Zelda Wiki:Hyrule Castle/Archive 16

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 16.

Page Idea

I know there's already a page for Zelda mythology here, but might it be worthwhile to put in a page for the real-life mythological allusions within the Zelda series? I did a similar project for Zelda Answers last year (which you can check out here if you'd like), so I'd have at least some material to put together what I think could be a workable page, and I'm sure other people could contribute to flesh it out. Does this sound worthwhile? Setras (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Im just going to be blunt: that article isn't very good. The article is a poorly organized mixture of historical insprirations and literary tools, sparcely dotted with actual real world mythology, with many assumptions and speculation. Zelda being a damsel in distress is not a mythological reference; damsels in distress are a common MacGuffin. The creation of Hyrule is an origin story? Never would have guessed. Making any article remotely similar to that on Zelda Wiki would not meet quality standards. Maybe you could make such a page on your user page, but not an article. Champion of Nayru (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

Well, I wasn't just going to copy the blog verbatim. I did it for a mythology class I had last year, so obviously some tweaking would be in order- it was just to illustrate what I had in mind. And actually yes, Zelda being a damsel in distress is a mythological archetype, hence my including it. The bulk of what would go into this hypothetical new article would be from the Allusions section anyway, and with other users contributing to it, it could be easily fleshed out (and in the event that it's not, then it could be deleted and thought of no more). Setras (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of point differentiating between mythological and mundane inspirations. Modern culture in general is heavily influenced by mythology, due to mythologies' inherant influence on their culture. Zelda being a damsel in distress is not a mythological reference, but a literary one. Damsels in distress are very common in fiction. Saying its a mythological reference is like saying that Ganondorf being evil is a reference.

If you're still set on making an article, do as such on a forum or on your user page. If it is acceptable, we can post it as an article. If not either abandon or fix it. If it looks anything like the article you posted, it will be rejected. Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

I think the subject has great potential as a wiki article in some form. There's no denying certain specific mythological references in the series: the ferry in the Shadow Temple and the river Styx, the Ancient Cistern and the Spider's Thread. These references are already noted on the respective pages. Many users might be interested in an article that synthesizes all such trivia.

The topic does rather encourage speculation, though. I'm afraid the article might end up being more opinionated than would be appropriate for a mainspace article.

I'm thinking this would reach its fullest potential as a WikiExclusive. That would give you more breathing room to make some more creative/speculative connections. — Hylian King ^[*] 01:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I did consider that, but I kind of wanted it to be open-ended, so anyone could put it suggestions. Though, I suppose the Talk page would work for that. Setras (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I get that. The problem I see with it is, it would be an invitation to make comparisons that are speculative or otherwise unsuitable for the mainspace.

As a WikiExclusive, that headache would be avoided. If you would like it to be open-ended, I'm sure that could be arranged. — Hylian King ^[*] 02:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that would be best. I'll write up a starting draft at some point in the next few days, then! Setras (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

When are we gonna start adding content about the new A link between words?

The new Zelda seems to be a Gold this year, What have you heard about this video game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by dgusitavos76 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2013‎

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.

Off topic, but yes of course we are working to add content to A Link Between Worlds pages. Champion of Nayru (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru

Tracking the Curse?

I was wondering, since it is confirmed that an "incarnation of my [Demise] hatred will haunt those with the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero", that it might be worthwhile to create a page to keep track of these incarnations. Demise is fairly easy to track, but I wonder whether it would be unreasonable to track Ghirahim as well. --TrueMasterSword (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, as the curse basically means Ganon, and Hyrule Historia pretty much implies that's almost all it means. Demise represents evil, and Demon King Ganon is the incarnation of that. There really isn't much else to track. I suppose Malladus might count? But that's not confirmed. User:Fizzle8094/sig 15:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing that's bothering me is that Demise's Curse says it will haunt EVERY incarnation of Link and Zelda. Ganondorf or Ganon only cover some games. Also, I note that Ganon always appears with a powerful, magical undeling. I was just wondering if Ghirahim could be part of the Curse. --TrueMasterSword (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ganon(dorf)'s magic ability is a result of the power he gains from the triforce of power, not because he is an incaration of GhirahimTriforceOfPower (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Ganondorf does magic before getting the Triforce. But seriously, can we cut discussion about Demise's curse? We don't know how it works, or even if it's literal, but it is clear that it refers to Ganondorf. Anything else about the curse is pure speculation. Anyway, discussions of this sort belong on the Demise talk page.

