Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 21, 2008

Italicize the game's name

{{editprotected}}

The game's name in the very beginning should be italicized. Gary King (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

What's with the Triforce image? How is this representative of the game at all? Isn't there a precedent for using more directly related images for video games? —Werson (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very representative of the Zelda franchise, and a key part of the game. Ideally i'd put it back on. Wizardman 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've gone ahead and boldly removed the image. I agree with you that it is at best confusing and at worst makes us look foolish. There's no reference to the image in the blurb and even the article doesn't focus particularly on the image (as far as I can tell).

It is not the logo for the game and doesn't particularly seem to be specific to this game. Anyone else who feels similarly (or differently), feel free to weigh in below. Cheers. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than no image, which is definitely less than ideal. Wizardman 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not set the image as the game box? 66.216.163.92 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair use. Only free images can be on the main page. Wizardman 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Copyrights, My greatest nemesis... What about link from the game? Forgive my lack of copyright knowledge if this isn't allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.163.92 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that doesn't work either. Maybe if I write pictured next to the triforce linked in the body. I'll try that out in a bit. Wizardman 03:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll try that. If that's reverted too I won't fight over it. I just still think an image is better then no image. Wizardman 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Image:Okarina.jpg? --- RockMFR 04:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That pic is MUCH better :) Wizardman 04:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no art critic, but that picture is TERRIBLE. The triforce represented the game far better, personally I think that the triforce and pictured would have worked rather well. On the other hand, it's not like my opinion is the best; if some pro-ocarina consensus has developed then I'm just going to have to avoid the main page for another 23 hours. M.Nelson (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the okarina image much better. It has more to do with the content of the game and gives people who know nothing about the game more to look at than some triangles. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's terrible. It in itself has no relation to the game—it's just a picture of a regular ocarina. I take it only administrators can edit this template? That's a shame. Graestan (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't properly represent the Ocarina of Time, which is what people may assume it to be. If you want to keep it I suggest making a note that that is a generic ocarina. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M.Nelson, the image is an eye sore. Can we at least use one that's in focus, has proper white balance, lighting, and a non-ugly background? Maybe Image:Okarina1.jpg? I know it's not blue, but other than that it's a much better picture. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that it's not the Ocarina of Time, and nothing to do with Zelda. Graestan (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right... Because that's a separate point. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments and have removed the irrelevant image. I feel that the Triforce image was acceptable but not particularly illustrative or valuable. If we must have an image, it's vastly preferable to the photograph of a random ocarina. —David Levy 06:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have no picture again? I give up, i don't know what's so scary about having an image on the main page. To me the lack of an image on the main page is very disappointing. Wizardman 13:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please put the triforce image back on? No one has contested that it's better than nothing. Neelix (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's actually a distraction when there's no image. - chicgeek ^talk 14:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? —David Levy 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contest that the Triforce image is better than nothing, but it's harmless enough. I've restored it per the above requests. —David Levy 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's so scary about not having an image. I understand why it would be disappointing, but to me, it's even more disappointing to see a semi-relevant image used mainly for decoration because we couldn't find a free image with significant illustrative qualities. But anyway, I've restored the Triforce image. It doesn't add much (IMHO), but unlike the ocarina image, it isn't embarrassing. —David Levy 14:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the image. It is not illustrative of the text and is not even included in the article itself. Main page illustrations (indeed all illustrations in an encyclopaedia) should illustrate text to the reader, not intrigue. If whatever connection there is is not important enough to be in the text, then the image fails. Confusing readers for some sense of aesthetics is bad. No image is better than a non-illustrative one.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree, but we appear to be in the minority.

In fairness, the Triforce concept is mentioned in the blurb, so the image isn't entirely irrelevant. It certainly isn't as bad as a random ocarina with no connection to the video game. —David Levy 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Please remove the image. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Can you please elaborate? I'd prefer that we have no image, but the decision shouldn't be based on a plurality vote. —David Levy 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's obvious that no matter what we do, it's going to upset one segment of users or another. I'm going to leave the Triforce image in place for the simple reason that this isn't my preferred outcome (because personal bias shouldn't be a determining factor). If someone else wants to remove it, I won't interfere, but let's not edit-war over something so trivial, okay? —David Levy 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reader comes first, not what users get upset. Since the image is confusing to any non-specialist, and does not illustrate the text, that ought to be an end of it. Keeping it because some wikipedians might get upset is the tail wagging the dog.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the image is confusing. As I noted, the accompanying text does contain a reference to the concept represented by the image.

I don't like the idea of including an image for decoration, but this one seems harmless enough. —David Levy 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get all the anger. The page does look better with the image there (although some would contend that shouldn't matter) and the triforce is mentioned in the FA blurb. Random 89 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing "(shape pictured) to (symbol pictured). Symbol is a more precise word for the triple-triangle. Fishal (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]