Welcome to fedrix.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Universe of The Legend of Zelda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance)
Video games portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
WikiProject Japan (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance)
Japan portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Tribes

The previous article was not renamed because noone ever brought it up for discussion, and moving a page specifically requires discussion.

As for Gorons - in nearly every game in which they appear, they are called "the Goron tribe". As a whole. Exactly as my header would suggest. Their current header even includes that, and multiple discussions on the Races talk page explain that as well. Maybe...participating in editing an article more than just calling for its merge would answer these questions for you.

Instead of reverting this - do people think the section should be titled:

  • Demographics
  • Races
  • Tribes

?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. Yes, they describe them as a tribe. Do they call every single Goron as a part of a tribe? If so, revert back. If not, they're the Goron race. You cite each individual game's description of the Gorons in that game as a tribe, not "the collective of all Gorons".
  2. And your proposal seems to suggest that we should discuss Zoras, Gorons, Dekus, etc. in three separate sections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
To explain, as explained over and over on the original page (as I already mentioned) - the word "tribe" is used in every other game but OoT in the exact same context as "race" is in OoT, the only game to use the word. It is a translation from the Japanese word "Zoku", roughly meaning "species, race, tribe, or group".
In the future, please actually look into previous discussions if someone says "this has already been discussed". I checked into the merge-discussion section before reverting when you said there was consensus, and I checked all of TTN's talk-page edits for the last month when you said he had agreed with the merge. It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you asserting that removing content that has been unsourced for years is bad? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure what this has to do with whether we name the section "Demographics", "Tribes", or "Races". If you are referencing the discussion higher in the page, then I will reiterate - I see no point in encouraging your continued lies and misrepresentations, and I see no point in discussion between only two editors on almost opposite sides of the point. So long as you wait to "trim" the section until other major editors for the project add input, I won't revert the merge or add more info to the section.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash." My bad - it's too high of an expectation to assume that you can remember something you said five minutes ago in this section.
And this discussion is going in circles because you refuse to acknowledge any question I've ever asked you. Act as if you have any integrity and answer me. Like I said, that you did not give any examples of content related to Twilis, Minish, etc. that needs to be here and isn't already covered elsewhere is that it doesn't exist. Give me any good reason to believe otherwise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'll reply:
...I said "five minutes ago", that "in nearly every game in which they appear, they are called "the Goron tribe". As a whole." - exactly which I reiterated, and provided a more in-depth explanation. How is that forgetting what I said five minutes ago?
I explained specifically, with the Oocca as an example, which are not "covered elsewhere" on the page you said they were. In any capacity or definition of "covered". I specifically mentioned that "they created the Hylia" was an important facet of them that needs to be covered - AND ISN'T.
I have to ask at this point, since each of these points has been fairly prominent in my replies - are you only here to troll? I find it hard to assume good faith when you constantly accuse me of violating the guidelines, acting without integrity, etc., when I've already covered your objections exactly as you demand me to. You almost refuse to participate in actually adding or modifying content to the pages you "trim", claim consensus when the other editors participating in the discussion vehemently disagree with you, and generally act like someone who is either intentionally disruptive or incredibly negligent.
So, instead of me constantly answering your objections - may I have a turn at asking you to "acknowledge" a question, and ask you to explain these actions of yours?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash. Do you read? Do you understand English? Do you understand that I am responding to something you said in THIS VERY SECTION. Are you that inept that you can't comprehend this? That a statement you made in this discussion is 100% relevant to my reply to it?
  2. Why does it matter that I was mistaken about which page covered Ooccoo? The characters of TP SAYS THIS IN THE FIRST LINE OF THE OOCCOO SECTION, a fact which would have been obvious if you went to the page (funny how you criticize ME for not looking at the pages I mention).
  3. And no, I'm not a troll. For one, calling someone's edit lazy when they spent one hour assessing which should remain and which should be deleted, cleaning up the content of multiple sections in the merged section, is going to make them react. And continuing to react to the reactions that you coerced is going to incite people. You never explained what content about Twili, Phantom, etc. needs to be mentioned here that isn't mentioned anywhere else, you answered me with an answer that does not answer the question at all. And for another, editors? I'm almost positive that you are not multiple people, and I'm 100% positive that the opposition is just you. Act like a competent person, and actually discuss this with some integrity and not throw insults around and you won't get a negative response to your comments.
