table. If even one name is different, though, it throws a wrench in the works.
Also, we should have some way of identifying which pages have "meanings" fields that need to be filled. We'll get more help from translators if they know where to look. I'm thinking we should have it so that the Names template adds a page to a "Articles Requiring Translations" category whenever a meanings field is left blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylian King 07:15, 8 July 2013
I think both ideas are really good. Addressing the issue with the former: if a different name breaks the format, could we not just end that there and continue following the break? (An XXYXX format to show that two bear "Same as English," then the discrepancy, then another set of two.) - TonyT S C 22:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. That may prove difficult to implement, though. — Hylian King [*] 22:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not big on the idea, just because the English translations would be the same as the page most of the time. I'm not really opposed to it, considering that I don't really do translations, but I just think it's excessive. Just wanted to put in my two cents. Feel free to disregard me if you really want to do it.Justin(Talk) 23:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

References for all pronunciations

So, anyone who has been watching my recent edits has probably figured out I like references a lot, particularly for dates. Since there has been a recent focus on pronunciations, I propose that all pronunciations be referenced or removed. Without an official source indicating the correct pronunciation of a word, our guess at its pronunciation is no more useful than the reader's guess based on the spelling of the word. Many pronunciations would simply come from commercials, some from developer interviews, some from in-game voice acting (SSB series mostly), etc. --SnorlaxMonster 17:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I support this idea, for the simple fact that I pronounced Triforce as "Trihfuhs" until I finally noticed the "r" at about age 13, and I still didn't want to call it "Triforce." That, plus I called Vaati "Vayti" until I figured out that I was wrong. It's easy for someone to think that they are correct when they really aren't. References help to eliminate the doubt.Justin(Talk) 12:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, though I believe the Japanese names may also indicate how a name should be pronounced? — Hylian King [*] 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
On one hand, yes; on the other hand, sometimes the English names are spelled the same as the Japanese names and pronounced completely differently. --SnorlaxMonster 16:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Spoiler Template

Hello, everyone! I'm here with a proposal that is being set force by several staff members. However, we feel that it is in the best interest of the wiki to allow the community to decide our course of action, so here we go.

It has been proposed that we eliminate the spoiler template, as spoilers should be implied in any encyclopedia. I have offered an alternative, saying that we could create a sitenotice (like the one you can see right now at the top of all pages which directs you to this very discussion) that states something along the lines of "We are an encyclopedia, and pages are bound to contain spoilers. Read at your own risk," or simply make a statement on the front page (which I do not recommend, because our Google Analytics shows that most of our viewers find us and read just the page they're looking for before they leave). In the end, it is ultimately up to all of you. Feel free to put forth suggestions, questions, opinions, etc. We look forward to your input!Justin(Talk) 11:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think spoilers are implied by being an encyclopedia, yes. IMO make the default sitenotice a spoiler warning, but if there's something important to go in there (e.g. discussing whether we should have spoiler template) I don't think we need to worry about having it there that much. --SnorlaxMonster 12:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Justin's proposal. Spoilers should be expected in a wiki anyway. Zeldafan1982 13:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree,but what about people who have never been to a wiki before? Barr1213 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be the purpose of the sitenotice, Barr.
The template appears on a fraction of the pages that could be considered "spoilerific." There's no point in keeping it if we use it arbitrarily. Also, what exactly constitutes a significant spoiler is subjective, so it's much easier to just have a general sitenotice instead. We could reinstate the old one we had for spoilers a few years back. I find it's pretty clever. — Hylian King [*] 18:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. Basically every page on this wiki has spoilers. For example, the Epona page says you can talk to Epona as a minish. I didn't know that before I read the page so technically it was "spoiled". It would be pointless to keep the template when it would need to be put on almost every page. --Planetbox 14:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
@Planetbox I don't think that that's the best example. Spoilers are typically something that refer to a part of the plot. Like it would be a spoiler to reveal that Ganondorf dies at the end of Twilight Princess. Or a spoiler to reveal that Beast Ganon is the final boss of Ocarina of Time. Talking to Epona as a Minish is more of a fun fact. Nutter! (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this. It would be very difficult and laborious to isolate every single potential spoiler on the wiki using the template, and attempting to separate spoilers into distinct sections would likely disrupt the flow and quality of writing. As others have mentioned, this is an encyclopedia, and spoilers are to be expected. Furthermore, as HK said, what makes a spoiler is down to personal opinion, so it would be substantially difficult to decide whether or not something is a spoiler on a case-by-case basis, and it would be much simpler to incorporate a general sitenotice instead. Dannyboy601Talk 08:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Just want to add that this was not my proposal. I simply put it forth on behalf of the staff who suggested it, since I'm quite active and all that. Yeah, we respect each other like that. I actually don't want to get rid of the template, but I'm open to change because they make valid points. We did use to have a sitenotice about spoilers, and I wouldn't mind reverting to that. Granted, we could also make an "anonnotice," which is a sitenotice that only displays for anonymous editors. I think our users know full well that we have spoilers all over the place, so an anonnotice would work wonders. Plus, if necessary, we can change the sitenotice whenever something important happens (like this discussion). Just some food for thought.Justin(Talk) 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a regular here, but I'll add that spoiler templates on wikis are generally pointless. The mere existance of articles like Demise is a spoiler and you can't do anything about that, and that's the kind of things that would be most important to keep hidden.

Incidentally, this is the biggest NIWA wiki that still currently uses spoiler templates, I think. Toomai 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that getting rid of the spoiler template would be a problem, like most of you have already said: It's a wiki and everyone knows it's bound to have spoilers. So I'll support removing it if everyone's on board with that idea. But, at the same time, I don't see that keeping the template is causing much of a problem either. (EDIT: maybe we should bring this down to a vote?) Mandi Talk 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is pointless. If somebody is looking for something, then they are probably seeking out spoilers. If we remove it then some of the more rule conscious users will focus less on using the template and more on editing the wiki.The DJ (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We could put the disclaimer of "read at your own risk", and if something important comes up, we could put it under a linebreak of some sort.