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.

Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Featured Pictures

Has anybody looked at the featured pictures lately? It seems like the current nomination has reached a score of plus-5. Doesn't this qualify it as a featured picture? Infernap (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciations?

This has probably been discussed elsewhere, but numerous pages use pronunciation guides next to the name of the character. While I understand that these would exist for those characters who actually have had their names spoken out loud, such as Link, Zelda, Ganondorf and Sheik in Smash Bros., exactly where are the pronunciations coming from for other characters such as Agahnim, etc.? Are any of these legitimately sourced anywhere? Most of these names are Japanese in origin, so I'm not sure common American English practice has much merit in determining how these character names are pronounced, so most of these seem presumptuous at best, or completely made up at worst. Are they necessary? Can they be sourced anywhere, like from Nintendo Directs? User:Fizzle8094/sig 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion at Hyrule Castle, see here. SnorlaxMonster put forward that all pronunciations should be referenced or removed. Official sources would include commercials, in-game voice acting, dev interviews, and Nintendo Directs as you said.

If no one objects, I'll go ahead and add this into the Quality Standards. — Hylian King ^[*] 01:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Image cropping

I think the purpose of image cropping on an image without background transparency is to make an image of an object look exactly the same as it would if the game itself were rewired in such a way that it had a white backgound. I'm pretty sure Majora's Mask works in such a way that all game pixels on any size emulator screen, no matter how close to the edge of the object are either completly affected by the the color of that part of the object or completely affected by the color of that part of the background, and does not work like a camera where the colour of a pixel is the average of colors in a square region of what the infinitely high quality image would have looked like. As a result, it's a very simple process to remove the background of an unmodified screenshot from an emulator because all you have to do is probably use Project 64 to make all background pixels white and all object of interest pixels the color they already were, as discussed at File talk:MM Fierce Deity Link Model.png, and images of that form from 3D Zelda games should be granted an exeption to the 3^rd sentence of the 6^th bullet point of Zelda Wiki:Quality Standards#Images. On the other hand, when an emulator screenshot is shrunk, there is no way to revert the image back to its original form and so there's also no way to use that image to create an image identical to the image that would have resulted from first removing the background then shrinking the image so we probably do the closest we can get to that by using a more complex image cutting porgram than paint that can cut lines through pixels rather than around the edges of pixels and cut so far in from the edge that no uncut or partly cut pixels were part object pixel and part background pixel. People are seeing unmodified eumlator screenshots all the time and if someone can put up with an original screenshot having jagged edges, then they should also be able to put up with an image that's the same except that it has a white bacground with jagged edges. It makes no sense for a Fierce Deity Link image to have super sharp edges inside the image, such as the top of the belt and yet have a blurry edge around the entire image. Furthermore, people when they're uploading images taken from a screenshot with a very large screen, if they're going to shrink it before uploading should be encouraged to crop the image first then shrink it, not the other way around. I think that transparent background of images smaller than the original emulator screenshot they were taken from or taken from a TV screen that has a different resolution than the game should work it such a way that it pastes in such a way that any pixel that's partly object and partly background after pasting becomes a weighted average of the colour that pixel was before using the image cutting program and the colour of the pixel that that pixel is pasted onto, if there even exists a program that can handle partly transparent pixels. When ever I paste any image from Wikimedia commons or Zelda Wiki that I have a way to tell has a transparent background by pasting into paint, every single time, it has a 1 colour background in addition to its background transparency and the background always pastes as black, even if I choose transparent selection unless I make black color 2. Does that mean there are images on Zelda Wiki that have a multi-color transparent background that paste into paint as though the background weren't transparent but paste into a different program with a transparent background? Blackbombchu (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In principle, you're right about staying consistent. A sharp image should have sharp edges, and a smooth image should have smooth edges. Despite that, smooth edges are easier on the eyes and are simply more appealing, which is why they are preferred even when the inside of the image is sharp. As I understand it, the rules are talking about images with really jarring edges that are clearly a result of bad editing. If you can isolate the object from the background properly, I don't think there's a problem.

