Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/Archive The Legend of Zelda 2

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)

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)

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)

GCOTW

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

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)

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)

And just WHAT is wrong with you guys? While I will admit I have never looked to wikipedia for anything serious, I am a fan of the Legend of Zelda game series. I origanaly came here to offer my thoughts on the storyline concept but clearly some one needs to straten this out first. To begin with, as with all games, characters and elements are based on concept, and the Shadow/Dark Link concept is simply one of the chalanges set forth to hinder/teach/train the hero. While no, the concept has no solid backing on the character, the simple fact is Shadow/Dark Link does not exsist! The implied creation is a means of pitting link agains himself or part of himself, an in game simaly to an internal conflict in some cases. My best guess would be that the replica is of the godesses doing. Whom better to prove yourself against than yourself? It has already be discovered that Japanees Mythologies influenced the game, so how many stories pit the hero or main character against him/herself in one way or another? It's an endless list. Perhaps in The Adventure of Link, the goddesses used such a spell to prevent the unworthy from obtaining uncontested power. In The Ocarina of Time, the battle grounds for the fight with Shadow Link is within an illusion, also of note, asside from some items, he knows all of your moves. Even if this character where to get his own page, it would be nothing more than a list of references to the hero. No matter who caused the effect in which game, Shadow/Dark Link is simply link. Now your references to the Dark Samus in Metriod? Irrelevent concept in argument. Dark Samus is an after-effect of Samus's envirioment, and thus an off topic argument completely useless except to confuse everyone. Back to the real topic, while yes this paragraph does have many reasons to avoid the listing, is also grants many to support it and in the wikipedia way, completely supports the posting even if the data is incomplete. For one, while yes, Shadow/Dark and the Hero are one and the same, Shadow/Dark has already established himself as a myth. I do belive I have see several myths in wikipedia, both VG related and non, so why not post the mythology of the Shadow/Dark Link? He has been seen in many games and will inevitably appear in more to come. If you start now, you can keep track of the theories and deside which one(s) make sence. On a final note, if your asking for addition proff, try my method, play the game and write the story down. //G-MAGE...wikipedian guest// April 12, 2007

"In all appearances Dark and Shadow Links mimic Link or copy Link's abilities to some extent, some more closely than others."...What? No!

A better point would have been "It's called the same damn thing in Japan!"

• AoL Dark Link is a perfect clone of Link, created by a wizard
• ALttP Dark Link's are more perfect clones of Link, being as they are not darkness, but they have MORE abilities than Link (Jumping Stab, for one); created by the Four Sword, the remnants of Vaati's curse on it
• OoT Dark Link is a perfect clone of Link, presumably created by Ganondorf
• OoA Shadow Links are only the shape of Link - more than one appears, and they have no abilities but to mimic Link's movement; created by Veran
• FSA Shadow Links are nearly clones of Link - while much weaker, and having the jump move, they can use many of the same weapons; created by the Dark Mirror

KrytenKoro 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Have any of you considered that Dark Link's appearances in both Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess are by far the most symbolic and metaphorical events in ANY Zelda title?

An unending room occupied by a solitary tree with an unknown opponent who appears in your absence. And of course the obvious symbolism of the cutscene where Dark Link appeared in TP.

If logic was the commanding force here, a Dark Link page would have been made months ago. It is more than justified.

But as usual, the power of a few elitists prevents logic and the will of most editors from actually happening. Instead, its just stalled here with endless discussion. Lord Zymeth is the only proponent of logic here, this "link to the past" person has blocked him for this long. Make the page. Wikipedia needs a democratic process, and the vast majority of editors are in favor of it, even if 3 elitists who do nothing but edit wikipedia aren't. Don't discuss it all day, make the page. It's not that big of a deal.

LOOK at the length of the discussion here! Like 10 pages of straight discussion, THAT ALONE warrants a page, CLEARLY to any reasonable person. Of course, reasonable people apparently don't control what happens in the Wiki world.

That's BS, and you know it. First off, he didn't technically appear in TP, and the black Link in TP is only meant to be a symbol for the Interlopers. As for OoT - WTH? He's given no explanation at all - it's just supposed to be dramatic. Even barring that, there's absolutely NO sources for us to use for those two games - everything we actually mention in his section, you an take from in-game quotes. TP and OoT would by necessity be pure OR, and likely wrong, at that. "Democratic process" - no, it doesn't. You need good arguments. No country even used pure democracy anymore - it's allowed to have a small input on which representatives are decided, and then ARGUMENTATION takes over, like reason would dictate. As for "not a big deal" - the article got deleted in the past because it was essentially a stub - people like you though "oh, he's such an important character that we can write so much about" - and then immediately found out they couldn't. What he has on the recurring characters page is about as much as we can wring out of him, and is in no way deserving of an article. While he IS an important character within the series, there simply isn't enough verifiable, neutral info for an article to be written, if any.