Okay, guys, at this point, I think we should open up a poll for the future of the template. I'll provide options based on what we've discussed here. Feel free to place your vote in the appropriate section.Justin(Talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support

If you'd like to remove the template, please place your vote here, stating a short reason why. Please place a hashtag (#) in front of your post to automatically number them.

  1. I suppose removing it wouldn't be so awful. We can always opt for the anonnotice to warn anonymous readers about spoilers, anyway.Justin(Talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. I think spoilers are implied by being an encyclopedia. Everything is a spoiler, and just labeling some things as spoilers is unnecessary. --SnorlaxMonster 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Given how differently the articles are written, you cannot hope to efficiently contain every single spoiler inside the template, so I think a site-wide notification would be considerably more effective. - TonyT S C 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. A wiki by nature contains spoilers so, indeed, it seems unnecessary. Having a general notification should be enough. If a reader doesn't want to read info about certain games all he/she has to do is check the infobox and skip the articles for those games. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  5. Again, the people that look up the Wiki are probably looking for spoilers, and those that edit the Wiki without the template will not have it to distract them from actually editing the Wiki.The DJ (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  6. Per DJ. Plus, Mario Wiki and Bulbapedia don't say ANYTHING about spoilers (at least not that I've seen) and they, alongside this, are the biggest NIWA Wikis- so why are we still doing it? Overall, support. Nutter! (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  7. As I mentioned before, any page can have spoilers, even stuff like the Epona page or the Ordon Pumpkin page. If we're going to keep the template, we shouldn't put it on every page if we could just put it on the whole wiki (if that makes sense). --Planetbox (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  8. As others have stated before, the definition of a spoiler can vary from person to person, and seeing as this is a wiki, spoilers are to be expected. Dannyboy601Talk 17:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition

If you'd like to keep the template, please place your vote here, stating a short reason why. Please place a hashtag (#) in front of your post to automatically number them.

  1. I'd like to keep the spoiler warning. Sometimes I just want a backround on a certain character, know an ocarina song ahead of time, and so on, and don't want to know if the character will become a major part of the story, or when and where the song will unlock.Kojlax (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments
I just wanted to make a response to Nutter regarding the other NIWA wikis. While we are a part of NIWA, the biggest part of NIWA is and always has been its policy of total freedom within its members. Yes, I do believe we should eliminate the template, but not simply because other NIWA wikis don't use it. I take great pride in our independence, and I don't believe we should do anything simply because another site does it. I just wanted to put this out there.Justin(Talk) 09:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
(@Nutter) Bulbapedia does have a spoiler template (something I hope to attempt to eradicate after this is settled, citing the ease it was done here as precedent). Being a staff member on both sites let's me use the other as a case study for things I want done but may be resisted :P. --SnorlaxMonster 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


Okay, so it looks like we're generally all for getting rid of the template. I'd like to ask you now, what would you like to do? Should we create an anonnotice (sitenotice to anonymous users only) that states that we have spoilers? Should put a warning on the front page? Should we just drop it altogether? Those seem to be the three proposed options. Let's find out what you guys want to do. This will be our final voting before we put the changes into effect.Justin(Talk) 18:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Anonymous Users Notice
This will create a sitenotice for logged out users only which warns of spoilers.
Support Vote.png Support
  1. This was my suggestion, and I stand by it.Justin(Talk) 18:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, go with this. --SnorlaxMonster 06:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. If you're an editor on this website, I find it unlikely that you wouldn't know there are spoilers. --Planetbox (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  5. Anonymous users would probably like to be warned of spoilers before they started browsing, and most registered users are already aware that the wiki contains spoilers, so I find this to be a logical solution. Dannyboy601Talk 17:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  6. Sounds good.Mandi Talk 18:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Main Page Warning
This will place something on the main page stating that we contain spoilers.
Support Vote.png Support
  1. I'd do this as well as the anonnotice. --SnorlaxMonster 06:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments

I just want to comment that according to our statistics, half of our viewers find the page they want via search engines and never even visit the main page. I feel that this method is ineffective as such.Justin(Talk) 18:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Drop Entirely
Give users no warning of spoilers.
Support Vote.png Support


Okay, so it looks like we're generally in favor of eliminating the spoiler template in favor of an anonnotice. Thank you to all of you who voted, and we will now go about with eliminating the spoiler template from articles.Justin(Talk) 12:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Animals Infobox

Currently there isn't an infobox for the animals. The problem is that the one that is being used places them automatically in the People category. In some cases this is ok (with Christine for example). In other cases though (e.g. Epona, Walrus, Crimson Loftwing) it is clearly wrong. There are three options: a) The category can be suppressed (example). The problem here is that the field races is in use whereas a species field would be better. b) Same as above except that the field changes from Races to Races / Species or an additional Species field is added and c) A separate template/infobox for animals. Personally I prefer the latter. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Enemies category

As it is, the enemies are categorized by game but not by type (except for the Octo Family). There are of course the (really awesome) enemy templates but I think it would be nice if there were categories as well. I think the bosses can be included there since they are enemies. Also, since this would clutter the sub-categories section, all the sub-categories that will be created can be placed under one category which will be of course under the enemies category. What do you think? Zeldafan1982 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone this happened in between your post and my post, but aren't there already categories? Or are you talking about something else? Because if you aren't, I think this has already been solved Champion of Nayru (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

Policy of user pages

Since I'm relatively new at this wiki, I want to make sure that my efforts are all...kosher, so to say. Is there a specific policy on user page content? I'm thinking of possibly starting a fanon English pronunciation project as a user page — and not all my own guesses (though I can start with my own), but also taking input from the community and presenting multiple alternative pronunciations different people may prefer. Something in a list format, perhaps like:

(Some of these are mine, and some of them are alternatives I imagine others might be using, but I wouldn't know for sure without asking or being told.) And sorted semi-alphabetically (as well as IPA can be sorted, anyway). It's not meant to favor official pronunciations, even if they're confirmed one way or another. Gamers can be very peculiar with how they pronounce stuff in their head, and it's fun to gather the different possibilities — no reasonably explainable pronunciation would be excluded. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Users pages are and always have been the sole property of the user, as opposed to Wikipedia. You're free to do whatever you darn well please, as long as there's nothing which would be considered against the site policy. I personally have a ton of pages in my userspace which serve multiple purposes, like a regular sandbox, a sandbox specifically for testing coding... and... um... I thought there were more than that. Maybe I'm just forgetting because I'm tired. And now I'm rambling. Fantastic. Point is, do what you please :PJustin(Talk) 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright. Thank you. I'll consider my options. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I have a working page at User:Dermot Mac Flannchaidh/Pronunciation. I'm extending an open invitation to other users to suggest fanon pronunciations of their own. The pronunciations will be in IPA, but you can comment on the talk page using REE-spell style if you're more comfortable with it. I can read X-SAMPA too. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Low-Quality Trivia

I've noticed the vast amount of low-qualitity "trivia" ranging from useless comparisons such as these:

"Pumpkin Head resembles Jack, from the Animal Crossing Series," from Pumpkin Head," Or:

"Both Stallord and the Stalhounds resemble Cortez from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, especially when Stallord's head is severed," from Stallord.

Or unnecessary and untrue

"In Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, Link comments "Boy, I can't wait to bomb some Dodongos!". This has caused a meme among Zelda fans," from Dodongo.

You get idea. I was thinking that some sort of list of what is and what isn't acceptable for trivia. Specifically making it clear that seeing a character who wears red doesn't mean that he is a reference to Spider-Man or some crap like that. The wiki with the best policy for trivia that I know of would have to be the Team Fortress wiki (http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Help:Style_guide/Trivia). Does anyone else think we need better standards for our Trivia sections?

Champion of Nayru (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

YES! This. I hate, hate, hate long, useless sections of "trivia" that isn't really trivia at all. I think some standards would be great. Embyr 75  --Talk-- 04:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement. A lot of our trivia sections have things that aren't trivia, but are rather more like "Hey, this guy kinda looks like x guy from x game series!" It's getting old, and that's one thing I think we should axe in favor of only keeping obvious references to other games/people/etc. Glad you brought this up, Champion of Nayru!Justin(Talk) 05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've written a few trivia bullets. I have put great thought into them. Like how the Moon in Majora's Mask looks just like the asteroid with the creepy face from Star Fox (1993) that instantly warps you to another dimension, such that I thought at first that the former reference was a deliberate expy of the latter reference — I'm not entirely certain it is, mind you, but I found the likeness worth mentioning, as I cannot even look at the Moon without thinking of Star Fox. Or how "link(s)" means "left-handed" in various West Germanic languages like German, Dutch and Yiddish — most incarnations of Link are left-handed, and they only became right-handed on the Wii. Or how the Great Flood is like the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis of the prehistoric Mediterranean Basin (I'm big into geology). I'm not entirely certain what we can consider good quality vs. bad quality, since trivia bullets can be written with great thought in perfectly good faith. What would be the objective distinction (as opposed to subjective distinctions)? - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It might not be a bad idea to put some restrictions, but trivia is, by definition, trivial, so putting in guidelines could be tricky. Obviously, a "resemblance" or "reference" that few people agree with shouldn't be included, but only allowing trivia that fits certain descriptions almost defeats the purpose of having a trivia section at all. Really, it should be handled in the same way as theories- if it has community support (which could be verified via Talk pages, as happens now) and is at least somewhat supported and logical, it can be added; if not, not. Setras (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with this. If we put too many restrictions on what counts as good trivia, we will likely end up with some criteria, such as relevance, that are subjective. Obviously trivia that is clearly illogical or irrelevant, and is thought to be so by the majority of the community, should be removed, and any major disputes can be brought up on talk pages. We should also try and implement any particularly notable, relevant pieces of trivia into the main article if possible. Dannyboy601Talk 18:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that reference trivia should be removed as a general rule of thumb unless it is confirmed by Nintendo, or is completely undeniable (eg a leader of a country named Brock O'bomba). If appearance or personality is all there is to the so-called-reference then it should be removed. Take Dragonball Z and Chrono Trigger for example. Several characters look similar or identical. This doesn't make them a reference. It means that Akira Toriyama (the character designer of both Chrono Trigger and Dragonball) recycled character designs.

But that's just reference trivia. For other trivia, if you can write the trivia after just reading the article without any further research, by write it down? Most people could also come to the same conclusion without it being shoved into their face as if they were idiots. Things like saying that the Happy Mask Salesman has a hat that looks like Mario. Also personal opinions have no place. There's a lot more I'd like to write but I don't have the time or energy, and it would be boring. Just check out the link to Team Fortress wiki above, and that sums up my position. Also, Dermot, all of the your examples are exactly what we don't need. Saying a flood is similar to a flood is ridiculous. The left-handed thing is also pretty weak, and moon-asteroid connection could easily be a coincidence, as red eyes often imply ill intentions or evil. Sorry if I seem a bit irritable, it's 3 am here ;) Champion of Nayru (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