  1. Well, answer me this - is it lazy to not clean my garbage? No, so why is it lazy for me to not clean up the Races page's garbage? You were the first person to throw any negative comment out, and the fact that you have been consistently throwing insults my way absolves you of any right to condemn my response to you. Nice try on trying to dodge my question. Now that I answered your question that you JUST asked, why don't you act like an adult and respond to my freaking question? If you are right, why can't you even prove it by answering me ONCE? I have asked this freaking question so many times, and you have not answered me - TELL ME ONE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE HERE ABOUT THE TWILI THAT ISN'T ALSO SOMEWHERE ELSE? If you can't answer me, then you are wrong - so you can either answer my damned question, or accept that you're wrong. And Hell, thank you for wasting my time in your stupid discussion. If you want to be an adult and have a legitimate discussion where you don't play roundabout with it constantly, contact me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well for one, that you're yelling at me for "not stating which info is missing from x page". That's the info that's missing from that page. It's not on that page. Yes, you did later change which page you wanted me to look at and I didn't get belligerent about the change. I went to the new page you listed, and looked again, and stated what was missing.
It was lazy. There was discussion before and after in which I explained that I thought the demographics section should have a certain focus - and you even removed a comment to that effect in order to port over a few sections about the OoT races. I have consistently explained why such a focus is idiotic.
I apologize for only giving an example for one section, of why it was missing info, when I was trying to call for other editors discussion in order to defuse the situation. If you want an extended list of the specific one's you asked for, and not a general example of why this needs to have wider discussion and not unilateral trimming, it's on your talk page.
"Editors" - I am asking about your general behavior - you have exhibited this on the Enemies page, and are even complaining about the opposing editors here. You know damn well I was talking about that.
I answered with the Oocca, answered with the Gods/Spirits, and then went and answered again in detail for the Oocca, and then in detail on your talk page for all the others. I think that should at least qualify for "once". Calling your edit "lazy" and your claims of consensus "false" was correct - your claims of TTN's support are either lies or not allowable according to wiki guidelines (if he gave support off-wiki), and Randomran did not participate in the discussion or give any explanation as to why he supported a merge - It was a "Yes" and then a run away. Furthermore, neither they nor you had contributed at all to that article, and they were not major contributors to the project as a whole. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and quite honestly, they're opinions (if TTN even voiced one, which I still doubt) didn't really have that much weight. I have similarly been laughed at for supporting merges on articles related to mythology or medicine - and I didn't bitch about it and feign surprise afterwards. Next - your edit, in which you simply copy-pasted, then removed sections you did not like, was lazy - merging involves integrating the info into the style and context of the target article, and "merging or moving" articles is mentioned over and over in the guidelines as something that needs consensus and community support, not unilateral action - which is why I asked at the beginning for an "example draft", of how this could be properly merged. Instead, you started whining at me.
I hereby apologize for any time I have called you moronic, idiotic, or similar terms - except for the above two exemptions explained above, I will go ahead and admit that I was probably wrong, in a continued attempt to defuse the situation and seek compromise. As stated several times, I don't see any possibility for you to allow compromise or consensus to occur without brute-force majority voting, so I will try to leave the article and discussion until such a thing occurs, or at the very least someone else weighs in - even someone whose not a project contributor, even TTN or Randomran.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Way to apologize and then throw out a new insult immediately afterward. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
As explained in the above comment - I apologized for where I could be wrong. I'm not going to promise to always only speak well of you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
So, case-in-point, it's not an apology, it's a thinly veiled attempt to pretend to be the good guy, when in reality you've been responsible for instigating this entire flame war. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Link, you have just as much fault as Kryten in this flame war, but it looked like at least he was being the bigger man by realize the feud would go nowhere without more input. In any case, this discussion has shifted from constructive consensus to ad hominem attacks. The dispute already looks disolved, so there no more need to insult each other. Artichoker[talk] 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That he "calls for the discussion to end" in between throwing AROUND those ad hominem attacks, I mean, I might just be crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's not being the "bigger man", but someone continuing to instigate the discussion - I'm not about to let him get a pat on the back because he decided to be the "bigger man" by calling for the flame war to end in between his flames. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'm a jackass. To be clear, though, this:
"TN agrees, I agree, Randomman agrees, you disagree. That's a 75% consensus in favor of merging, and you're the sole dissenter, so at what point is it necessary to scream otherwise?"
Is what started the flame war - and the fact that at no point did you ever back up this claim, but continued to make fun of me for disagreeing with this. But just to make it clear - I'm not trying to be the bigger man. I was a jackass. I'm not even going to apologize for most of what I called you, because I still stand by it - so I'm an unapologetic jackass as well. But I'm willing to stop complaining about it and try to look for wider input.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least your honest about something. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Whoaho, seems like you guys are having a quite a content dispute. I won't even try to stick any comments into that dense text filled with arguing. Instead I shall respond to KrytenKoro's original question of what the section should be titled.