As for the color-transparency issue you're facing, that is a result of image compression. When an uploader compresses the PNG to reduce its size, some information is removed from the image. Some programs like paint will try to find the missing information, and since they can't find it, they produce an error with the background color. However, browsers tend to ignore the missing information and display the correct image. — Abdul ^{[T] [C] [S]}  13:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Change

I have seen many pages that I feel do not represent the Zelda franchise but instead represent the Zelda fans. The BEN Drowned page is a fanfiction, it is a quality story, NOT quality information. The Shipping page seems more like a page for fan service, not information. I also see many theories with minimal support, like the Tetraforce for example, that have their own page.

I think that zeldawiki should provide QUALITY INFORMATION, not fan speculation (Shipping page for example) and services (BEN Drowned for example). I also do not think that theories deserve their own page but a mention on the page relevant to the theory (Like a Tetraforce mention on the Triforce page). This would help increase factual information on this wiki. I also think that theories must be supported by canon information before being allowed on the page. If you want to mention a theory, then the discussion page should be used as long as there is evidence from a canon source, but that would still not guarantee that your theory would be mentioned on the page.

My proposal's main points are:

1. No fanfictions of any kind on this site, even if they are popular with the Zelda community. Fanfictions do not provide accurate information, just a story.

2. Fan speculations should not be included on a page, and even if they are included on a page they should not have their own pages. Fan speculations might include canon information, but they usually have external meanings attached. If they deserve a mention I feel that they should be mentioned on a page relevant to the speculation.

3. Theories should have stricter guidelines for mentions on the page, but looser guidelines for mentions on the talk pages. Theories should be supported by CANON information (I know I am guilty of breaking this, but that doesn't change my opinion), and only with HEAVY support should they deserve a mention in the actual page (I understand some theories with minimal support are EXTREMELY popular and might deserve an exception to this rule, but in general theories should have heavy support). I believe that theories the HAVE support should be allowed to be brought up in relevant talk pages to be discussed more in order to either get support or to prove the theory wrong. If the theory is given enough support than an admin should be the decider for if the theory deserves a mention on the page or not.

I understand that this proposal might get rid of a lot of pages, but if we want a quality site with quality information than we might have to consider some of my points. Thank you to anyone that reads my proposal, and I hope that you at least consider it. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the pages you're talking about aren't advancing the speculative arguments, they're reporting on them. As seen on sites like http://tfwiki.net, covering the reaction to the official fiction can be both within the scope of a wiki, and informative. Personally, I don't think these pages should be deleted so long as they are treated as coverage of the fandom, and not as a soapbox to advance a fan theory, but I do think they should be moved to the Community: namespace.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is reporting on them the pages are still given partial credit. People that want factual information on Zelda (outside of walkthroughs, secrets, etc.) usually go to wiki sites. When people want reporting on shippings and theories they usually go to forums or YouTube. Why would we have reports on our wiki site? I understand that people might look this stuff up on a wiki site, but others might confuse certain reports for canon or ambiguously canon information, which is a bad thing for wikis that try and have as factual information as possible. A wiki should stick to facts while a forum usually has a lot of speculations. Sometimes it is a good idea to mix the facts with the speculations, but it is rare that it can be pulled off effectively. When making a wiki you cannot consider "The members of this wiki and the people I know know how to navigate this wiki and separate the facts from the speculation". That limits the number of people that can potentially use the wiki. You need to think, "How can the least intelligent people that might use this site be able to navigate it and separate fact from speculation". If you do that it opens the door to many more people getting more accurate information. It might seem like it affects those that already understand, but does it really? Those that would already understand also know how to find the information anyways, but those that do not understand might struggle. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If the article clearly labels itself as reporting on the fandom, not the canon, then it is no one's fault but the reader's if they forget that. As it is, very healthy and well-regarded wikis find it useful to educate the reader on not only the specifics of the series, but what it means to be a fan of the series. As long as the non-canon material is clearly marked and separated from the canon material, then we're providing more benefit than we can be claimed to be providing hurt.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Recurring dungeons

Many (although by no means all) dungeons are recurring throughout the series -- not only sharing names, like the Shadow Temple and Palace of Darkness, but also clearly being intended by the presentation as being the same building, such as the Eastern Palace/Temple in ALttP/FSA/ALBW.