"It means that Akira Toriyama (the character designer of both Chrono Trigger and Dragonball) recycled character designs." - I'd say that recycled character designs are still noteworthy. --SnorlaxMonster 11:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I should add my two cents. Personally, I don't tolerate trivia which compares non-Nintendo series with the Zelda series. However, I think that reasonable comparisons are permissible. I'm also confused by your examples ("Or unnecessary and untrue"). Are you saying that the "I can't wait to bomb some Dodongos" phrase hasn't spawned a meme? To my knowledge, that's entirely true.
To pass trivia off as "low-quality" is, in my opinion, a subjective misnomer. Perhaps we could find some middle ground and create a page entirely devoted to similarities between Nintendo series? (We already have a page for memes.) That way, we could keep trivia sections clear of these more subjective or unconfirmed pieces of trivia and the people who would like to see this kind of information can find it all in one place. - TonyT S C 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Creating a repository for more subjective trivia sounds like a good idea. I still can't see the Moon without seeing that faced asteroid. And no, it's not the red eyes — it's the overall likeness such that it looked like it was directly lifted wholesale from Star Fox. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Dermot, I'm not saying the moon and the asteroid don't look similar, they do, but saying its a reference is a bit of a jump. It's possible the asteroid was recycled for the moon, or the moon was a homage, or even sheer unlikely coincidence. The thing is, we just don't know. Yes, they do look pretty similar, but is it notable? Do people care? It's likely we could find mainy instances of people who look like Reggie Fils-Aime, but that isn't really notable. Admittingly, similarities between Nintendo franchises are more notable than people that look like celebrities, but unless the asteroid was going to fall onto some planet called 'Ermina in 3 days, there isn't really any reason to note the similarities, unless the rest of you think otherwise. Champion of Nayru (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
I disagree with trivia being removed form articles, I believe that it adds interest and some fun facts for reading.Mandi Talk 06:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Being told a small child's opinion of how "Octoroks kinda look like Bloopers from Super Mario 'cause dey both squid" is a fun fact? Because that's the usual level of quality I see from comparisons. Do you see the Stallord-Cortez comparison above? That's a legitimate quote from the Stallord article. Maybe I'm alone, but when I go to Zelda wiki, I'm looking for a profession community-created encyclopedia. We must strive towards excellence and not settle for mediocrity! Champion of Nayru (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
What indication is there that small children are writing this? Honestly, I feel that your personification is rather cynical for the case at hand. Everyone contributing is trying to improve the wiki however they see fit, so please don't degrade their efforts.
Yes, I do see a bit of resemblance between Cortez and Stallord. I don't feel like it's necessarily worth mentioning on Stallord's page, but I definitely think it's acceptable for my proposed "similarities" page.
Realistically speaking, Zelda Wiki will never be perfect. Of course, it's our goal as editors to improve it to the best of our abilities, which means doing it in our own ways. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's inherently mediocre. - TonyT S C 08:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my rude demeanor. It was rather uncalled for. This (which is copy-pasted from Tram Fortress wiki with minor changes) accurately sums up my opinion of trivia: ...be facts, not speculation.

...not be obvious for somebody who has played the game in question for a small amount of time.

...make most readers say "Wow! I did not know that!"

Emphasis on the first one. Opinions are great and all, but they have no place in an encyclopedia. Say you opened up Encylopædia Britannica. You read up George Washington and you see it says that "George Washington was a good person. He kinda resembles Thomas Jefferson." You would likely be unimpressed by the unprofessionalism. Encyclopædia Britiannica doesn't give personal opinions like that, and neither should we. Personal opinions in articles harm the credibility of the entire website. Hopefully we can work together and make the definitive Legend of Zelda encyclopedia. ;) Champion of Nayru (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

Striving to achieve high standards of writing is one of the wiki's core philosophies. Your way of thinking is very respectable and you're definitely not alone. However, as we are a wiki about a series of games, I think it's important to understand that most people will come here looking for a fun experience. And they're right to think that! Contributing to the project should be enjoyable.
Not everyone enjoys or is capable of operating within a strict set of rules. Constricting creative freedom with lots of rules will discourage many writers from editing here. That is worse than allowing content to stray (within reason, of course) from an ideal encyclopedic format. We have to walk a fine line between being liberal and having high standards. (This not aimed at you in particular, Champion of Nayru. It's just a general reflection on why I think strictness is bad for wiki growth.)
But I'm going to end my digression there. The longer this conversation drags on, the more likely we're going to go on tangents to prove our points and not come to any actual decision.
So more to the point, I'm in favor of adding a new line to the Quality Standards that restricts comparative trivia. This is not a controversial idea really; it's not a new concept. The staff has recently been cracking down on comparative trivia already (see the announcement on January 10, 2012). This is just about setting a rule in stone, that's all. I'm thinking along the same lines as Setras: let's disallow comparative trivia unless:
A. There is reason to believe one thing was inspired by the other (ideal evidence being developer quotes), or
B. The resemblance is widely noted by fans. (The last bullet of the Tentalus article is a good example.)
Otherwise the comparison can be considered arbitrary and nothing more than an opinion, which I agree does not have a place in our articles. — Hylian King [*] 10:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with almost everything you said, except for point B. To use your example, Tentalus does indeed resemble the Pixar character. However, what is the purpose of noting it? It's not developer confirmed; it could have easily been based on a combination of a Kraken (or giant purple octopus) and Medusa, or just a reamagining of Phytops. Neither one requires the developer to have seen or even heard of Monsters Inc. That aside, what is the point of listing Tentaclus's resemblence to Celia? Anyone who has seen the film probably saw the resemblence already, and those that haven't really wouldn't have cared. Trivia should be informative and relavant, the Monster Inc. resemblence is neither. Unless the resemblence is clearly the origin or inspiration of the design/name, such as Keaton and Kitsune, or Morpha and Morpheel, there really is no reason to post it.

On the positive side, here's an example of what I think is good trivia (excerpt from Gratitude Crystal)9

  • The Gratitude Crystals and the Star Fragment treasure item are are both designed to resemble the Japanese candy Kompeitō. Kompeito are hardened sugar formed into star shapes and are well recognized in Japanese culture.

This trivia is informative, interesting, not obvious, and not too long. Just as trivia should be. Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

All of the theory sections are inherently opinion. Are you saying there should be no theory sections either? I love reading about assorted fanon and fan theories readily accessible in association with articles — if not on the page, then linked from it to a fanon/theory page. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Zelda Wiki is projected as the wiki of the community. Therefore, a common thought or opinion among members of the Zelda community is considered noteworthy by our standards. The purpose, Champion of Nayru, is to represent the community. A theory or a piece of trivia may be an opinion, but it is fact to say that a community widely accepts that opinion.
This conversation is really starting to drag on. The longer this text wall gets, the less people will be interested in reading and weighing in. We really need to try to come to a solution now. It happens all too often for discussions to go on and on and on and then eventually fizzle out, without coming to a useful conclusion.
We can avoid that by starting with a conservative solution that we can all agree is at least a step in the right direction. Then later on if we decide trivia sections still need more cleanup, we can start new talks about a more aggressive policy.
So can we all agree on adding something along these lines to the Quality Standards:
Trivia that underlines similarities between two entities (i.e. "this character looks like X person from Y series") must respect '''at least one''' of the following postulates:
* There must be significant reason to believe one entity was inspired by the other. This requires proper evidence, such as developer quotes.
* The resemblance must be noted by several fans.
Any trivia without proper evidence or reasonable community support will be considered personal opinion unfit for mainspace articles. Such trivia may be placed on one's user page.

