Jäzzi– And sometimes I get nervous / When I see an open door / Close your eyes, clear your heart / Cut the cord / Are we human or are we dancers? / My sign is vital, my hands are cold / And I'm on my knees looking for the answer / Are we human or are we dancers? - "Human", The Killers TALK– {{{time}}} - Editcount · Contributions · Sandbox
Eh...We could, I suppose, but...I don't think it's really necessary and would be a lot of work since it would involve changing something like over half the links on the wiki...Something we probably don't want to do, especially since the only thing it does for readers is save them the few seconds of scrolling to the specific section they want to read.
It's a trade-off between coding ease and user ease. It'd help organize and specify. In tandem with the "See Also" debate, would the See Also just link to the general page or would it link to the specific item as done in the article? I'm 60% on this, 40% unsure. (PS can anyone tell me how to set up/use those chatboxes? I can't find that anywhere x-x ) IceFlame 20:58, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Xykeb Zraliv– 1. The first of those against whom the Prince sought vengeance was the Woodcutter, he who had held the axe that first felled the Tree. The Prince came to him and his son, and he struck the Woodcutter down, and the Woodcutter knew the name of the King. TALK– it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts it hurts
It makes sense, I suppose, but it's not necessary or worth the trouble. The thing is, there's sometimes general information on an enemy which we don't repeat in every single section, and it would be extremely redundant if we did for anybody simply looking at the page without having been linked to it. Breakable Wall is a good example of what I'm talking about. We list the locations and any changes they make from previous entries, but not the fundamentals of what a Breakable Wall is, which some people may not be entirely familiar with. On the other hand, it's really weird to tell people what Breakable Walls are in every single section. In short, this change would not consist solely of fixing links, but would require an overhaul in how the wiki as a whole is written.
Let's not waste time accommodating the lazy improving navigation (let's not forget that most people will not give a flying duck about making these kinds of links themselves, wasting time for both/third/300 editors) at the expense of a veritable duckload of time and effort. It's too much to ask. It's a good idea in principle, but much like mathematics, it works in theory, and theory alone. --AuronKaizer! 23:39, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Quack, Qua Qua quack qua. Quack. TR: Makes sense when it's put that way. I'm not sure where I stand on this so imma duck out. *shot for puns* IceFlame 23:53, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Between the 'very high effort/very limited return' point and the 'intros have information which applies to all sections' point, I don't think this would be worth the effort. Also, not everyone who clicks a link while reading a game section necessarily wants to be lead to that specific game section. Also also, linking to specific appearances would probably lead to linking to each of the relevant game sections as they come up (for example the general Gohma page would theoretically have to link to the top of the arrow page were it to mention arrows in the intro, would link to the LoZ section of the arrow page when arrows from that game are mentioned, etc.). This would be kind of confusing to execute and create yet more work. The basic concept is sound but I don't think it works out.--FierceDeku 02:58, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
Update[]
I'll be removing this from the Forums that need to be finished page. Jazzi 02:38, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
