Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Before you go any further you may wish to examine Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] {{cvgproj}}

Please leave the WP:CVG banner on the talk pages. They automatically classify an article for the Wikipedia 1.0 project. If you could put {{cvgproj|class=|importance=}} back on any pages that they have been removed from, that would be appreciated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What if I combine the two two tags? That would be incredibly easier, since all tLoZ articles are also CVG articles. No reason not to, IMO. --NTDOY Fanboy 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If someone could merge the two, that would be great, as I'm not too good with templates and I want to keep the variables usable if the two are merged. Scepia 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: I put the cvgproj template coding into the zeldaproj template. I kept the core of the cvgproj template while customizing it for this project. I am keeping the CVG to-do list for now, but that may change, along with other thing(s). Scepia 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Now there are articles that contain two CVGProj banners. Someone (not me) should go through and fix this. Thanks! --WikiSlasher 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To-Do's

Do we sign up or ask before working on one of the to-do's, or do we just go at? Also, where is the to-do list that is said to be in this talk page? Superneoking 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [:Go ahead, you can help in any way you want! Thank you for your support. I'm not sure that we need a to-do list on this page, we have one on the main page, so I will add to the main one and get rid of the mention in the project. Scepia 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of beginning work - see the Epona page for a reference I added there to the Legend of Zelda series horse we know and love. Just because the name is also that of an equine goddess does not mean we are not allowed to mention a reference contained in some epic video games. --TheTriumvir 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing Up?

Erm... May I join the project, if that is possible? I know quite a bit about the Zelda Series, if that helps. I had made the Poe Sisters, Jalhalla, etc. Articles. Whether the question I asked is successful or not, good luck! I'm all for such a Wikitendo thingymabobber! --Dreyfus 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just add your name to the list of participants. Glad to have you! Scepia 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll have me, I'd also like to hop onboard this project. I too know much about the series. I also have plans for a few articles that I'd need some aid with in order to make them presentable... But I still have the information and plans. Thanks you. Lord Zymeth 10:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in joining as well.--Noah A. 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I will go ahead and add myself to the project - I'm very interested in helping out in any way I can, and it looks like we just add ourselves. Thanks, and let me know if any help is needed!

--TheTriumvir 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add myself to the project, if that's okay. Hope I can be of service! --Quijo 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be tossing my name in as well, I know a lot about the series but will limit myself to as many minor edits as possible. I'll be sure to run Major Changes through more experienced Wikipedia users first. --LinkBoz84 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll join the project, too. Just the other day, I had a craving to play Ocarina of Time on the N64 (which I haven't played for years). I don't know a lot about the series, but enough to add minor edits and several major edits. I can also revert vandalism in no time (with Popups that is). Thank you for your time and good luck on future edits! Sasuke-kun27 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll join, too! Panserbjørn 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will add my name to the project. I know a ton about Zelda, mostly about the enemies and characters. Pokemon Guy 13:25, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags

Hi everyone. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but given that it -- along with all the other video game WikiProjects -- is technically a subsidiary of the overall Computer and Video Games WikiProject, I thought I'd bring to your attention this proposal for the deletion of spoiler tags from all computer and video game articles. An in-depth explanation of the reasoning behind this can be found on the discussion page I've linked to (and a lot of additional discussion on the matter can be found in the places linked to from there, such as the spoiler warning talk page and this archive from it, in which a motion to contest the spoiler warning's Guideline status was successfully put forth), but to briefly summarize the reasoning behind this:

"In no way do [spoiler tags] actually contribute to the encyclopedia's purpose of being informative about subjects on a comprehensive level, and, in actuality, they're redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive source of information on a variety of subjects. This is...not a fansite or blog. Also, given that Wikipedia is not censored -- and, again, given that it is an encyclopedia -- what encyclopedic purpose are spoiler tags serving? The answer is 'not a single one.' We already have a spoiler warning accessible from the bottom of every page of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia need not constantly reiterate that it is an encyclopedia."

If all of you could drop by and weigh in on this, we'd all appreciate it. We really feel like we're working toward the betterment of video game articles on Wikipedia -- and the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole -- by pushing for the removal of this unencyclopedic content. Thanks for your time. Ryu Kaze 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzle game?

Why is Puzzle game being added as genre? The puzzles are part of the adventure genre, but are most certainly not making it a puzzle game. JackSparrow Ninja 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Link

I have a question in regards to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. Wouldn't it be better to have "real" screen-shots of Dark Link in the article as opposed to ones created with the help of a cheating device? Readers who haven't played those games may get the wrong impression that Dark Link can be playable by normal means. -SaturnYoshi 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Link (The Legend of Zelda series) has been put up for Featured Article Review, so if you want to help improve it to current FA standard, its there! I'll try to help out too. Judgesurreal777 00:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link (The Legend of Zelda series)

Link (The Legend of Zelda series) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have arrived from WP:FF to help with the Link article. I will be adding story references for the LttP, LA, OoT, and MM sections. I hope to get further involved as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integration with {{cvgproj}}

A request has been made at WikiProject Computer and video games talk to integrate the {{zeldaproj}} template into the CVG header itself. The newly integrated template can be seen here: User:Hbdragon88/Temp. Thoughts? Objections? --PresN 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The zeldaproj template already does class and importance... do we need more integration?!?! Scepia 05:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
See, that's the thing. The importance and class ratings should be and are already handled by the parent cvgproj header. It doesn't matter how important it is within LoZ; it's how important it is under the scope of the CVG project for Wikipedia 1.0. And this is one of the templates that I'm pushing to be intergrated - with cvgproj, NESproj, and this one, the talk page can get quite cluttered. Hbdragon88 07:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords DS into The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. The whole premise of this, that there was ever a Four Swords DS game in creation, is false.

If you look in the link in this articles references, this is what is stated in an interview with a Nintendo higher up:

GI: Will there be any connectivity with the Nintendo DS?