(This is just a rough draft. We can iron out the kinks and add examples later, what's important right now is the concept.)

If everyone supports this we can go ahead and add it to our policy page and get stuff done. I'm offering everyone a way out of this conversation. If anyone thinks this is unfair and wants to argue their case some more, be my guest. I think you risk ruining any chance this discussion has at a productive outcome. — Hylian King [*] 10:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice job taking initiative Hylian King! Anyway, I think those are an excellent draft. If you don't mind, I believe I'll type up a draft myself, and then we compare them. Maybe on my or your user talk page?
To Dermot, the Theory thing is a whole other topic, but to answer your question, I'm not a fan of theories being on the main page of articles, but at least they are properly marked as apposed to comparisons, which are not trivia. Champion of Nayru (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
I don't quite follow. If your draft is different in principle, everyone should probably be involved in that discussion. — Hylian King [*] 10:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the main articles are an inappropriate place for this kind of soft trivia, it should probably still be readily accessible somewhere else. - Dermot Mac Flannchaidh (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue is whether or not they constitute trivia to begin with. It's about quality not quantity; I actually recant my previous statement, I believe that similarity trivia should be either moved to a more appropriate section, such as the main page or etymology, or deleted, unless it is the item that the Zelda item was based on. I'm perfectly fine with most articles having no trivia, maybe one or two points, occasionally more, but never more than six; if there is that much, it probably isn't trivia.
A general guideline (with violations)
Cannot be obvious (eg Link wears green, the color of plants)
Has to be supported with evidence (eg Zelda is likely based on Queen Elizabeth, they both wear fancy dress and are royal)
Has to be objective (eg Legend of Zelda is widely regarded as one of the most fun game series)
No listing things that were inspired by the Zelda item in question (eg Robin Williams named his daughter "Zelda" because Zelda is his son's favorite video game series.)
No similarities, unless there is reason to believe that it is the basis for the item in question (eg Both Stallord and the Stalhounds resemble Cortez from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, especially when Stallord's head is severed)

Or that's the gist of it. I'd rather not limit the restrictions on trivia to just similarities, but all the problems plaguing trivia sections. I really need to stop editing at 2 am. I'll probably clarify any crap that doesn't make since tomorrow. Till then have a nice day! Champion of Nayru (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

I'm fairly certain that the subjective/objective issue is already covered, so that's not really necessary, though I'm confused about your fourth option ("no listing things that were inspired"). Could you please clarify in greater detail? I also feel that the first one is a bit shaky. How do we determine what's obvious for others without being subjective ourselves? "Link = green = plant" is obvious, yes, but I feel it's much more broad, which allows people to interpret it very loosely.
And to address the fifth one, I think it's important to decide whether or not we would like to just put all the comparative nonsense onto its own page and which limitations it will bear (keep it Nintendo-only or free reign, and/or allow an in-series section or not). If we go with HK's route, this won't really be necessary. - TonyT S C 16:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's an idea that I feel could potentially really help: a separate page for Theories and subjective Trivia, accessible from a button at the top next to the page and discussion buttons. Basically anything that is not hard fact can go there. Of course that page would also have to be moderated to remove useless contributions (eg Link wears green, color of plants), but otherwise any theory or trivia that is reasonable and supported (eg No saying Link is Altair from Assassin's Creed or such). Perhaps it could link to a separate wiki?
On another note, should another topic be made? This one is getting REALLY long. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

I haven't read the whole discussion, but I have one issue with the idea that trivia is worthy just because some fans on some forums have mentioned it. I believe it's been mentioned, but the Tentalus issue is one that bugs me massively. Just because some people have noted it looks similar to one Monsters Inc. character doesn't make it noteworthy trivia. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it was an inspiration, heck, Tentalus looks MORE like Medusa from the original Kid Icarus, which MIGHT of actually been a genuine inspiration for the monster (hell, it's hair tentacles turn into snake-like objects and it has a sort of feminine form). However, when I added this trivia instead of the Monsters Inc. one, it was removed and then the other one got some backing from some random forum comments that somehow makes it more valid. It's a simple fact that something that is more well known and popular in mass media is going to have more people randomly saying "hey, that looks a bit like that thing from Star Wars" or whatever, even if the connection is less valid than something more obscure that people won't have noticed (which is more likely, as many Zelda things reference Japanese tropes, not western ones). I really think that trivia needs to have more basis than some fans saying something looks a bit like something else. There need to be a NUMBER of connections, a clear visual AND behavioral link and a strong potential for an actual influence. On the other hand, mentioning that a certain Zelda enemy looks a lot like another Zelda enemy is fine, as the connection is already present, and in many cases clearly intentional. Fizzle (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would like to say it is frustrating how eager you are to try to end this discussion, and your tactic of shaming of anyone who prolongs it by adding their two cents.
About the voting, Community support should be consider irrelevant. The communities opinions are inherently opinionated. Wikipedia doesn't mention that Charlie Chaplin has the same mustache as Adolf Hitler, because everyone knows and no one cares. It doesn't add to the article, it only adds to popular culture. I suggest the really poorly written second option for voting be removed and replaced with this perhaps
  • There must be reason to believe one entity was inspired by the other. This requires proper evidence, such as etymology or developer quotes.
  • Any comparative trivia without proper evidence will be considered personal opinion unfit for mainspace articles. Such trivia may be placed on one's user page.

Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

I honestly don't know what you're talking about, this was just me weighing in on the subject since I've been away from the wiki for some time, and it's the only thing I've said on the matter... where you're getting that I'm trying to end the discussion or shame anyone for trying to continue it I don't know, unless you're talking to someone else entirely? Very lost. If you disagree with something I said, feel free to point out where you think I'm wrong. Not seeing what you're seeing, here. Hell, it seems like we largely agree with each other, unless I'm missing something? Fizzle (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I think everyone has made their stance clear at this point. Fizzle is the only editor to join the conversation in the past two weeks. Further back-and-forth is not likely going to bring about any new ideas.
When ZW editors are this divided on a topic, staff will usually bring it to a vote. We're simply doing our job by helping this discussion to a productive ending. — Hylian King [*] 01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


So I think we can all pretty much agree how frustrating not coming to a conclusion is. I just want us to come to some agreement, so I'm going to put a summary of both proposals where people are free to vote.