However, since most dungeon articles are pretty well-focused on the gameplay aspects which change game-to-game, the consensus has been to have split pages for every dungeon per game, even if they're the same building -- this makes sense, yes.

However, there's a happy medium that allows us to both keep the gamecruft organized so that it's actually usable for playing the game or determining which claims relate to which incarnation, but also keep the fiction organized so it's clear that the same dungeon is reappearing (which currently we don't do) -- adding a Game: namespace.

This namespace would focus on the game mechanics and gamecruft of an article -- which enemies appear, what items you get, etc. It needn't go into full-on walkthrough, but it would be handy. Then, the mainspace article would be free to cover the entity's history itself -- so for example, one article detailing the story impact of Hyrule Castle, and sub-articles detailing the various themes/enemies/treasures of its dungeon incarnations.

This namespace would also be handy for stuff like Blue Potion; right now, it spends a lot of back and forth attempting a comparison of what the various incarnations do, while frustratingly not even mentioning it's Ocarina of Time incarnation, nor organizing the comparisons in a perceptible order. If we separated that into a Game: and Main: pageset, we'd have a Game: article to cover, in a very straightforward fashion, "In X, Blue Potion can be obtained from Y and does Z" (possibly even with infoboxes for each version so we can talk about buy/sell prices!), and a Main: article to cover "Blue Potion is often brewed from plants or Chus in a manner similar to Asian traditional medicine, it is used in the story in the following W ways:". You can kind of see an example of a Game: section with KHwiki.net's game mechanics sections for, hmmmm....let's say Combo Plus. Communicates the details for anyone wanting the nitty gritty, but divests itself of the fiction.

Right now we're trying to synthesize gamecruft and fiction into one whole, and that...well, usually doesn't work, because gamecruft is where the games kick down the fourth wall and have to drop the facade.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up. It's a very important issue that hasn't been addressed in a while. In the past, we moved away from organizing articles by game and tried to fit the game mechanics into the fiction (see here). The problem is, as you mentioned, handy game info becomes hard to find, if it's there at all. We're trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and the result is articles like Armos.

So I agree with you that there does need to be separation between game mechanics and "lore." However, I don't think a new namespace and mass splitting is the way to do it. (A) It creates a hurdle for readers and (B) after splitting, a lot of "Main:" articles would be skimpy. Many dungeons and bosses lack history. Take the Eastern Temple for example. If you take away the game mechanics, there isn't much else to say.

I think we just need to give game mechanics a separate section within the same article, entitled "Appearances by Game." Some articles, like Soldier, do this already. If the section gets to long, then it can be given its own subpage (e.g. Hyrule and Hyrule/Appearances by Game). — Hylian King ^[*] 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Followup, then: what if we transcluded the subpages if the main is too short? After all, the game mechanics section for most dungeons is going to be fairly regular in length.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it would be simpler to not create a subpage at all, no? — Hylian King ^[*] 04:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope! There's actually a lot of benefits to sorting information into different namespaces, which is one of the main reasons we have them in the first place. Off the top of my head, putting the game information into a Game: space and transcluding it would provide the extra benefits of more focused searches for those looking for game info, and more easily keeping track of the names of pages for making links -- if every dungeon game page has the same title format, we're gonna see a lot less links pointing to the wrong place or section.

If it would help illustrate the concept, I'm trying to create a sample suite in my nonexistant free time. I'd be happy to table this discussion for now, pending me completing the proof of concept.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese names re: titles

As referenced originally at Talk:Eox. Basically, there are a lot of entities where the Japanese names originally indicated a link (in which case we would usually merge), although it still makes sense for them to be kept separate, as with Mazaal and Eox, who are somewhat similar but still pretty distinct, independent entities. However, if we mention it at all, we usually mention the name-sharing in a pretty missable trivia note, all the way at the bottom.