Aonuma: No there won’t be any connectivity with the DS. We do have another Zelda game up and running on the DS, but unfortunately, because our goal is to get this one done by the end of the year we can’t focus too much attention on that one.

GI: Is that Four Swords DS?

Aonuma: No, it’s not Four Swords. Actually, the interview that I was talking about a DS Zelda and Four Swords, I was explaining that with Four Swords we worked with two screens, and because of the experience we had with working with two screens we could easily adapt a system like that with the DS and do different things with it. But I never said that we were actually developing Four Swords for the DS.

In light of this, I believe this article belongs in the development section of Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. Please contribute your thoughts on the Four Swords DS talk page. Judgesurreal777 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge away!!! -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 01:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda Weapons and Items Template

Is it really needed? The idea behind a template is to link all articles of the same subject to each other for quick accsess. But, every item and weapon in the series is listed on the same page, Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. How much use could this temeplate really be? -- Jelly Soup 06:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have a comment? -- Jelly Soup 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's useless. Nominate it for deletion, right? Scepia 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Jelly Soup 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Translation Error

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (ゼルダの伝説 ムジュラの仮面, Zelda no Densetsu: Majora no Kamen?) This was translated into Romaji incorrectly. ムジュラ is translated to "Mujura" not "Majora", "Majora" is written マジョラ, Whether the title is Majora or Mujura is what I don't know.

I'd thought I'd point that out instead of editing the article. This is my first time as a member, but I've been surfing wikipedia for a year or so now, so sorry in advance for doing anything wrong. Christian TJP 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Christian_TJP

The Japanese name is "Mask of Mujula". It was changed to "Majora" when translated. So it should say "Mujula no Kamen". -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes...

Sraan and myself have worked hard to improve some of the older Zelda articles. Hopefully, these changes will be helpful to your project. Grendel 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging?

I think many of the articles that form the WP:Zelda series should be merged into their respective lists: Gossip Stone, Rupee, nearly all of the enemies (just take a look at Keese), most of the places/locations, Great Fairy, Agahnim, Onox, Twinrova, Vaati, Veran, and probably a few others. The lists, perhaps, can be made encyclopedic (although they can stand to remove characters GameFAQs guides might even neglect to mention), but I can't see justification for many of these individual articles. There's also the added benefit of making the templates less choad-like. I don't know how the rest of you feel regarding the inclusion of character analyses or location lists, but I think that WP:Zelda would be better represented by a smaller set of outstanding articles than a slew of trivial articles plastered with merge or cite tags (unfortunately, that's become the norm for WP:CVG).

Kudos to you guys who have taken mighty efforts to keep the Link article at featured article standards. :) --Tristam 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong with the locationstemplate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Zelda_places

Why is Termina listed on its own line in bold? It seems like a title, but all of the locations below it are in Hyrule. —Captain538[talk] 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ganon

This article has potential to improve and be of good article status. Perhaps we should work on it? ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

I have added a Zelda Portal. If you would like to contribute, please do so. here. DarknessLord

Is that Twilight Princess Ganondorf picture real? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Template:Dsig

[edit] Problem with Ganon article.

Basically, there are persistent editors without points who conclude that the OoT depiction of Ganon is "the best" and "portrays his character most" without noting the inherent OR and POV in their assumptions. Any notes about the consistency of the character and what makes Ganon cannot be regarded seriously by Wikipedia rules. Therefore it is best to stick to his most frequent depiction. There also seems to be a drive to place a poor quality and unnecessary in-game image of OoT Ganon in the article which goes against fair use image limitation rules as well as looks terrible. I also suspect that several users may even be using sockpuppets or hiring friends on forums to aid them in doing so and trying to sway consensus, not realising that Wikipedia is based on intelligent argument not sheer voting and persistence.

I would like if the article could be watched closely. Because OoT is "the best game" or "shows who Ganon really is" does not make it the most encyclopedic depiction, especially when the article is supposed giving a balanced overview of his character since the 80s. Pictures that depict Ganon in different ages are perfectly acceptable in (and are better suited to) their individual game portrayal sections. The entire article is in constant danger of becoming OoT-biased/centered.~ZytheTalk to me!

You have Wikipedia policy on your side so don't feel bad if you constantly revert them and then slap them with WP:3RR. Axem Titanium 00:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That's bad. Edit warring, regardless of if it's a clear violation of 3RR, is a blockable offense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet, there are exceptions in bad cases.
In which case, as said, you have Wikipedia policy behind you. JackSparrow Ninja 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majora's Mask

I just thought I would tell you all that someone has requested that Majora be moved to Majora's Mask, for those interested. TJ Spyke 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather it not be done. Lord Zymeth 04:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You can count me in as well! ALSO: OR problem.

As someone who's been watching at least a few of the pages in this project, I'd like to join it.

Now, as an imminent problem that I think could use some attention, there seems to a large amount of original research going on throughout the project, especially on the subject of a clear continuity between the games. Now, I'd be perfectly willing to believe such things if there were some sort of definitive, verifiable, and reliable source for this information, but I've seen nothing of the sort. For something of this scale, I'd think multiple sources would be preferrable, or at least something directly from Nintendo. Either way, I hope we can resolve this issue as a community, regardless of how it is resolved (Either sourcing it or keeping it out of the articles), and I hope to help with this project more in the future. -- Digital Watches! 06:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Nintendo Power Players' Guide for the Ocarina of Time gives a sort of timeline of the Zelda games that were released at that time. It tells that Ocarina happened first, then LTtP then the first two NES titles (I forget where Link's Awakening happens, I believe it was after LTtP). -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 06:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable... but do they have that from the team that produces LoZ or is it NP's staff's assumptions (Being an American publication)? Also, can you possibly scan this and put it on the internet somewhere so it's verifiable? Sorry for all the trouble, but it all seems fishy to me. -- Digital Watches! 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I got this from Link's article: "Miyamoto has stated that Ocarina of Time is the first story, followed by Majora's Mask, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past, with Link's Awakening falling sometime after Ocarina of Time." Miyamoto Interview. Nintendo Power (November 19, 1998). Retrieved on October 7, 2006..
The NP order was a little off. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Now at least it's not entirely unsourced. Could we work to add that as a reference to anywhere that tries to state a continuity? Also: Assumptions of ancestry, multiplicity or lack thereof of Ganon, speculation as to that which happened between, and the like are still OR as far as I'm concerned, but good that we've worked out what's canon about the timeline (Which thus far is only inclusive of the games mentioned, correct?). Thanks for the source. -- Digital Watches! 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twilight Princess Enemies