To vote, leave a hash (#) below in the relevant "support" section and sign your signature with three tildes (~~~).

Proposal 1

The conditions for the first proposed policy is as follows:

  • Trivia that underlines similarities between two entities (i.e. "this character looks like X person from Y series") must respect at least one of the following postulates:
    • There must be reason to believe one entity was inspired by the other. This requires proper evidence; developer quotes are ideal.
    • The resemblance must have a reasonable amount of community support.
  • Any comparative trivia without proper evidence or reasonable community support will be considered personal opinion unfit for mainspace articles. Such trivia may be placed on one's user page.
Support Vote.png Support
  1. - TonyT S C
  2. — Hylian King [*]
  3. Setras (talk)
  4. Zeldafan1982 (talk)
  5. KrytenKoro (talk) (*see below)
  6. Jns4eva (talk)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments

If speculative trivia are to be kept/included, then I think it would be nice if they were placed under a "theory trivia" tag. It would be useful for those who are not interested in reading this kind of trivia. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How different is this from the usual policy? I'm not entirely sure what "reasonable community support" means. Can this be clarified? Almost everything can have support from some random forums, that doesn't make it worth including. As it is, the first rule is strict but the second rule is extremely vague and, well, I kinda thought we used that rule as it is. If it can be defined a bit more clearly I'd be more than happy to vote for this option. Also, is it possible that some trivia would not fit either criteria because it's simply not well known? For instance, the fact that Arm-Mimics are based on Japanese hinawa dolls probably isn't common knowledge in the Zelda community, but I am 100% sure it's the case as it's a common Japanese trope. There's no quotes to back this up, nor would I be able to find any forum posts, but it's clear to anyone who's aware of the trope that it's the case. If these issues can be clarified for me by someone that would be great. Fizzle (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if you can put a side by side picture and people will all go "yep, these are the same thing", you're golden. For example, we can say that Wizzrobes faces in Wind Waker are designed like those of toucans, without an actual developer statement. In general, if you're not reaching too far, you shouldn't need a source...but it should be fairly easy for the community, if not the editor in question, to detect whether a claim is reaching. The Monster's Inc thing? I've seen that mentioned in a Cracked article, and they're very clearly using the same design aesthetic, an aesthetic that isn't really used elsewhere in the game. In fact, I bet you could even try to twitter one of the art team and get a response, if we tried. On the other hand, we have resemblance trivia like what was once on the ReDead article regarding how "Skulltulas fulfill the function (whatever that is) of ReDeads in Skyward Sword" -- a convoluted way of saying that they both have a similar paralysis technique. There's no way that justifies a trivia note, and it frames so many things so poorly, it's aggravating. Speaking from experience, when a reader sees banal trivia notes like that, they don't think "well, I learned something", they think "wow, this site has no quality control and the useful content is being covered by gibberish." However, even more important is that such notes could look more professional and be handled less objectionably in a Design section. Basically, my take is that there needs to be a mindset of trying to minimize the trivia sections in general. For example, every trivia note on the ReDead article would be a good fit for Design/Gameplay/Behavior sections. There is way, way too much trivia that feels like someone thought of something to add to the article, and instead of trying to actually write, they just threw it in the trivia as if it was a repository for rough drafts or other notes. Trivia notes should be far and few between, and should be so extraordinarily striking that we have to add them to the article, even if we can't find a place to put them normally--the trivia section shouldn't just be a place to encourage rambling.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough. However, on the Tentalus thing... Gonna rant a bit here, but I'm still not convinced a random Cracked article suddenly makes something worth mentioning. I don't really agree that they share the same "aesthetic" either, aside from the fact that Tentalus is a big tentacly monster with one eye and they both look like CG monsters (because they're both CG monsters). Besides, I've seen Tentalus compared to VARIOUS Monsters Inc. characters, none of which actually look anything like it, aside from one that is clearly based on MEDUSA, since they're both based on MEDUSA, which is a dumb thing to point out, as aside from them both looking like Medusa (one eye, snake-like hair) and having similar colour skin (which, incidentally, is the colour of a squid, which is why Tentalus' skin is that colour) they actually look nothing alike. I mean heck, look at this... https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7170270208/hAA2CB45E/ Is this worth mentioning? There's a ton of other characters that Ganondorf looks like, such as that character from The Last Story. Demise was compared to Akuma on his page, but they're both based on onis, so that's why they look like that and that trivia was removed. Ganondorf looks like he does because he's based on a character from Fist of the North Star, which is an actual developer quote. Mentioning that a character in the series LOOKS like something in popular culture is asinine and pointless, because there's a billion of these lookalike things out there for every character you can think of, and they're nothing more than amusing sidenotes, they do not add to the article in any way. That all aside, I totally agree with you about the ReDead thing, and stuff like that is not worth keeping, or if it is a lot of it can indeed be put in the main article. Fizzle (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The Zelda community is within our project scope. If a group of Zelda fans express the same idea, it is probably worth noting at Zelda Wiki. "Group" is the key word here. One or two people posting on different forums does not constitute community support. Multiple people expressing the same thought through multiple media, that is an idea that has community support. There's no way to define objectively at what point an opinion becomes a "popular" one; editors have to make a judgement call. The Tentalus-Monsters, Inc. comparison has been made on dozens of distinct sources: Youtube videos, social media, forums, and apparently a Cracked article. I would say that comparison is worth noting on the Tentalus page. (By the way KrytenKoro, I don't suppose you'd have the link for that Cracked article? I want to read it. :P)
As for the first bullet, note that it says dev quotes are ideal evidence, not the only acceptable evidence. For the Wizzrobe example, the fact that they have large colorful bills is all the evidence you need to prove that toucans inspired their design.
Of course, what constitutes "good enough" evidence is still subjective and comes down to judgement. No matter what rules we make, it still mostly comes down to judgement on a case-by-case basis. The rules are there to aid judgement, not replace it. — Hylian King [*] 03:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, the first place I heard the Monsters Inc. thing was on this very website, I actually saw far, FAR more people comparing Demise to Akuma from Street Fighter. So I'm still not entirely sure what difference that makes. It's just anecdotal evidence, nothing more. I guess I find the rules a bit too vague if the rule seems to be arbitrarily in place for one page and ignored for another. And heck, a million people could say it and I still wouldn't think it's worth including as they're both monsters based on Medusa, so obviously they look similar (...they don't even look very similar, which is what's making my head spin). It's just a dumb thing to even point out and misses the obvious reason they look similar in favor of one based on people making jokes about it on Youtube. Just because an observation is amusing and easy to point out doesn't make it in any way valid. I'm not even sure why people are so precious about this one useless bit of trivia, to be honest. Maybe this is a discussion for the Tentalus page. I suppose I joined this discussion too late... The second rule just still seems a little too vague to me, that's all. Maybe it has to be that way, but I kind of don't like the wiki being dictated to by popular opinion, because popular opinion isn't necessarily right or worth mentioning on a fact-based wiki like this. Fizzle (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Tentalus, I think you're misunderstanding why people say it looks like a monster's inc character. It's not that it looks like a Medusa at all, and it actually doesn't look extraordinarily like any one Monsters Inc character. The reference is drawn based solely on the aesthetic, which is unique to the monster in Skyward Sword, and pretty much identical to the aesthetic used throughout Monster's Inc. Tentalus doesn't match any character design in Monster's Inc, but it looks like it would fit as a cameo within that movie.