Now, first off, Zelda games are generally released in Japan long before they're localized in other countries, and even though this is an English wiki, we still get a lot of visitors from other countries with other localizations; or who even have access to the Japanese games, and simply prefer an English wiki. So there definitely is some use at copping to the idea that a fan could search for an entity based on their Japanese name. Second off...well, it's pretty interesting to me that the Japanese intend Eox to have the same name as Mazaal, because it indicates a link I wasn't aware of -- a bit more interesting than the infobox reiterating what game the character appears in, what weapons you use to defeat them, or even what the rewards are when those aren't fictionally relevant to the boss (I doubt Kholdstare knew the maiden it was guarding, or really gave a carp beyond "Ima guardin' this dungeon"). So, two suggestions:

Either a disambig similar to the one used here

OR

A field like the one in that page's infobox, accounting for "variations" (this would also allow subspecies, like linking Skulltula to Golden Skulltula, Big Skulltula, Walltula, etc.).

Thoughts?KrytenKoro (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Four of the five latest games have been released in one or more anglophone countries before Japan. Japan got ALBW a whole month after everyone else. I have a hard time believing that the people you're advocating represent anything but a small niche; that your proposal would benefit any serious number of ZW readers. BUT, neither of us has any actual statistics (AFAIK), so I suppose we must assume I'm wrong.

I guess disambiguation pages for names like "Ōisu" (Eox and Mazaal) and "Bosuburin" (Great Moblin and Club Moblin) wouldn't hurt. I don't see how this kind of in-article disambig would apply, though. — Hylian King ^[*] 05:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something I wasn't aware of. Still, the pre-release info comes from Japan, doesn't it? In any case...I'm not really advocating for disambigs here, although that would definitely be a good idea and we should implement it -- in this case, I'm requesting that we have some way of noting that the name is shared on the enemy page itself....heck, even having a "Japanese name" parameter in the infobox, then adding a ref note linking to other entities using the name would satisfy me. Anything more than a trivia note.

Sidenote -- for Bosuburin, shouldn't that just be Boss Blin?KrytenKoro (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, another solution would be to use Etymology sections more often. This would be a simple and conventional change; it wouldn't require any difficult changes to template formatting. It would also move a wider range of etymological info out of Trivia sections. — Hylian King ^[*] 06:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would absolutely endorse such sections, in tandem with redirects/disambigs.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gameicons

See here. Holy HECK could we use these.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how they'd be useful. We already have infoboxes listing the relevant games. — Hylian King ^[*] 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but they require reading, and are plain text. A lot of wikis (Halo, Kingdom Hearts, etc.) have found that the gameicons allow info at a quick glance, and plus, they use up space in the title region instead of the article region.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The icons assume that the reader uses the site enough to understand what they mean. I completely missed them at first, and even after I spotted them, I didn't know what they meant especially since some of them closely resemble each other. I appreciate the fact that they still have the game information in the infobox. These are just the observations of a first time user. — Abdul ^{[T] [C] [S]}  16:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Walkthroughs

Do you think that we should add walkthroughs for each game like on Bulbapedia? Infernap (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, because walkthroughs are topics covered by our Community Partners, and Zelda Wiki's focus is more on serving as an encyclopedia, not a guide. - Tony^{T S C} 08:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K.. Thanks. Infernap (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Probation

I was considering ways to limit the amount reverts needed to remove poor edits, and I thought of a possible solution: for editors that consistently have their edits reverted, perhaps a form of probation could be implemented. Editors that are on probation will be required to first post their edits either in the articles' talk page or a sandbox. If their edits pass review with can be posted. Editors that have consistently had their edits successfully submitted with minimal changes to their original edits will be removed from probation.

Admittingly, this may cause too much work for other editors, but at least it will prevent poor edits being on the actual page for all to see. Not to mention making poor editors uncomfortable. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, but I hold the belief that communication and patience are effective tools for teaching poor editors to become better. Patience itself is a virtue that is all to often cast aside in favor of more immediate, but less secure methods of attaining goals.