I noticed that some of the enemies off of Twilight Princess aren't included on the enemies page. I know a lot about the enemies that need to be there, but I could use a little help doing it. If there is anyone who knows about some of the enemies, I would love help. Thanks for the help! Pokemon Guy 13:41, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enemies template

I just created an article for Gohma (which, as of right now, is really lacking. Please expand). Is it cool if I add it to the enemies template, or is there a more complicated process for changing templates? SixteenBitJorge 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy attempting to have Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series moved to a gaming wiki.

Talk:Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series#Move to gaming wiki.

Relevant conversation there. --tjstrf talk 20:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with him. See my reply there. Axem Titanium 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GCOTW

FYI, the current WP:GCOTW is Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-15 22:19

[edit] The Legend of Zelda Series Races

Races of The Legend of Zelda series Needs alot of serious work. ALOT. it appears to be mostly Original Reasearch, and is much too long, especially since some of the entries are handled in other articles. I can't touch this one without some help or I'll go insane. DurinsBane87 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is really bad. I'll help. Unoriginal Username 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark/Shadow Link page

People have been debating whether we should make a Dark/Shadow Link page for far too long. I'd say we should make one. There is more than enough information on him to constitute his own page. Don't quote me, but I think he has the longest sub-article in the Zelda Enemies page. He is currently the only final boss character without a seperate page, I mean, even a boss as obscure as the Wind Fish's Nightmares has a seperate article, and I know for a fact we could make a darn good Dark Link page. I'd be willing to start it, type it up, and even get a few screenshots of him. Of course, all I ask is consent, as I don't wish all my hard work to be deleted by someone who does not share my viewpoint. So I'd like it to be official. And please, if you do or do not agree please say why. Thank you. I'll even give my reasons for having a seperate page:

  • -He's a final boss.
  • -He's been in 7 games.
  • -He's a very regognizable character.
  • -He's been a major villain several times.
  • -He has quite a bit of information regarding him.
  • -People have been wanting a page for a while.
  • -I'd be more than happy to do it myself.

Lord Zymeth 04:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


So I can only assume no one has any objections to this? I'll wait another week to make sure no one has any input. Lord Zymeth 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How could you assume that? Very many people would object to this. And Hell, how can you say he's even a minor character? He's a final boss in one game, a mini-boss in one, maybe two games, and a character mod in a fighting game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction. He's the final boss in the second game ever made, a miniboss (and a very complex and memorable one at that) in the first 3D Zelda game, A mod in a fighting game of course, and show up in a camo appearance in the newest one as well. Then, including his appearances as Shadow Link, he appears (In a minor role, I understand) as a boss aid in Oracle of Ages, appears as optional bosses in the GBA remake of A Link to the Past, and plays a pivotal role in Four Swords Adventures. I'd say he's made quite a name for himself, wouldn't you? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, he's quite a popular character, and a whole page could be easily made about him. I mean, no one disputes the Wind Fish's Nigthmares page, but that is even more obscure! I'd understand if I were to be making a page about Dead Hand or Arghus or something, but Dark Link is a much larger character than most would be willing to admit. And I admit there are those who would be opposed to this, but there are also many poeple who would agree with a Dark Link page. That's why I asked before making one, so that we could bring the argument to a centralized page and it could be fought officially. So more coments would be nice, from anyone opposed to it or all for it. And even so, I would at least like to try my hand at making the page, and if everyone absolutely hates it I'll take it down. Lord Zymeth 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction.

  • Zelda II - Boss of it, yes. But being the boss of the second game ever made - and considering he is a minion of Ganon - means nothing.
  • OoT - mini-boss.
  • OoA - Not the same entity as Shadow Link; just puppet creatures (and aren't even dark; they're brownish). The concept of there being a dark version of Link does not warrant an article.
  • LttP/FS - It's a completely different concept of an evil Link. Darker than Link, yes. But not Shadow Link.
  • FSA - Possibly the same as Dark Link and Shadow Link.
  • SSBM - A character mod.

And how do you mean, no one disputed Wind Fish's Nightmare? I see one person who disputed it.

