Forum:Concerning battle articles

Forums: Index → Watercooler → Concerning battle articles

The voting has ended. By a large majority, the battle articles have been voted out and will be removed. Their valid information will be moved to appropriate pages. Thank you to all who participated in the voting.

Going through the battle pages I noticed that most are very factual about the timeline. This simply isn’t a loud and when I think about it what’s the point in all these articles? They contain massive spoilers for people who haven’t played the game and they don’t really provide any info on the universe of Zelda. If someone wants to find out about the story of a game let them do it the proper way by playing the game. Besides we already have an abridged version of the story on the games main pages. basically what I am proposing is to either remove these articles or rewrite them so that they are non factual about the time line.

Votes for removing battle articles

Support: I have always thought these were pointless. I am fine with the War articles being here, but the battles are simply fanfiction, and do not belong on an encyclopedia; there is a Zelda fanon, for a reason. Most of the information in these articles can be found in various other articles in a more clear, encyclopedic way anyway. I know this is a tough issue that will never have everyone thinking the same way, but I suppose that is why a vote is in order. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support:Yeah, the incompleteness of this bothers me.

There is only them on OoT WW TP and MM. Other than that, its like nothing. Remove em. For all we know, TP is first :/ UberPhoeb 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Yeah, I've never really liked these. They rely too heavily on our "Timeline," which, as logical as it may seem, is not fact and as such, should not be treated as fact. All they really do anyway is tell the story of the game, which is taken care of by the game articles as Oni said. I'm not too fond of the War articles either though.—Triforce 14 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: The dungeon articles have a story/spoiler section for those who do want a little more in-depth so i don't see why a whole story-telling walkthrough is necessary. I feel sorry for those who put a lot of effort into these battle articles, but they are pretty much useless and are totally fanfiction, not facts. Katamariqueen (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Fanon goes to Fanon Wiki. --Bek (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support:the battles are too open to interpretation (i.e., the way people interpret Link's facial reactions.}} Not only that, but they do seem a bit fanon-ish. --Moblin Slayer^{(Working on it...)} 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Placed in the Wrong wiki I bieleve ZF wiki is better--Power courage wisdom and time (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: This isn't exactly "fanfiction" per se as everyone is saying, but it's still based entirely on one's views and opinions on the Legend of Zelda Universe (namely Hero of Time 87's). Also, we don't really need stuff like that on this wiki in the first place. All we need is a short summary on the given game's page. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: I love stories. But let's tell them in some other place. Besides, I wouldn't call a whole trek through a temple a "battle" or a "war" per se, when I think of looking for that one room with the spare small key, it doesn't strike me as a "war" with "commanders/generals" like Morpha and Link or whatever. Portal-Kombat

Support: Can they even be called battles? To me, quite a few of 'em just seem like minor duels (sometimes with more than 2 combatants) or something. Diachronos (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: stop the war! and if you cant do that then stop the battle! (is dragged of the stage) Oni Dark Link 10:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Mr kmil

Support:I say remove 'em Green hat (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Mr.Green hat

Support:The battle articles are redundant; all the information in them can be found in their respective game articles, and without the theoretical embellishments, to boot. (I think we should keep the war articles, however.) Jedimasterlink

Support: Most of these articles are just romancicized versions of the dungeons and events in the games. Most of them aren't even noteworthy. I say we give them the axe. Sincerely, Watcher.