To edit and share knowledge on Zelda Wiki is to express your appreciation of the series, or at least that's what I hope it would be for. However, to implement means of punishment for when unversed members attempt to participate completely contradicts this. It may encourage more efficiency, but it in turn discourages new editors from taking part in the collaborative wiki process for fear of a convoluted and restrictive means of contributing. I don't think that learning to edit a wiki is an easy task, and it's pretty much a given that everybody starting out is going to be inept in some way. Thus I think we would be scaring off many potential up-and-comers that simply need positive guidance every now and then when they err.

If we wanted to make sure that the wiki was infallible, we would prohibit editing to all but a select few of unquestionably competent members, and that's not the direction that I think we should go. So my counter to your proposal is that we should instead be vigilant to 1) correct the editor's error and 2) politely let them know what they can do to improve via talk page. Speaking from experience, some may take some time to get it in their heads and that consequently doesn't necessarily reduce the amount of edits that require reversion, but I believe the patience pays off in the end. - Tony^{T S C} 08:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Pakkun basically said it all. Such constraints defeat the very purpose of Zelda Wiki, and we should not be penalizing people for making poor edits. Any edit made in good faith is a "good edit" in my book. People should be allowed to learn through experience, and suppressing them is never a good idea.—Justin^(Talk) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Original Research on Glitches

Would it be fair to add a no original research disclaimer for glitches? It seems like the many of the users who add glitches seem unfamiliar with what constitutes a glitch. I've seen people add ridiculous things and ridiculously specific things to the glitch pages. Many of them are also written in an inappropriate and unprofessional tone (eg using words such as "you", or giving commentary on the glitch.

What I'm getting at is perhaps users that wish to submit glitches must also submit a link to a reputable source for glitches and/or to a video of the glitch. This would speed up fact checking glitches immensely. Also all current glitches should be reviewed and evidence provided for them. Any that fail inspection should be purged immediately. Champion of Nayru (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The glitch pages have been undeniably stagnated for awhile. The people who initially began the project have long since left Zelda Wiki, and it sadly shows. I think they could certainly use a cleanup. Maybe that's a project you'd be interested in heading?

I'm a little torn on the issue of "no original research," however. The glitch pages are an interesting add-on to the site, and I really like that we have some information that isn't found anywhere else. However... I can't deny that they're messy, and some of them probably do not work. My main issue is that not every glitch is documented on the web. Some of them are simply discovered by players, who then eagerly come to us and throw the info up on the site. For us to require them to document it with video or some other method sounds a tad excessive, especially considering that many players are kids who know nothing about recording, editing, and rendering video. As such, I do not support forcing all glitches to be sourced. We'll see what other users have to say about the matter, though.—Justin^(Talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "Original Research" isn't the best choice of words. I was basically suggesting at evidence must be submitted. I consider the fact that this weeds out young children a plus; young children are notoriously poor at writing professionally. Although to accommodate those who cannot provide a source, perhaps a new section similar to the wanted images page can be created that will allow people who find an undocumented glitch to list it, in the hopes that others can confirm and provide evidence. A shaky hand camera recording could suffice until a better recording can be submitted. Poor grammar and unsourced information is simply not becoming of a proper encyclopedia. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I find your eagerness to restrict editing very disturbing. This is a community, and we welcome all kinds, here. Our patrollers exist for the sole purpose of catching poor edits and improving upon them. While I don't disagree that poor writing is quite unbecoming, I fully and wholeheartedly oppose the notion that we should restrict anyone from editing simply on the basis that they are not incredibly skilled in their command of the English language. As humans, we have the potential for personal and professional growth, and we should never stifle an opportunity for others to learn how to better contribute. This is and always will be my stance.

I don't mind marking them as needing verification, but as I said, sources cannot always be found due to the nature of glitches. But perhaps the real root of the question here is "What makes a glitch noteworthy? Should we cover every small glitch? Should we only cover important ones?" We have no true standards for glitches other than what was written years ago and is no longer maintained. Maybe the time has come for us to rewrite our policy on glitches.—Justin^(Talk) 19:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)