As for how much discussion it is - the fact that it has taken 10 pages and NOTHING has been concretely proven is actually evidence against it - if you can go through all that and still not produce a solid reason to create the page, maybe it's a moot point, neh?

Here, you want some actual proof? [1] and [2]. Not a single match for "dark link", unless you take out "legend of zelda", and use sources talking about html and linking. There's simply nothing to base the article on.04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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. Garrett^Talk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

References and Citations

There are currently quite a few Zelda articles with no citations. Please add references to the articles that need citations. Thanks. --Superneoking 20:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series page

Help is needed to solve a revert war on this page - neither side will give nay, and compromise is pretty much impossible (its a fairly black-white issue). Please weigh in on the page (the discussion is at the bottom of the talk page, the edit conflicts are on the history), and help end the war.KrytenKoro 07:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda en la Viquipèdia catalana

Hola! :) Abans de res, perdoneu-me que os molesti amb aquest missatge que no m'heu demanat. Sóc l’usuari Zant de la Viquipèdia en català. Us vull fer un proposta, que crec que es podria resultar molt interessant i a la vegada profitosa. Us proposo que col•laboreu i m’ha ajudeu en el meu Viquiprojecte: The Legend of Zelda allotjada en dita Viquipèdia en català. Al mateix temps, per iniciar el viquiprojecte he editat alguns primers articles de la saga The Legend of Zelda. Podeu ajudar-me de moltes maneres: a les pàgines de discussió, editant els articles, com a participants regulars, o com vulgueu, es clar. També podreu editar dels vostres videojocs preferits, dels vostres personatges predilectes, del manga, etc... de lo que vulgueu! Espero que aquest missatge no os hagi semblat una molèstia (si és així, si us plau, diguem-ho i ho tindre en compte pel futur) i os hagi servit alhora per conèixer una mica més la Viquipèdia en català i els projectes que s'hi fan.

Moltes gràcies per la vostre i fins una altra!

Hola de nou. Sóc en Zant.

Sisplau, no hi ha ningú que vulgui col•laborar amb mi en aquest Viquiprojecte: The Legend of Zelda? El cas es que necessito col•laboradors ja que que només en tinc un parell en la Viquipèdia. Si algú d’aquí m’ha ajudés li estaria profundament agraït.

Moltes graciés. Salutacions cordials!

...weh? Anyone care to translate?KrytenKoro

Twilight Princess

Just so you know, the Twilight Princess article is undergoing another peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive1 for another FA nomination. Any comments there shall be appreciated. Thanks. Sjones23 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda pjroject template...

The current Zelda template includes CVG project rating and importance, but doesn't show the ranking and importance (unless I'm very confused). The only way I see to know the class and importance is to edit the page. Also, class=NA does not change the word "article" to "non-article" (for categories, templates, etc.) as it does in the cvgproj template. Can this be fixed? JohnnyMrNinja 20:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We should remove "class=GA" and such. See User_talk:Scorpion0422/Archive_3#Multiple_templates, it provides an explanation. Greg Jones II 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FA drive

I will be launching an FA drive for Twilight Princess and all game articles relevant to the Zelda series. By all means, join me! Greg Jones II 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you need me to do?KrytenKoro

We plan to get the Zelda articles to FA status if we can, but first we could use peer reviews. Also, be bold. Greg Jones II 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Names

There needs to be a definitive decision made regarding the Intro/names of the game articles (specifically: Zelda 1 and 2). I'm sick of people completely overhauling it every week or so; and usually not for the better.

My feeling is: The introduction is supposed to be the part of the article that reaches out to everyone and gets them interested enough to read on. As of now: the pages state the name of the game (necessary), the name of the Japanese version of the game in romaji (potential useful), and the name of the Japanese version of the game in Japanese text (least useful); not to mention that various portions of the titles are repeated more than once. The end result can sometimes be nearly a paragraph in itself; one that is generally alienating and uninteresting to both novice and veteran game players.