The biggest problem with the idea of a Dark Link page is that there is no evidence that any one Dark Link is the same. FSA and OoT's may be the same, but that cannot be shown. Zelda II's may be the same as the other ones, but we don't know this. And SSBM is certainly Dark Link from OoT, but it's a minor, non-playable role in a spin-off title. The LttP/FS and OoA incarnations of Link could not be construed as Dark Link - OoA's are just copies of Link, and LttP/FS' are evil copies of Link created by the Four Sword - unaffiliated with Ganon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that all of the various dark variations of Link are different and you do have a valid point. The Shadow Link in LA may not be the same one in OoT. And I'm sure that the ones in OoA and LttP/FS are not the same enteties in FSA. But the article would be about the collective of evil clones of Link. Also note that when a single, powerful entity is referenced to, it is called Dark Link, and whenever multiple, weaker copies of Link are refered to they are called Shadow Links. The article would be about Dark Link(s) and the Shadow Links. Plus, the creatures in LttP/FS and OoA are essentially dark copies of link with black or grey skin coloration, keeping with the theme of the rest of their appearances. So the biggest problem of the article, so you have pointed out (and justly, I might add) can be averted with the fact that I don't claim that all the entities are the same. For the sake of this debate, I refer to dark link as "he" for convienience as there's no evidence against it. I won't put ANYTHING on the page I can't prove. For the sake of the page, I'll be including characters that are stated to be either Dark or Shadow Link and those who share their appearance. Lord Zymeth 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
But the only times where they're called Dark or Shadow Link are SSBM, FSA, Zelda II, and OoT. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the shadow Links in OoA and LttP should not be counted as such. They share the same appearance, and they fit with the trend of Shadow Links in that they (for the most part) follow Link's possible movements. The ones in OoA are the most tenuous, but they still share the roughly the same traits, they just aren't armed. A Stalfos behaving or appearing slightly differently in a different game is still a stalfos. And I'm pretty sure that the official guide to LttP/FS claims that the Shadow Links in that game are indeed Shadow Links. The OoA ones I'm not so sure about, but they at least share a likeness to Shadow Link. At the very least the OoA ones are a reference to Shadow Link. And even if they aren't, that's still quite a game list. (Oh, and I see that someone took the liberty of killing the Wind Fish's Nightmares page) Lord Zymeth 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The same argument could be used for a Dark Samus page to include SA-X - SA-X may not be a shadow version, but it is a clone, and it constantly pursues Samus, while Dark Samus is a dark copy and constantly pursues Samus. The idea of a Dark Link page only works when it refers to an entity that is consistently the same Dark Link - it would have to be, like, "List of dark versions of Link".
And that was me what did kill the Wind Fish's Nightmares article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured. But, regardless, SA-X and Dark Samus are completely unrelated and obviously different creatures of different natures. All of the Dark Links follow a set style (Black skin, etc.) and are clearly related beings. Oh, and most official sources refer to these various creatures as Dark Link or Shadow Link. The only one that I can't confirm 100% (I really need to find the strategy guide) are the ones in OoA, and I won't include those until I can verify. Lord Zymeth 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I found this out. http://zelda.com/universe/game/oracleages/walk.jsp Read down the the part where it tells you how to kill Veran. It refers to the entities as Shadow Links.