  • Demographics - Nope, the section is hardly demographic at all. The term "demographics" basically means statistical data of a population, including age, income, education, etc. I'm not seeing much of that in this section.
  • Races - This was the original name of the article before it was merged, and this is also the word I best believe represents the information that is said in the section. The section is simply of list of races in the Legend of Zelda series.
  • Tribes - The term "tribe" is more specific than "races", and I believe slightly inaccurate. Not all of the races mentioned in the section are tribes.

In conclusion, I believe naming it Races would be the most appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Aritchoker: races probably makes the most sense, of the ones suggested. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Races it is.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If were going to ruin the page by merging we might as well keep up with eveything that was established in the old article. Races should be the overall name and tribes should be used in the article which is what has been setup. however i think the pages should be unmerged. (see next article)LegendLiver (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology

The "formation" section, the God's and spirits section, and the Triforce, Master Sword, and other holy item sections would probably do better at the top, or in some way near each other, as ALTTP earlier suggested. I have tried to collect and clean up the main myths and legends on documents on my PC - ranging from the creation myth to the "Dark Rites of the Gerudo". If anyone else thinks it's a good idea to have a main-section for mythology, I can post up what I have.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Protest

There is no way that these pages are joining i fought to hard last time.I dont even care what happens im making a new races page and i like to see someone stop me.LegendLiver (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been posted. Races within the Legend of Zelda series. Please dont rule this out. The article will not benefit from being merged. The Universe page is already loaded with information and the former Races page will become neglected. I hope that those of you who still want a seperate Races page will join me in my cause and give citations. (my most recent page version, which i uploaded in case anything was lost in transition, does not have citations).LegendLiver (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask why, after many years, the article would magically gain sources? The sources simply do NOT exist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
What? The races article already has 36 separate citations. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
i personally dont have any of the sources previously listed if anyone knows which ones were listed feel free to post them.LegendLiver (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Instead of attempting to be disruptive, why not prove that the article needs to be reinstated, by addressing the sourcing problems at the last one? At that link, I have a copy of the page in its last state that I saved before the deletion - if you'd like to work on it until you feel it is in good shape, and then ask others to rate it, that would be more constructive than remaking and un-redirecting the situation we're at now. For assistance, there is a list of references in the archive here - if you could add those to the draft, that would be a good start towards making the page viable on its own.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, Gordon, clarification - there aren't adequate sources. Quotes from the games are not adequate by any mean. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Google News search:
Highlighted results:
Best in use for Minish section. This kind of sourcing would be best for Twili, Phantoms, and the OoT races.
This would be more appropriate for a lead-in, summarizing how races interact.
Also more appropriate for a lead-in, about how Link can sometimes join these races.
Google search:
  • Game Design as Cultural Practice: a blog post specifically focusing on the races at one point that seems almost professional enough to use for notability. At the very least, for sourcing, or as a springboard for our own summaries.
The rest of the results seem to be fansites, and anything useful would be one in a hundred. If anyone finds anything, great, but I think that ign/1up/etc. articles or excerpts from player's guides would be the only other places to find sources outside of the games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Link, what do you mean by "The sources simply do NOT exist." and "Quotes from the games are not adequate by any mean."? Are you claiming that the cited sources are inadequate to establish notability, or are you claiming that video game quotes are not acceptable for any purposes? In the latter case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games and the existance and widespread use of Template:Cite video game would indicate that many editors do not share your views. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Having dealt with this complaint many times in AfD's - the solution is not to quibble about sources, alone. The most important thing to do is to find as many usable sources as you can, and then it's up to the opponent to demonstrate they are unacceptable. The Races article might actually have some of this in previous AfD's. However, ALttP is right that the article needs a substantial amount of independent sources to establish notability - take what I listed above, and try to go further with it.