I believe ses_p2.html this is the article, but I can't access the site from this computer. It was from this summer, though.
Regarding the vagueness, I think it's a good idea to have some leeway, a sanity check to the rule. If you have a ton of editors saying "yeah, this looks pretty legit" and only one saying "well, it's not explicit enough", or one editor saying "Can't you see?!" and everyone else saying "Not really, no", we should be able to wiggle to go with common sense. My own personal opinion, though, is that the main mindset should be to discourage these notes unless we can show explicit proof or community support...it shouldn't be as lax as "well, this claim isn't self-contradictory".KrytenKoro (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If it is just the aesthetic, then perhaps that should be clarified. Like I said, I've seen the monster compared to a few Monsters Inc. characters, so you're right. But I'm not sure the "aesthetic" makes it noteworthy... the aesthetic of Monsters Inc. isn't unique, it's just... cartoony CG monsters. I'm not sure such a thing is worth pointing out, do we mention on various Twilight Princess pages that the monsters have a Lord of the Rings aesthetic? Because they do. And most people recognize that, but I'm not sure it's worth mentioning on the wiki. My argument isn't necessarily that it's not true, just that it's not really worthy trivia, same as mentioning that Fyrus looks like the Balrog from Lord of the Rings. It does, and I remember it being pointed out a lot at the time of the original trailer, but... so? Lots of things look like lots of other things, and Zelda crosses over SO many different aesthetics that there are literally hundreds of these. Also, to be honest, I'm not sure Tentalus stands out THAT much from the aesthetic of the rest of the game. The Moblins look like they could be in a Pixar film too, really. Tentalus seemed to me to be a homage to enemies like Eyegore and Hinox from ALttP.
Also, I really don't think we should cite Cracked as a noteworthy source, it's just a humor site. Fizzle (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everything Fizzle said. Seriously though, how does Tentalus share an art aesthetic with Monsters Inc.? They just share a design origin: Celia is Medusa + Cyclops, Tentalus is Octopus + Cyclops (maybe + Medusa). Fizzle, do you thing you could maybe type up a new second option to vote on? Also I realize my last post made no sense, just disregard it. Champion of Nayru (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru
Erg. It's not a shared design basis with a specific character, and it's not a generic "Pixarness" to it. It's the specific aesthetic (skin texture, plumpness and softness to design, etc.) which a large portion of the fandom has picked up on, even to the point of being citable to a non-Zelda-focused publication. For Lord of the Rings and Balrogs...yeah, I kinda feel if an official kotaku, cracked, or jezebel article made a comment on it, and it's something pervading the fandom, then it would be fair to look for a way to cover it on the wiki, even if it's just to say "is widely seen as similar to X". It's citable to an actual publication, and providing coverage of how Zelda topics have had influence in the real world should be in our remit. Obviously, anything that can't be cited to Nintendo employees or publications themselves shouldn't be treated as official info -- we wouldn't make the claim that NoJ designed Tentalus to resemble a M.I. monster without a source. But provided we present it accurately and honestly, it should be within our scope.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Followup: Like I suggested earlier, the cutoff should be "obviousness", so despite my protestations, if consensus is against Tentalus being similar to Monster's Inc, it should be removed.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that I think it's just something people say as a joke, because the boss looks kind of goofy. People make offhand comments like that all the time, I'm not sure it makes it noteworthy. And again... Cracked? No. Come on, there has to be standards. Cracked is a humour site, it's not a gaming site or a film website. I really think that using social media as a source is a poor method of judging that something is a commonly held opinion. You can find someone saying almost anything on a social media website. Not only that, but they hold no permanence. It's impossible to judge what people thought about Bongo Bongo upon release because it's virtually impossible to find old forum discussion on the subject, and even if you did, it doesn't seem like it's even particularly relevant. I mean, is it worth mentioning that people find ReDeads scary? It's a very commonly held belief, but it seems pointless to claim that "most Zelda fans find ReDeads scary" and link to a few forum quotes and a comment by a reviewer somewhere. It's just not worthy trivia. Either you find them scary or you don't.
Also, it really IS an issue of chicken or egg here. For instance, people have pointed out that Hilda and Zelda both share their names with the aunts in Sabrina The Teenage Witch and therefore that this is a reference, or worth mentioning in trivia... when it's much more likely that "Hilda" is one of the few female names that ends in "lda" and thus goes well with Zelda, and we already know who Zelda was named after. So therefore, it's just a coincidence, much like the fact that two cartoon monsters who are based on Medusa happen to look similar (and they're not even THAT similar). Fizzle (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a bit too late to add a new proposal unfortunately, I think everyone has already voted, but perhaps we can amend it slightly to make the "community support" issue a bit clearer, because right now it seems a bit like a "get out of jail free" card for any bit of trivia if you can use a simple forum quote somewhere to prove something has community support. Because right now it feels like you can say "hey, wait, they may look similar, but that's just a coincidence and not really relevant" and someone can just go "oh but look how many people noticed it!". Honestly, just because something is commented on by a lot of people doesn't instantly make it worth mentioning in a trivia section. A lot of people have said that Skyward Sword's controls are "bad", do we put that in the trivia section on the page? Where does it stop exactly?
I also just want to apologise to everyone for dragging this out longer than it probably had to be. Very poor show on my behalf, but the Tentalus thing has been bugging me for awhile, especially since it seemed inconsistent with the way we dealt with similar trivia on other pages (eg: Stalmaster = General Grievous from Star Wars, Demise = Akuma and so on).
I think I would like to propose that:
  • If two similar subjects are thought to share a common influence or source in their creation, that influence should be stated instead, rather than the similarities between the individual subjects in question.
Any thoughts? If this is too late in the day, then oh well, but I'm curious what people think. Fizzle (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, that kinda seems like common sense to me... Anyways, I think it would be best if we moved forward with what we have and go from there. A fresh start might breathe new life into the discussion. The majority of us seem to agree that community support should have an effect, we're just divided on the how, when, and where. We could start a new topic and focus specifically on that.
For the record, I'm still unconvinced about removing the Tentalus trivia. But in all honesty, Fizzle, if you went and removed it from the article right now I personally wouldn't say anything. I don't care nearly as much about this as you seem to. I'm not interested in defending it when you're going to such great lengths in the debate. :P — Hylian King [*] 02:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, harsh! Not sure I want to take a victory via arguing too hard, haha. I'm not even sure why I focused on that one trivia and I really don't feel THAT strongly, I'm sure there are others out there that would annoy me too, it just seemed a good example for what I was worried about. I'm just against using forum comments as a legitimate source for anything on any wiki, that's all! But yes, moving on is a VERY good idea at this point, sorry for dragging things on. Fizzle (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The conditions for the second proposed policy is as follows:

  • There must be reason to believe one entity was inspired by the other. This requires proper evidence, such as etymology or developer quotes.
  • Any comparative trivia without proper evidence will be considered personal opinion unfit for mainspace articles. Such trivia may be placed on one's user page.
Support Vote.png Support
  1. I'm voting now. --Planetbox (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Britannic124 (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


The voting is now closed at 6-2 in favor of proposal 1. It has been added to the Quality Standards with a few minor changes for clarity (see here). Sorry for the delay, folks.

If some editors are still unsatisfied with the state of the wiki's trivia, the topic can always be revisited. — Hylian King [*] 03:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Concept Art Preservation

I've noticed that some pieces of concept art has been cut around for transparency or had it's background removed entirely. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here, but it seems to be innapropriate for things such as this:


...which was added to the image request section for transparency. As most concept art is rough and not a professionally cleaned up piece of artwork, I think removing the background, even if it's white space, kind of displaces the integrity of it in a sense. Does anyone agree with me that these sorts of images should be left intact? I know there would be exceptions of course individually but I just wanted to bring this up. -- Kidbuu4ever (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

i certainly agree with you! this is one of those times where you leave it like it is and just put a thumbnail. ZeldaDoritos (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I also agree, and usually I try to revert the art in these instances. To be honest, I'm a little worried that the need for transparency can adversely affect a number of things on this wiki. It looks better but it often damages artwork. For instance, this artwork...
ALttP Hyrule Castle Artwork 2.png
This looks very strange and has never looked quite right to me. It gives the impression of sitting on a large white rock, which isn't the intention of the original art, which depicted a white background for the whole piece. The thin bits of tree and flagpoles look very odd as they have been edited as best as possible from a relatively low quality scan, but in the process it looks worse. Fizzle (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That's definitely one that stood out to me too, it's definitely a better example of images that don't need it, that's for sure. I know alot of it is going to be based on individual qualities but I think a general rule or guideline should be implemented for this in the future -- Kidbuu4ever (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think at some point people started getting the idea that all images have to have transparent backgrounds, which is not the actual policy. From Zelda Wiki:Quality Standards: "Images, unless appropriate, should not have solid colors as their backgrounds, and should be uploaded with transparent backgrounds." But yeah, we could definitely elaborate on that. — Hylian King [*] 02:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Time line

I have always wanted to know more about the zelda time line.Starwin321 (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not what this page is for. This page's purpose is stated at the top in bold, green text. In fact, this sort of discussion isn't even really relevant to wiki activity at all. - TonyT S C 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
ZW Off-Topic Icon.svg
Off-Topic Messages
This series of messages doesn't relate to improving the page that this talk page corresponds to. Zelda Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a forum, so please direct these messages to the Zelda Universe formus or to the #general channel on the Zelda Wiki Discord server.

Adding pict

Maybe we can add more pictures to every thing we are talking about. For example when we say 'ganondorf' then a link below it or on the page would show a picture of the ganondorf they mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superlegend (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013

There's no reason to. If an article is referring to a specific appearance of Ganon, such Ganon from Twilight Princess, the link, if properly written, will take you directly to Twilight Princess section of Ganon. Even with out this luxury, it is usually possible to deduce which version of a character the article is referring to by context.
In short, no, because there is no reason to add this feature. Champion of Nayru (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru
Zelda Wiki already uses images quite extensively. We can't overuse them, or else they'll clutter up the articles. — Hylian King [*] 00:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition to what's been said, my concerns would be the fact that using those images as frequently as you mention would greatly increase the stress on the page loads, which we try to keep to a minimum. Aside from that, I think that if you can't use the context to divine which incarnation of the character is the subject of the sentence, you probably couldn't tell from the image either. In most cases, the information is placed in a section relevant to the period of time or event, so that alone should give you enough of an idea. - TonyT S C 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)