And this one http://www.nintendo.com/strategygallery?gameid=m-Game-0000-1381 refers to those four creatures as "The Four Dark Links." Albeit it throws a bit of a kink into the classification of Dark and Shadow Link, but the Dark Links are still on par, power wise, with the actual Link, keeping the trend. Lord Zymeth 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Different characteristics? What of it? You're grouping Veran's Shadow Links, which are, to put it bluntly, right around the level of worth as a fireball from a lamp in LoZ. And the four shadow Links are not equal in strength - each one is stronger than the last. The concept of Dark Link is to mirror Link - Shadow Link does not do that, Shadow Link in FSA does not, the four Links in the Palace of the Four Sword do not do that, and Veran's Shadow Links do not copy his - just his movement. No matter what is said, the idea of making an article devoted to unrelated evil copies of a character is absurd. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unbelieveable that someone would kill the Dethl article for the sake of improving their argument. Dark Link/Shadow Link has enough depth as a character alone to merit a page, and Dark Link/Shadow Link as a concept is even stronger. One of Legend of Zelda's greatest running plot elements is Link fighting himself one way or another; hence Dark Link's cameo in Twilight Princess that was not accompanied by a boss fight. It shows the epic struggle between a hero and his desires. This is an important aspect of Link, and if that doesn't merit a page of it's own, then why don't we take down the Majora article, the Onox article, and the Veran article. Heck, why not go ahead and delete Zant, too? He's a one-shot villain. Onox was just a minion of Ganon, right? Veran was just a minion of Ganon, right? Zant was definitely a puppet for Ganon. And what should happen to Agahnim? He was only in half a game. He's just another Ganon puppet. The point is that these people/things are important to the plot of the series and they get more coverage than your typical enemy. They are important and need their own pages. And if you try to kill those articles, I guarantee you are no true Wikipedian, you are trying to win a name for yourself by censoring a form of media that was meant to inform. Edit: Oh, and as for the comment of Dark Link not being the same exact Dark Link from game to game: I suppose you're going to say that each Link is the same exact hero from every game? Commander Regulus 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, That is why there is difference between Shadow Links and Dark Links. But the same basic ideas follow both of them, they are evil copies of Link born of Shadow, very similar to eachother. In fact, TOO similar to eachother to merit them being completely unrelated. Fine, Veran may have well created the four Links in her battle arena, but they are far too similar to the Shadow Links in the other games to be counted as anything less than a cameo appearance. And look, I have an official Nintendo source stating directly that the four Links in LttP are indeed Dark Links, and another saying that Veran's aids are indeed Shadow Links. And I realize that each Dark Link in that game is stronger than the last, but needless to say, of all the enemies of that game the final Dark Link gave me the most trouble. And you can't debunk and argument with the phrase "What of it?" You agree they share the same basic charactersistics. By your argument, all of the different Stalfos of the series should be in no way related to eachother and an article on a group of enemies of the same basic principle, of the same name, and of the same general appearance, is just absurd. Besides, I'm not sure why you are so adamant about making sure this article is never born. In our debate alone there has been enough information on him to make an entire article, and that's not counting any details or much of the additional information I, and perhapse even you, have. This article would bring no loss of information or loss of much of anything for that matter, only additional and more organized information. Lord Zymeth 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I killed the article because it warranted a swift and painless killing.
You are comparing a species of enemies from Zelda to unrelated dark clones of Link. And no, they're no more related than SA-X and Dark Samus. You cannot prove relation.
Are you going to present the idea of Dark Link being Link's "struggle" with himself? You cannot prove that.
And no, it's not. LttP, LA, OoA, OoS, TWW, LoZ, MM, and TMC do not have that concept. And do not bring up mindless puppets that only mirror movement.
And the "characters" have no depth whatsoever. At what point does "omgevilink" become depth? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, SA-X and Dark Samus are TOTALLY unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other. One is a phazon-hungry metroid prime who inhabited Samus's dark suit and exists to suck up as much phazon as possible. The other is an X parasite that copied samus's form and abilities. However, ALL of the Dark Links and Shadow Links have the same thing in common: They are all born of Darkness and share relatively the same abilities. The ONLY time a Shadow Link does not share Link's abilities is in OoA, which is probably becuase they're not true Shadow Links, just cheap nock-offs by Veran. But, I can't back that up so dispute it at your leasure. But in every other appearance they had Link's abilities, so the OoA appearance of them is ONE oddity. All I am saying is there is more evidence pointing at them being related in some fashion and next to zero evidence of them being unrelated. Also, there is no mere evidence pointing that all the various Stalfos are related than there is evidence for Dark Link(s). Both enemy types share the same universal name, same basic function, and same basic appearance. Yet you do not dispute the relationship of the different types of Stalfos, and Dark Link(s) have even more plot importance to back them up. I'd aslo like to hear input from the other WikProject Zelda members. Lord Zymeth 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could forgo the whole argument and let me stitch together a Dark Link/Shadow Link page and see how it turns out. I mean, it couln't hurt anyone in any way. Lord Zymeth 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And you know what? FSA Shadow Link jumps around and moves around at his own accord, unlike Dark Link from OoT, who mirrors his movement and sword attacks. If an article is made, to validate it would entail you use original research and speculation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But that once again doesn't mean they are not related. Don't worry, I will refrain from saying anything that isn't blatently obvious, such as the various beings being of the same general nature. Forgive for bringing up Stalfos again. The Stalfos in OoT were large heavy beings who would fight you with sword and sheild, blocking your attacks, taking many swings to defeat. The Stalfos in LoZ were weak, wandered aimlessly, and were nothing like their future counterparts. But they are still related and obviously the same type of creature, no? They're named the same, and obviously related. But, according to you, any relationship between the various Stalfos of the games would be complete speculation. Lord Zymeth 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Stalfos are a series of enemy. It covers the various types of Stalfos. However, you are suggesting a relationship between them. I never suggested that the Stalfos were related. The name more or less states that they are. And do not say that the name of Dark Link or Shadow Link states their relationship; it is a generic name for an evil Link. Stalfos is not a generic name - Skeleton is a generic name. Stalfos are all skeletons. LoZ had a skeleton with a sword and shield; AoL had the same. LttP had a large skeleton with a sword. LA and OoA/S feature Stalfos with a sword and shield. The biggest problem is that you cannot PROVE (not show it to be evident - PROVE) a connection between these Links. Even a basic one. You cannot even show that Shadow Link and Dark Link are the same (the ones that were made by Ganon). This isn't a court of law where you can find loopholes - if you presented the argument that if you have to show a connection between the Dark Links, there needs to be a connection shown between the Stalfos, no one would even bother with it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, there are obvious relationships with all the Dark Links. There is obvious PROOF that all of the various Links of the series are at least RELATED in the fact that they are all heroes of the triforce in some way. The Stalfos are RELATED because they are all skeletal warriors of the same basic function. ZAKU I's and ZAKU II's are RELATED because they share the same NAME and BUILD. The Dark and Shadow Links are RELATED because they are all evil copies of Link, born of Darkness, with the same basic appearance and purpose throughout the series. There are no in-game statements that directly state that one Link is RELATED to another, but it is heavily implied by stating that (in certain games) the current Link is a descendent of some ancient hero, usually implied to be another such hero named Link. If we were to treat Link (or any Zelda enemy, or even Ganon) the same way, you would not allow an article involving any of them. Lord Zymeth 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So basically, because Link and Zelda's (not Ganon - there's only one Ganon) articles state that, based on 100% fact found in-game and from the developers of the game, there are multiple Link and Zeldas, that gives reason to create original research backed up by a theory of one Wikipedian stating that all Dark and Shadow Links are related. They're just generic copies of Link created by different people. Stalfos are a series of enemies, a species if you will. Stalfos are related like humans are related. Dark Link is not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So wait, you mean to say that Stalfos should be considered a series of enemies and the Dark Links should not? Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument? Do you claim that ALL the generic Stalfos are similar enough to merit being considered a series of enemies yet the Dark Links (who are in all honesty mimic eachother more closely across the series than Stalfos do) are not? Also note that you are also ONE wikipedian, and this is STILL a conflict of two equal wikipedians who have clashing opinions. It is also original research to state that there is no possible way that the Dark Links cannot be related to eachother. And that whole contreversy can be overcome with a simple statement within the article stating "Whether all of these beings are related or not is speculation, but they do share clear similarities with eachother." Lord Zymeth 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

At what point am I ever required to prove that they are not connected, when you haven't even proven they are? The only good reason to make an article on the Dark/Shadow Links is a connection outside of the fact that Nintendo uses a generic "evil Link". And no, see, it's only a contradiction in situations where people cannot think clearly. Stalfos are the name for skeleton knights in The Legend of Zelda. It is obvious that they are connected, because the only connection that needs be is that they are minor enemies.
And it's not me vs. you, it's majority vs. minority. I know that I have more support than you would on this. Also, tell me what the article would be titled. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do ineed recall, I've been asking for outside input ever since this argument started, so I've yet to see this majority you speak of. If everyone in the wikiproject Zelda area gangs up on me to refuse me, fine. And just rallying close buddies just to thwart me doesn't count. Only one person has posted so far, and it was actually against you. But that is completely beside the point. Dark Link, in your words, may be the generic "Evil Link" you speak of, but Stalfos are considered Zelda's generic skeleton warrior. And the title of the article would be aptly named: Dark Link/Shadow Link, or perhaps one of those names with a redirect for the other. At this point, I'd like to insist on a vote that all of the Zelda Project members are aware of, and not just a vote that would be a contest to see how many either of us could tip off. So the whole project commitee should be aware of this said vote and the war that's been raging. But before the vote (if you would allow it), I'd really like to know, why do you have such a personal vendetta against the Dark Link page? Lord Zymeth 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and here are my proofs that Dark Links are at least a series of enemies(I will refer to both Dark and Shadow Links as Dark Links for convienience)

  • 1. Dark Links all share the same charactaristic appearance: A darkened version of Link, occasionally with red eyes
  • 2. They are all born of Darkness and magic, and summoned by one thing or another.
  • 3. They're consistantly named Dark Link or Shadow Link. I don't think Nintendo would name multiple creatures that are unrelated (with the same appearance no less) the exact same name.
  • 4. In all appearances they mimic Link or copy Link's abilities to some extent, some more closely than others.
  • 5. Dark Link is a reacurring enemy, one with a good amount of appearances.