Support: I think that we should definitely keep the actual, like, official events, such as the Hyrulean Civil War and the Great Flood, which are obviously factual, no matter what we do to the rest of the wars. As for the battles... worthless. The information should be moved to their respective dungeon articles, then deleted. Lisa URAQT

Support:I support this idea.Some of those articles are pointless and don't belong here.--Zelda phoenix the heroine of time 05:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: I say we keep the war pages like rise of the hero of winds but lose the battles as they're pretty much a chunk of the war pages.Midna Rocks

Support: I must say, although I have never ever seen the point in the war articles in general due to various reasons I've given you many times in the past. But I guess keeping them makes more sense than these random battle articles that are 90% manure and 10% illiteracy. Keep in mind that there is in fact a 10% margin of errors. Zap 'em boys. --AuronKaizer! 19:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support:The articles are just muddled messes.Xepscern

Support:No battle articles! I'm probably just going to be removed...Go being out of your depth! --DekutullaZM (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support:we all know i'd winDRTJR (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)DRTJR

Support:They seem pointless. I think that whatever unique information they have should be moved over to the main article. Do we need two articles for every dungeon? I don't think so. Edit: I agree that articles about real wars (like the civil war) should be kept because those are unique. --MoscowModder 13:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support:Get rid of the battle articles, but keep the war ones, those are worth it. (Darknut15 (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Votes for rewriting battle articles

Support: Battle articles are fun to write, and, if they tell their story correctly can be very helpful to people, I think. If we got rid of all of the spoiler information for stories, then this would just be an advanced version of GameFaqs. Fine, get rid of the timeline reliance, but if the stories of the "battles" are told in a good way, then a person can learn the story behind some zelda games that may be somewhat difficult to find, or that they simply don't have the time to play. Even though merging the battle articles with their dungeon's pages, may not be a bad idea either. Dialask77 Ice Wizard 19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: At least rewrite them so it is less confusing, and remove the ones that are about a dungeon or something that is irrelevant. If you have to delete some, at least leave the Great Cataclysm article. ReddFighter (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: I agree with ReddFighter: At the very least, give users a chance to adress and fix all the faults and flaws in the battle articles before deciding whether or not they should be deleted. Someone said that this isn't the place to tell stories. Well, the battle artices can be written in story-fashion and still remain perfectly relevant, professional and time-line neutral. If they are a little witty and contain some comical wordplay; well, that only makes it so much better and more fun to read, as long as all the other conditions are given priority. And once this is done, the articles are an asset to the site — They will be there for those who enjoy reading and/or edit them. Honestly, the last thing I want to read is some cheesy poor man's version of the same "battle" from Zelda Fanon Wiki or something like that. Gaswild (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes for keeping the battle articles

Support: This is a great way to explain the timeline for Zelda games! Twilightwizard0309 (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That's exactly the problem. In no way is the timeline official, and these shouldn't be reliant upon them.—Triforce 14 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: They're fun to edit and make and quite frankly good way to kill time. Also containing the spoilers is a completely and utterly pointless reason to support the removal because this site is chock full of spoilers. If users don't want to see spoilers they wouldn't be looking at this site or if they don't want spoilers for games they haven't played yet, they wouldn't be looking at those pages. Response to XYZ: True dat. But some of them could actually be helpful to newcomers on those little things that characters do that not many people can understand (i.e. when I first played Wind Waker I didn't know what Ganondorf was playing at during his "5 seconds of sympathy"). --Flashpenny (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We can't keep something just because it's fun to edit. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 08:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: if you wnat it for fun then you can start a sub article of them for yourself. Oni Dark Link 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: I think we should keep them but take out the non-canon/timeline parts. Cheetacuz007 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment While it's true that they contain spoilers that may ruin some people's playing experience, some people don't care about spoilers. They actually like them. User:Bkarcher97/Sig

Support: I don't think that information on an encyclopedia should be limited. Granted, there are some battle articles that need some work to make them completely accurate, but the battle articles are a great way of showing events in the Zelda universe. Whether or not they're irrelevant should be up to the readers. But there should always be the option to read. - User:swordsmanr

Support: Though I haven't written in them, I can imagine how fun they are to write. And if you need a way to kill time, these articles are a great way to read about a game you love. People who are on this site are bound to encounter spoilers, and if they really don't want to see them they should just avoid the battle articles.Amy (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't even know what "battle articles" are, but if even a small portion of users like them, I think they should be allowed to stay. It's only fair, and its not like they're dangerous, right? - User:Kamari no Hyrule