To throw in my two cents, the problem with an independent article is that it will not meet WP:V and WP:N. According to WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And according to WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Basically, we need sources on the races that don't come from instruction manuals, game guides, and the game itself. It has to be covered by some independent video game journalists or scholars. That's the same standard we hold for all our articles. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...yeah...eight or so independent sources above that could almost certainly be used to help demonstrate notability. I'm really having trouble understanding this pervasive mentality in fiction articles that independent sources almost never exist - especially for international brands like this, they most certainly do, and the problem is only in looking.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I think we should use a more official map at the top of the article, such as the one from Ocarina of Time. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If we can find one. Don't forget, it's probably copyrighted. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.68.234 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the Races section

Well, the page is getting pretty big, so we need to reopen discussion.

My proposal of what to trim...

  1. Anouki tribe - Should be covered in PH's plot summary.
  2. Cobble - Same as above.
  3. Fishman - Only relevance is in gameplay for TWW.
  4. Goblins - Very few goblins act as characters or in a tribal function, and are covered in the enemies page.
  5. Golden Frogs - Only relevance is in gameplay for PH.
  6. Ho Ho Tribe - Minor appearances in only two games.
  7. Wind Tribe - Adequately covered in plot of TMC and characters of TMC.
  8. Koroks - Should be mentioned in characters of TWW article and in the plot for TMC, but could be mentioned shortly in Kokiri's section.
  9. Merfolk - Pure original research. It attempts to make a connection that does not seem to exist, making reference to someone who isn't even a mermaid to establish that merfolk recur.
  10. Oocca - Covered in characters of TP and the plot of TP.
  11. Rito - Should be in TWW's characters list and plot section, but could be mentioned in Zora's section.
  12. Spirits - It's not really a race. It should be covered somewhere else in the article.
  13. Subrosians and Salona - The connection between the two is speculative.
  14. Tokay - Only one game.
  15. Twili - Covered in TP's plot.
  16. Yamatami tribe - Only one game.
  17. Yeti and Yook tribe - Only one game for each.
  18. Zuna - Only one game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Minor tribe with no real impact in the story, sure.
  2. Slightly less minor, but not much more.
  3. Sure.
  4. In TWW they are given a lot of screen-time as a functioning culture, it's just they aren't shown talking to Link. I think this should be kept.
  5. Sure
  6. Sure
  7. The Wind Tribe are a fairly major part of the backstory in TMC, and I feel they should be kept here. They're not really "characters" anyway.
  8. Same as above - they should be combined with the Kokiri, though
  9. Sure
  10. Oocca - very important in the series universe. Should be kept.
  11. Unfortunately, the link to Zora still isn't accepted by everyone, and it's only strong evidence - never an outright claim. So it should stay separate, with some mention of the evidence.
  12. Sure.
  13. Subrosians are quite important, having their own world, and a huge part of the Oracle plots.
  14. Sure
  15. But they should be covered here, since they are a huge part of the Triforce backstory
  16. Sure
  17. Sure
  18. Sure

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way - the Animal Tribe was first "united" in Link's Awakening, so it's not OR. It is also a reoccuring part of the setting. If the animal's do end up removed, though, the Monkey's should get a split section, as they're even shown with a monarchy-ish.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The Minish are also incredibly important to the backstory.
Animal Tribe is only in one game, though. And the Minish are already covered adequately in the characters for TMC page and TMC itself. If Minish needs to be covered, it shouldn't be as a race. By the sheer fact that Minish's character section on the TMC character list is very similar, keeping it on the Races section is too redundant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that I don't think they should be on the character lists, especially if they're a major story-important race. I can see it as somewhere to put the one-off minor races we don't want to cover here, but the ones that set up the cosmology, though only appearing in one game, are often used to explain mysteries in other games, or otherwise effect the setting of the other games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of Moblins, it's already covered in almost the same capacity on the enemies page, which means we have to remove this one or that one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd remove it from there, since the way things are looking, that one's going to be ganked anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
If, ah, if we're going to nuke the character articles, specifically their coverage of the less-primary races, we probably need to bring that coverage back here. Why was this suddenly done, actually?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Which characters, exactly, do you make reference to? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The Cobble and Anouki on the PH page, for example. As I understood it, we removed them from here because they weren't integral to the overall series plot, and so could be left in the individual game character lists.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Or we could seperate the pages again and create a new page that way the information could all be in one place! (like it was before)LegendLiver (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excess images

I kind of get why we have several Hyrule Castle images, since the article discusses the stylistic changes, even though 3 for one landmark seems slightly excessive. However, the Lost Woods image really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article. Is there anything we can replace it with?