Lord Zymeth 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly cast my vote for a Dark Link article. Oh and by the way, Dark Link is an embodiment of an epic hero defeating himself. It's called literary criticism, and I can very much prove my critique, unless you honestly want to argue that Dark Link is not modeled after Link. As a matter of fact, I believe the original Dark Link was LITERALLY the manifestation of Link's ill intent. Regardless, it's unimportant when viewed in the whole issue of Dark Link having a page in the first place. So, it's one vote "for," zero votes "against." Commander Regulus 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dark Link isn't even important. And while Stalfos isn't important either, at least it's a long-standing species, not an occasional mini-boss or "equivalent to a projectile" thing.

And of course you would request a poll of those with lower standards. You could always try to create an article, but I would AfD it, get a better input than from Zelda fans (ie - people who would likely WANT the article to exist solely based on their fandom).

And did you notice that no every Zelda species has an article? The ones that DO are long-standing creatures in the series - Moblins, Octoroks, Wizzrobes, Stalfos, etc. Dark Link is not even remotely close to their "stature" in the series. Not only is the concept of a dark link not even remotely as significant as most of the species articles, but you can't even provide a connection between them. Stalfos are all similar species. They are skeletons, skeleton knights. Shadow Link is the essence of Ganon taking the form of Shadow Link, Shadow Link in FSA is Vaati, Shadow Links in LttP/FS are the essence of the Four Sword. The only Dark Links that could be viewed as similar are Veran's and Dark Link from OoT.

Stop trying to use Stalfos to argue for Dark Link's page. Stalfos get an article because Nintendo created skeleton knights and called them Stalfos. Nintendo did not create a species of Dark Links. Dark Link in OoT is a construct of Ganon's. Shadow Link is the essence of Ganon. Shadow Link in FSA is Vaati. The Shadow Links in LttP/FS are the essence of the Four Sword. Veran's Dark Links are more or less puppets. They are only similar in concept - evil versions of Link. They are not similar in form or function or in how they were created. Stalfos are creatures that evolved as gaming became more advanced. In LoZ, AoL, and the handheld Zeldas, they were just skeletons with a sword and shield. In LttP, they were only susceptible to bombs. This went on for OoT and MM. And then TWW did the same, as did TP.

Let's consider the manual excerpts - who is to say that this information is official and endorsed by anyone who made this game? Dark Link or Shadow Link is a generic name. So will you please stop insisting that Dark Link should get an article because "evil link is a common concept" (which it's not; the only major appearances of an evil Link are OoT, FSA, FS, and AoL). Four appearances? Moldorm's been in three games a main boss, and the miniature versions of them have been in all handheld Zeldas except for TMC. They do not have depth, they are not characters, and their major appearances are as a mini-boss, and three of them are alternate forms of another entity. They are of neither of any importance to the series and are not a long-standing concept in the series. Would Veran be different if she didn't have dark versions of Link? No. She wouldn't have that conept in her fight, but no one would notice.

Oh, and will you stop with this "critique" crap? Do you even know basic Wikipedia rules? NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. For Heaven's sake, I've been asking for proof that you two to prove that Dark Links are connected, or of any of this "Dark Link is an embidoment of Link's dark self" or that Dark Link is important to Zelda in any way or a long-standing concept, but you have ultimately failed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That, my belligerant friend, has yet to be seen. We've all heard you're opinion, we've all heard my opinion. We shall get nothing proven or disproven by we two arguing a whole lot. I'd say we both should just stop here, and let others take up the argument. Better yet, with your permission of course, I'd like to actually create the article, leave it up for about a month, then see what EVERYBODY thinks about it. If you are right you have nothing to lose. So I say let the community decide. Oh, and remember that I'm not responsible for what Commander Regulus says. He's just voicing his opinion, just as I listed the proof above. And if you'll not its eerily similar to the proof Stalfos carry with them, marking them as a series of enemies. And Dark Link has been around for a long time. Please post back with you last input and whether or not you accept my proposal. Lord Zymeth 02:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Explain to me how they are similar then. The Skeletons that wandered around early dungeons in LttP are similar, so I guess they can be called Stalfos, right? But they aren't Stalfos. They're skeletons. And Shadow Link is not Dark Link. All evil versions of Link are different. If you argue that the concept of an evil Link warrants an article and not a series of villains (who have no affiliation shown other than being evil Links created by different villains), I'm sure you wouldn't object to a page for the concept of an evil Samus Aran.

SA-X - formed by the combination of an X Virus and Samus' suit.

Dark Samus - formed by the combination of Metroid Prime and Samus' Phazon suit.

So both are formed by a creature fusing into Samus' suit, and both are evil lookalikes who follow Samus endlessly. That's a stronger connection than the Dark Links'.

And if the article is created, it'll be AfDed. But don't worry - if you think you're correct, I should fail, yes? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I shall begin working on the article, and you can stick a proposed for deletion sticker in there at your leasure. But I'm afraid I think you're taking this a bit too personal. Lord Zymeth 04:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because your ignoring of arguments that do not suit your own is bothering me. You can show no connection that cannot be shown between SA-X and Dark Samus, you can show no depth, no character, and cannot show that the Dark Link concept is as much of a series of creatures as Stalfos or Moblin are. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already given 5 reasons that Dark Link is a reacurring, related enemy, and many more why there should be a page, so I've given you my evidence. You've yet to give me your evidence that states the contrary. But, regardless, I'll still work on the page. You ignore all my evidence and continue with the SA-X and Dark Samus plot, and ignored my evidence against that too. And what argument did I dodge? Lord Zymeth 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You dodged the fact that SA-X and Dark Samus are very similar. Your argument that there is a recurring Dark Link character is weak. Dark Link is a mini-boss, a boss, a "projectile", and you're classifying them. All Stalfos are enemies, and some enemies which have a different name are bosses or mini-bosses. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SA-X and Dark Samus, once again, are quite different. Harken back to my list of why the Dark Links are similar for references to what I'm about to say.