Comment: I never understood this viewpoint. Like what does that mean its not dangerous or its not hurting anyone? An article on Abraham Lincoln wouldn't be hurting anyone either, but its not appropriate for this wiki. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We should not delete sections of the articles as they are now. The more information, the better. If you want to learn about a game or a story and you know that an article contains spoilers, you shouldn't read it. So why not create spoiler-free articles? You could refer to them at the top of an article, hyperlinked. Like 'Click here for a spoiler-free article on this subject'. GagaMarkus (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I like the battle articles. They are fun to read, and give a little insight on things you never thought of for that particular section of the game. I hope they can stay! Princess of Music (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

If we're keeping the war articles, we have to go through them and remove timeline references correct?—Triforce 14 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty confused over the war articles. If this vote ends up being delete, should we keep all the wars, or only the ones that are officially named, i.e. Impriosoning War, Great Flood (not really a war but okay), Hyrule Civil War, etc.? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

id say so. get rid of the ones like Salvation of Termina and the War of the Wizard. Oni Dark Link 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All that work on war of the Wizard Battle articles for naught... Dialask77 Ice Wizard 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a wiki. You knew what you were getting into when you first contributed. Stuff gets changed, removed, added, et al.--Bek (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. When you say battle articles do you mean ones like the Battle of the Kokiri Forest, or ones like the Rise of the Hero of Winds? If so I would support what the first one I said (with a few exceptions for real, notable events like Siege of Hyrule Castle or Ganondorf's Execution). However I not sure about the second one. After all is Zant's Invasion of Hyrule anymore of a war than the Salvation of Termina? After all both of them are really just Link fighting against hordes of bad guys on his own, not a true war.

Either way I like the idea of getting rid of all the fanon/timeline speculation stuff. This Wiki shouldn't present that stuff as official unless it can be proven for sure.-ShutUpNavi (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

how about when one section gets to 30 votes we close it? Oni Dark Link 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I move that this poll be closed due to an insurmountable lead for the first option. 22 votes to 2 votes to 4 votes is not really something that can be overcome unless there's a whole lot of sock- and/or meat-puppetry.--Bek (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Although waiting may be the most fair, I think sock puppetry may start taking place very shortly, if it has not already. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I say we close the voting, as almost all the active users have voted. Before we start deleting things though, we have to take care of all the links to the pages and move appropriate information to appropriate pages.—Triforce 14 17:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on the other hand the notice has only been up for less than 5 days. Give it a couple more days to make it a solid week and we'll cut it.—Triforce 14 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to just put the battle articles in the war articles, since the battles are kinda interesting, so putting it inside the war articles would make the war articles even MORE interesting--Shade Link (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wars should go too unless they are officially named. And the ones that are officially named tend to not be seen in-game (Civil War, Great Flood, etc.). The ones that arent officially named are simply the events of an particular game and are no better than the battle articles, as they area romanticized verison of the game's article. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll cut off the voting tonight before I go to bed, as suggested by the sitenotice. Won't make a difference or anything but for all fairness... Joe I trust that if you start deleting the articles you'll go through and move valid information to the appropriate pages?—Triforce 14 23:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'll do that. But are we deleting everything with a "Battle" category? And when should I start, tonight whenever you close this? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah everything in the battles area. I won't start anything until tomorrow, but you can start once I close it.—Triforce 14 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if this was already answered above, but what are we doing with articles like Storming the Palace of Twilight and Attack on Hyrule Castle? Are these staying because they're featured articles, or are they to be merged? In my opinion, they're no more notable than the other battle articles like Battle of the Kokiri Forest and Spelunking into Ice Cavern. Baltro [ talk · edits ] 03:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they have to get removed as well. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add those two to my to-do list, thanks. Baltro [ talk · edits ] 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The voting has ended. By a large majority, the battle articles have been voted out and will be removed. Their valid information will be moved to appropriate pages. Thank you to all who participated in the voting.