There's nothing wrong with the information itself, only with it's current presentation and location. There's some good stuff in there, but it needs to be more concise, standardized, and it needs to be somewhere else in the article. (and not in the Introduction.) Zixor 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

-Okay, well, if no one has any thoughts outright, I'll just propose some of my own guidelines, and that will probably help to stimulate discussion. Zixor 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

I'd say, quite simply, what we have at the moment about the names is good enough; I'd merely put a note in there not to make any major changes without discussing it first, or something. But it's hardly like a paragraph, though. See what others say, first. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think that the way things are are good enough; for all of the reasons that I talked about. Additionally, it would be good to have some standardization among Zelda articles. -But, as you said, further input would be good. Zixor 03:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

Link (The Legend of Zelda)

Link (The Legend of Zelda) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --carelesshx _talk 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New template proposal

I wish to propose a new template. Instead of the convoluted mess of templates that we have now, I propose that we instead have one big template to make it much neater and easier. This is an idea for it (note that it is not finished yet, and the colours are going to be... improved):

Remember, that this is just a prototype template and is not finished yet. I would however, like to see everyone's thoughts on the idea. .:Alex:. 19:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Greg Jones II 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely suggest using {{VG navigation}} so as to fit with WP:VG standards. Axem Titanium 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Zixor 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding a place for Tingle since he is a well known characters and one of the few that still has his own page. --67.71.77.122 07:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's been merged. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It hasn't been merged yet, but it will be merged later on I think. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A great idea, but it would do better with brightened colours and maybe a slight increase in font size. The links across the top should also stand out more, and maybe be in lower-case, too. Holodrum, Labrynna and Koholint Island have no articles, either, although I have no idea what the demand is for such things. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It might work, just clean it up a bit and I could go for it.→041744 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, I didn't notice until now but the blue links are incredibly difficult to see on the green background, especially the category link. Axem Titanium 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything going to happen with this, then? Haipa Doragon (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

...Anything? This has gone somewhat dead... Haipa Doragon (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my version ↓. Thoughts? (EDIT:Redid colors)

→041744 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you could use {{VG navigation}} to implement it since that's WP:VG's policy. Axem Titanium 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then gives us a example of what you want, don't just whine about it. But seeing the size of this potental template, do not see how we can orginize it all without dividing up the links for neatness.→041744 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well don't look at me, they're not my policies. Maybe you could run it by WT:VG before implementing. Axem Titanium 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, my box isn't finished yet. I plan to make many changes including font, colour, size ect. It was just a prototype I wanted to show rather than spend many more hours perfecting it in vain. Seeing as there is support for the idea, I will continue to improve the template taking into consideration everyone's suggestions. .:Alex:. 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot plainer compared to the other one; the white space in the middle contrasts badly with the green parts. The bright green text is somewhat repelling, but it's all a lot easier to read. I liked the shading on the rows and columns in the other one as well, maybe you could implement that. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Phew, it's been awhile. I decided to have a go at overhauling my template. I've made numerous changes and added a lot more links as well. I also changed it to a MUCH nicer colour scheme. I removed the little navbar at the top of the template but I don't know whether it's better or worse without it. Take a look:

Any input would be most welcome. - .:Alex:. 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of colour, I would say I prefer your old one; the grey and pale-ish green contrast badly. It's a lot clearer though; the dark colours on the old template made it hard to read in places. I would recommend copying the old colour scheme to this one, then brightening the dark places to improve readability. Haipa Doragon (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I thought the old colours (which weren't in any way final) were a bit too strong. Is it better without the navbar at the top of the box or should I restore it? - .:Alex:. 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Without; it's a little redundant, really. Haipa Doragon (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My main criticism is that it's a little too big in scope. Just fyi, the locations except Hyrule and Sacred Realm are currently redirects so they can be removed to save space (Hyrule and Sacred Realm don't necessarily need to be on the template either...). The other thing would be to leave the characters on their own template. I can see an effective combination of {{Zelda}} and {{Zelda games}}, if that's what you're trying to accomplish. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How do Hyrule and Sacred Realm not need to be on the template? Haipa Doragon (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't exactly the main thrust of my suggestion so if you can include them without it feeling out of place, feel free. {{Zelda}} does it well. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good, but make sure that it includes all Zelda related articles, and cut most of the redirects, that will free up lots of room. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Article index

For the benefit of the project, I have created an article index to get a full look at all the articles covered by this wikiproject. Judgesurreal777 00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Items copyrights

I could probably help get pictures fo the reccurring items, but I might need help with copyrights. -FrogTape 22:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I make the same proposal : I have a nice collection of pictures (nearly all the item of Zelda 3). Before uplaoding it as Copirighted media, I would like to be confirmed that this is legal. thanks --Napishtim (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

At least 12 links of a suspected 26 were detected as dead, found on pages under the umbrella of this project. External links are primarily used in references and should be treated as though the references were missing. See parent discussion. Dispenser 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Link's Crossbow Training

According to the official presentation, the correct name of the game is The Legend of Zelda Link's Crossbow Training. The title of the article, and the name displayed in that article, are incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.138.124 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)