  • 1. SA-X and Dark Samus look drastically different, only their basic frame are the same. All of the Dark links look more or less the same, Link with blacked out skin and sometimes red eyes. SA-X looks just like Samus in every way. Dark Samus appears as Samus, only black with glowing blue patches, a more organic appearance, vissible toes (With claws, as well as her fingers), and more menacing details, such as the glowing visor. Her overall appearance is, while similar in frame and build, much different than Samus's.
  • 2. All Dark Links are born of Darkness and/or magic in some way or another, and are usually summoned by one thing or another. SA-X is an X parasite that touched Samus's armor and copied her appearance and abilities, and seeks to destroy Samus and release all the other X parasites. Dark Samus is Metroid Prime who's inhabited Samus's Dark suit, and seeks to claim more phazon to sate it's appetite and grow powerful.
  • 3. Dark Samus and SA-X only have the term Samus in them somewhere, denoting their similarities to Samus. Their names denote that one is a evil and well, dark copy of samus, and the other denotes a X-parasite who's copying Samus. Dark and Shadow are very related terms, the only real difference in meaning (namewise) is very little if existant at all.
  • 4. In all appearances Dark and Shadow Links mimic Link or copy Link's abilities to some extent, some more closely than others. SA-X mimics Samus to the finest detail, being virtually no difference between non-metroid Samus and SA-X. Dark Samus, however, has very few abilities that mimic Samus's. In fact, Dark Samus never really displays any ability Samus does. Dark Samus can fly, teleport, shoot phazon lasers, rain down pure phason, charge herself with phason making her invulnerable, and make big phazon shockwaves (in addition to a few I'm sure I missed). Quite a list of new moves. In fact, the only thing that she and Samus (and thereby, SA-X) have in common is the morph ball, and the fact she has an arm cannon (Which shoot projectiles quite different than those Samus has)
  • 5. Dark Link is a reacurring enemy, one with a good amount of appearances. Dark Samus and SA-X have only appeared once each, and in each of their appearances they are obviously different and unrelated enemies.

There you go. Oh, and I never said that the Dark Link in each game is the same. Now all I need is to collect all my data and actually write the page. I'll most likely get started this weekend, since I'm going to be kinda busy these next few days. Lord Zymeth 23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The creations of Dark Link are all unrelated. Shadow Link from AoL was created as a challenge for Link at the end of the game. Dark Link was created by Ganon to guard the Hookshot in OoT. Veran created them as projectiles. Vaati created his for the sake of constantly following Link and messing with him. But look at Stalfos - they are always the same. An enemy that is found in dungeons and forests. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - At least SA-X and were similar in logic. Each Dark Link has a different reason for existing, while both evil Samuses were created by a creature fusing with Samus' armor, and both wish to see Samus dead for the same basic reason (instincts). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're argument is now Dark Links are created by different people, yet still stand by your argument of SA-X and Dark Samus even though they're creation is even less connected? All of the Dark Links were created by magic and summoned by various magic users. That still constitues them as a series of enemies. Their primary function is still to kill Link, in which case they are all created for the same basic purpose, though, by different people. Lord Zymeth 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Now? I've never argued that "SA-X and Dark Samus are connected". I argued that if you believe Dark Link and Shadow Link are connected, that you have to believe both. You use original research to "prove" that they are a series of enemies. Is there any in-game statements to back up what you say? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I find this mildly amusing. Your entire argument has essentially been you stamping your foot and screaming, "WHERE IS YOUR PROOF!?" I can't help but chuckle as I read your posts. Zymeth and myself have given you so much evidence, Zymeth's argument alone seems to be enough to make the page. We could just post this discussion up here and we would have a Dark Link page. You just don't like the evidence, so you ignore the pink elephant slapping you upside the head with a taser gun. You seem to enjoy shooting yourself in the foot...

Shooting myself in the foot? Are you implying that the fact that your argument rests on the two of yours original research exclusively does not matter? Evidence is not proof. You never said "Nintendo said this" or "Miyamoto said this" or "it's stated in the game or in the manuals". God forbid that you actually do an iota of research. At what point is your opinion good enough to cancel out Wikipedia policy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Correction.

  • Zelda II - Boss of it, yes. But being the boss of the second game ever made - and considering he is a minion of Ganon - means nothing."

Do you deny saying this? And don't try editing this slip away, because I've already taken a screenshot of this and I'd be more than happy to post it on my photobucket account to show everyone what you really said. Anyways, I digress, as I should be showing you what is flawed in this crusade against Dark Link: Dark Link is most definitely NOT a minion of Ganon because Ganon was DEAD, and all of the enemies were trying to REVIVE him. So, he couldn't have possibly been his minion, especially because an old man created the Dark Link. So, technically, Dark Link was a minion of "Creepy Old Man." You also like saying that almost every Dark Link is a minion of Ganon. There's no direct EVIDENCE to prove that, especially for Oot. The four Dark Links of ALTP couldn't have been created by Ganon because you have to beat the game in order to fight those bosses. That means that you must KILL Ganon before killing the four Dark Links, so you're actually the one doing the original research, not Zymeth, and not me. Commander Regulus 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The very idea that you, of all people, thinks you are "beating" me is a lark. Are you implying that the Moblins etc. are not minions of Ganon because he is dead? They were working in his best interest. He may not be barking orders, but they are still working under him. And what the Hell are you talking about? If you had bothered to read a single word I had said, you'd have read that the four Links are the essence of the Triforce - and notice that I actually STATED that most Dark Links aren't the construct of Ganon's. And I like how you come to the logic that if anyone else does original research, you don't do it. Even if you actually DID do it, the fact that someone else may have done it automatically makes what you say not original research. By the way, the Dark Link cameo in Zelda TP is not a Dark Link cameo. These people were not "evil Links". - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I missed this one. You claim that the Dark Link in OoT was created by Ganon to guard the Hookshot. But there is no in-game proof to back this up. The same applies for the one in AoL, as it is, as Regulus said, clearly show that the old man guarding the Triforce created that Dark Link, so claiming either of these Dark Link's to be Ganon's minions is complete speculation.Lord Zymeth 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And, it is a cameo. A poster of MMX's Zero posted up in the middle of Megaman Legends 2 counts as the poster is obviously depicting Zero. Those stand-ins for the Twili wizards are obviously Dark Links. And, also, it's never said that the Four Dark Links are essence of the Triforce either. They are more likely related to the four sword, but even that's a little speculation. And our opinion does indeed not matter with Wiki policy. The only thing that is truely up for debate now is the relationship of these Dark Links, in which in this argument you opt to disreguard any evidence that is pointed out. You've yet to debunk any of the five peices of evidence that I've given you. Lord Zymeth 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Guess what? I can speculate all I want. You're the one who has to find something. So while we speculate, you get nothing done, I get nothing done, and I come out ahead. Regardless, we'll see how well you do when you realize that more people agree with me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkmate Lord Zymeth 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for announcing it for me. I almost forgot that I had defeated you. Your proof is nonexistent, so I need not give any proof. I'm not making the article, you are. You don't have anything to prove anything on the article. No one who's in the proper place to be a source has not done anything to prove your statements. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LandoftheLegend

I'm sick and tired of a select few people shoving this web site down the throats of Wikipedians. Even though these people have not shown that the site is verifiable, they still insist it must be used, even in the face of the fact that the site cannot be construed as a professional website - both in their stature and in their official status. Would anyone be interested in working against this blatant link spam? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons and items template

Now that Rupee and Gossip Stone have been merged into other articles as well, I think the {{Zelda weapons and items}} template is a little useless. JackSparrow Ninja 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that myself. I see two solutions: 1. Add in all the items we have cataloged or 2. Delete the damn thing. -- Jelly Soup 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was sort of my point/question: what seperate item articles are there left? Does anyone know? JackSparrow Ninja 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video game navbox discussion

A centralized discussion about video game navboxes, which may impact some or all of this project's navboxes, is ongoing. Members of this project (or anyone else interested) are invited to participate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy"

There was some dispute over whether or not the move of Gerudo Valley, Lon Lon Ranch, and Spectacle Rock to List of recurring locations in The Legend of Zelda series, where a user claims that because I did not get consensus, it was an improper move (even though there was no controversy to be shown, and the only one who opposed it wasn't even opposing it being moved). I realize that some people might find it controversial, but in the non-policy he linked to to show that I should get consensus for controversial moves, it also says "be bold", and I assume that it doesn't mean "be careful, there might be controversy in a potential future edit". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks like we're talking about minor areas/dungeons here, which should be merged per WP:FICT. If this is true, I support. (as well as filing a WP:RFP request because the admin who was involved in a dispute protected the page to keep his/her 'preferred' version) Hbdragon88 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He's new to being an admin, I think that as long as he figures it out, a warning should suffice. Whoops, assumed that RFP is a thing about complaining about admins or something. But yes, RFP would be fine.
    • Also, I was also considering doing it for Lake Hylia, Lost Woods, Death Mountain, and perhaps Ganon's Castle. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • These should all be merged into one article called Hyrule. That article should have an in-universe and out-of-universe balance; a section on common areas, development history, etc etc. It has so much potential; the actual lists can be transwikied to the Zelda Wikia and redirected to the Hyrule article to preserve history per the GFDL. — Deckiller 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I support the merge into Hyrule.--SeizureDog 12:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I also support a merge into Hyrule. It gives the areas much stronger interconnection than a mere List of. GarrettTalk 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What all should be merged? The three above mentioned, obviously enough. But what about Hyrule Castle, Lake Hylia, or Death Mountain? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Definitely all of them. — Deckiller 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of the Hyrule article

If all these Hyrule location articles are placed into the main article, here's how I suggest the layout be:

  • 1.0 Appearances (in real-life chronological order. yes, no "fate of hyrule section"; I recommend avoiding trying to connect these games via timeline because there are no reliable sources, this section should be mixed with out of universe information explaining the developers' inspiration, and so on)
  • 2.0 Demographics (races, etc. out of universe information may be grand here)

Scratch the entire Geology section and place relevant parts within the appearences section (such as Twilight Princess' mirror imaging, and so on) and the common areas section below.

  • 3.0 Common areas (keep this brief; each subsection only needs a couple paragraphs).
  • 4.0 See also
  • 5.0 References
  • 6.0 External links

— Deckiller 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyrule article

I'll start a rough draft here: User:Deckiller/Hyrule. However, I don't have much spare Wikipedia time to devote to this, so everyone is going to have to chip in if this is going to work. — Deckiller 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else is interested, I'm afraid it will have to wait. — Deckiller 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Zelda weapons and items

Template:Zelda weapons and items has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pagrashtak 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions to Midna's article

I have recently made some minor contributions to Midna's article. I entirely revised the Gameplay areas and moved some unnecesary information to Trivia. My reasons behind revising the Gameplay section was to make it seem more logical and sound more like a video game, while at the same time describing what graphically happens with Midna. I could help with the story too, but I will have to be more sensitive. --74.194.118.12 03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf Link

I have made some contributions to the Wolf Link article by cleaning it up a bit, but it still needs revision and may even need to be merged with a new article, the Twilight Princess version of Link.

[edit] AfD discussion

An AfD discussion has been opened: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masks from The Legend of Zelda series. I'm both the messanger and the nominator, so feel free to shoot me. — Deckiller 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series_b1c1.html"