Also, can we get a Death Mountain image, possibly the long-view one from OoT, with smoke around the peak? Especially if we could get a child and adult version, we could justify that as depicting the changes Ganondorf wrought.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we even really need an image for the Lost Woods? I'm hard pressed to think of a shot (in-game) that would show anything but some trees. I would tend to disagree with removing the picture for Spectacle Rock, at least until we can get better shots of Death Mountain from OoT. Hermione1980 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The Spectacle Rock image is of little use to this article, and doesn't depict Death Mountain very well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
True, but it's what we have at this point. That's the only reason I said what I said. If it's going to be removed from this article, it probably needs to be deleted, as it is a fair-use image not being used currently in any article. Hermione1980 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminans?

I don't mean to go on a rant here, so don't take it that way. I realize now that, since the term "Terminans" isn't used by reliable sources, according to the policies, it shouldn't be included. However, I feel there should be some mention, as many people call them Terminans and think it silly to call them Hylians, as "HYlian" sounds like "HYrule" and hence, is assumed to mean someone in Hyrule. Zeldapedia has an article for Terminans, and though I understand Wikipedia is broader, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any trace of the term (inans, LOL) on the site. I checked a MM text dump, and they aren't ever called Terminans OR Hylians. Fans that look in this article will have no idea what to call them still.

Do you get what I'm saying? If you don't want to have any mention, however, that's fine with me, as long as you have a better reason to counter mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.68.234 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the revert comment, the prologues (especially in Twilight Princess) make it clear that Hyrule is named after the race, not before. Thus, there is no reason to call the MM version "Terminans" after their kingdom, when their Hyrulian counterparts are named after, well, themselves. The only reasoning behind using "Terminan" would apply to every character in MM, including the Goron's, Gerudo's, Zora's, and Deku. Zeldapedia is simply wrong on this account.
On a further note - whether or note this explanation had been given, it is an iron-clad policy that information is not made up on wikipedia, no matter how many people like it. If it cannot be sourced to a stable, reliable source, it simply does not get added to an article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The entiere land itself is called termina so you are right in saying they all are.  rdunnPLIB  11:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to go against Wikipedia's policies on this, but on a side note, why does that policy exist anyway if Wikipedia itself isn't considered reliable? Is it the hope that it will be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.68.234 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you got it. Just because all the academics in the world think Wikipedia's crap, doesn't mean we can't strive for better. Hermione1980 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gerudo Valley

Should this be renamed to something generic, like "Desert"? The name "Gerudo Valley" is only actually used in one game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is never refered to as "Desert" either so it would not be a correct name. The location usually corresponds to the Gerudos and it has close to the same geography so if you think about "Gerudo Valley" is a generic name for that location. LegendLiver (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet... the name's never used outside Ocarina of Time. "Desert" seems like a generic enough name to me, although it seems somewhat assumptive to classify all desert regions in the series. The section's very undernourished, anyway, in terms of sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the desert areas in the game are named for or involve the gerudos. Since there is no definitive name we should leave it the same until a name can be desided upon that isnt desert.LegendLiver (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Keaton

Keaton redirects here, but I can't find anywhere a entry of it. OboeCrack (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the word doesn't appear anywhere in the article according to Firefox's find function. Would you consider it notable? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. They are a race in the game, after all... but then, they appear all of, what, three times? In only one game (Majora's Mask)? And otherwise only get a cameo as a mask in Ocarina (albeit a cameo mandatory to complete the game - that guard won't let you into Death Mountain unless you give them the mask). There's not much information to go by with them.
I mean, I'd support their addition, but their role is incredibly marginal, so I don't know if other people would feel the same way. Either way, I've beaten Ocarina, but not played Majora's far enough to see this fox guy, so somebody else is better off doing the addition. --Shadow Hog (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

-- They also are the name of an enemy in Minish Cap which looks loosely based on the dark world thieves of Link to the Past though the latter doesn't harm you the way they do in Minish Cap--98.233.221.217 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs