Forum:What's with the bunch o'battles?

Forums: Index → Watercooler → What's with the bunch o'battles?

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Infiltration of the Arbiter's Grounds Infiltration of Hyrule Castle Battle for the First Maiden, et al. Written with all the love in the world as they were, these articles are clearly misusing the battle template. I propose we merge them with their respective location article, i. e. Infiltration of the Arbiter's Ground merged with Arbiter's Ground and so on. I think this is important. Don't bump this.

mhavril39 – The Royal M. H. Avril Decrees this TALK – 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Before anybody does anything, I think you should define what you think constitutes the need of a battle template, and what you think does not.

I agree, these are all technically battles fought across all the games. There is nothing wrong with the way things are being put into articles to compliment the major war articles, so I suggest keeping things going the way they are. They look much nicer as we are putting them now. There really is no such thing to me as "misusing the battle template," especially in a wiki about this particular game series. These projects are sorely needed for appearances' sake if nothing else, and they allow us to elaborate further on the battles of the many wars in Hyrule's history. Hero of Time 87 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 07:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, HoT, I know you've done a terrific job contributing in many these articles. However, I believe it could be improved. The battle template is supposed to be used in conflicts between two opposing military factions, not with every single event happening in the game. they allow us to elaborate further on the battles of the many wars in Hyrule's history. Let's be objective. There aren't that many well-documented battles in Hyrule's history, and by battle I mean the clash between two armies as opposed to the usual single combat which is Link's every day bread. What I'm saying is, the battle template is being misused not because the articles look bad or anything but because it's not documenting any battle at all in many cases.

I'm sorry, but they are battles because they involve the military might of Ganonorf and his minions. They involve the forces working in Hyrule's favor with those of the King of Evil. I don't see any real way to determine these are not battles, because technically they are. They all have conflict from two opposing forces. These are documenting battles that are fought in the various wars of Hyrule, and I see no reason to change them because they do fit well with the articles about the wars. That is being objective: realizing that these wars are made up of these smaller battles to achieve a larger goal. I think this is a moot point to debate because there is no grounds to it. The fact that we are chronicling the battles of the Imprisoning War, Zant's Invasion of Hyrule, etc. don't seem to bother anyone else, I see no reason why it should bother you really. And as I said, when all is said and done, these do fulfill the requirements for battles, formal military or not. In instances like this, there really is no such thing as "misusing the battle template" because these are component battles of a war. Just because it doesn't have warships or laser guns doesn't mean it's not a battle, and just because there's not a grand army of elves on one side and an ugly army of a thousand Orcs on the other doesn't mean it's not a battle either. Hero of Time 87 07:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

mhavril39 – The Royal M. H. Avril Decrees this TALK – 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) And even if it doesn't fit your standards, think of it this way: Even if it was just Link (or sometimes helped by Zelda or a Sage), he still defeated an entire faction of monsters working together to oppress the Hyrulean people. He defeats all of the lower soldiers first (the small enemies), until he takes out the "general" (the boss). Good Night!

Precisely my point! A "battle" is any event involving conflict between two forces, whether they be two armies fighting each other or one-on-one. Anywhere there is conflict between two groups, no matter how big or small they are, that is technically a battle. Hero of Time 87 07:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 07:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) edit conflict yo I believe this illustrates quite well what I mean by "battle": a pitched confrontation between two or more armies. Come on, both of you, you know what I mean. Take this article for instance. The template indicates that the combatants were "Hyrule" and the "Twilit Army": it's clear that by "Hyrule" whoever wrote this meant Link and Link alone. But, does the feat of a single man constitute a victorious military engagement, that is, a battle? By that criterion, Link and Marin would have to be called "combatants" of the "alliance" in the "War against the Windfish's Nightmares"... which is intuitively inadequate. Also: I think this is a moot point to debate because there is no grounds to it That you don't agree with my argument does not make it moot point.

Man, it's still a battle whether it's your idea of one or not. This involves "two armies," just not your idea of an army. Link represents the Land of Hyrule, in case you hadn't noticed. That is why "Hyrule" is on one side, because he represents the land of Hyrule. As I said, this is a moot point because it really doesn't have any grounds. Whether you want to admit it or not, these are still battles and fulfill all requirements of one, just not in the way you'd like them to. It's time to move on with the projects and quit this senseless debate because being honest it's nothing. It's a waste of time, precious time that could be spent creating the battles of the wars. Case closed. Hero of Time 87 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) So where's the article on the "Siege of the Windfish's egg"?

Look bud, there is no intended rudeness, but you need to realize something: Final Fantasy and Lord of the Rings do not dictate the terms of what a battle is. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the Legend of Zelda, a COMPLETELY different series. Just becuase you are used to the big fancy battles you see on the big screen doesn't mean these aren't battles becuase they are, whether you like to admit it or not. And for your information, there likely will eventually be a battle by that name.  ;) As I said, this case is closed. Hero of Time 87 08:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 08:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC) You know pal, I was hoping that you wouldn't bring up the fact that the link provided was a FF related topic and rub it in my face, because it's obvious how that's got nothing to do with the point. You know what that's called? A Straw Man argument. That Final Fantasy and the Legend of Zelda are two completely different franchises has nothing to do with what a battle is or isn't. And I haven't got the slightest clue on what made you think I had the Tolkien mythos in mind as I wrote these lines.

And I think on that note that you know I am right and are sore about it. But the truth hurts sometimes, as they say. And it's not that difficult to draw similarities between Tolkien and Final Fantasy, in case you hadn't noticed. As I said, although it may not be your personal idea of a battle, it is nonetheless. Case Closed. Good Night. Hero of Time 87

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 08:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Really mature, man.

Thank you for the compliment. Good night. Hero of Time 87 08:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin is right. A battle constitutes of two or more armies fighting. Not just Link vs. an army. The Infiltration of the Arbiter sounds more like a military operation than a battle really. The biggest tell-sign of a battle is the casualties. If there are none on either side, it's not a battle. Simple as that. Hollywood in general is really pissing me off cause it glorifies war and that's not how life is. People die, not every battle is glorious --Maverick King 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. A battle is any kind of conflict between two opposing forces. There are casualties in these battles, in case you hadn't noticed: Ganondorf's monsters. And yes, they are a battle whether you want to admit it or not. You have the side of Hyrule (Link) vs. Ganondorf and his army. It is a battle to save Hyrule from an army of darkness, and that constitutes a battle.

1. Is there an objective? Yes
2. Are there two opposing forces? Yes
3. Are there casualties? Yes

There's nothing that says anywhere there ahas to be a huge army on both sides for it to be a battle. Haven't you ever heard of a "battle of wills." That is a battle, and yet there are no armies in that. So I'm sorry to say that your statement that these are not battles is incorrect. Hero of Time 87 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o Actually, I have to agree with Faethin and MK. A battle in a war consists of two opposing armies or fleets engaged in combat. But, I don't want to get involved.

Fused Shadow – Undo darkness... Undo light... Create Twilight TALK – 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC) battle (plural battles) A general action, fight, or encounter, in which all the divisions of an army are or may be engaged; an engagement; a combat. A struggle; a contest; as, the battle of life. I got that from Wiktionary. "A general action, fight or encounter," yeah that fits. "in which all the divisions of an army are or may be engaged;" Special emphasis on "are or may be". "an engagement; a combat" Yes, that fits too. It does not mention an objective, though there is one, and it doesn't even mention casualties. The second definition is in even broader terms, but we have to take the first definition as that of a battle in a war. This is what HoT calls a "battle of wills".

It is still a battle, and the definitions (both) fit it. There is nothing that says what the terms of an "army" are or how that army is composed. It is a struggle/combat, and thus is still a battle, regardless of what some may say. There is nothing that says the "army" has to be fully engaged nor that it has to be made up of more than a few people. So you're telling me that the "Battle Mode" in MarioKart is not a battle? That is a battle, and a one-on-one as well. These are all still battles of a war, and I stand by that. Hero of Time 87 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Well, this whole thing is what Faethin calls "stubborness". The "battle of wills" is just a metaphor. A simple metaphor. You don't see, for example, a battle template on Kurt Cobain's page in Wikipedia stating that he "lost" the battle against his depression. It's so ridiculous to state that a "battle of wills" deserves a battle template that I really should quit and shut up. But I want to elaborate in this anyway. Take any other Wiki you might visit. Don't give me that bogus of "this is teh Zelda wiki" and listen. Not one has any mission, subquest or delivery route registered as a "battle", whereas here at Zeldapedia we aim at having every single event that's happened, whether there were involved Link and his fairy or an entire, heavily armed division of Hylian cavalry, registered as a battle. I've a question: we have to take the first definition as that of a battle in a war What does that mean? That we merge the articles to their location pages, as I originally suggested, or that we leave them as they are?

The battle of wills is between two competing ideas or people. That's commonsense. You are not wanting to admit that these battles really do meet the standards of one, just in a different way from what you're used to. And yes, this is a waste of time because they are battles, regardless of what is said, because they meet the definitions of one. And this is Zeldapedia, if you don't like that we are elaborating more on the battles of the wars, there's plenty of others out there. And no, that means we keep up as we are going and end this pointless discussion because I for one think it makes the wiki look much better because we are able to elaborate more on the conflicts of the wars and go more in detail. There comes a point where "enough's enough," and I think this discussion has reached that point. Hero of Time 87 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Yeah, well, you were taken out of the List of People with whom I Reason the minute you said I was "sore" and blah blah while not providing a single valid argument, so keep to yourself the enough is enough.

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o The "battle of wills" is a rather bad metaphor in reference to this. There are types of "battles", such as a one-on-one duel. In a war, like we have it listed, "battles" would mean two armies meeting on the field of war. The closest the Zelda series has th these type of battles would be Zant's and Ganondof's attack on Hyrule Castle and the Bulblin horseback battle to rescue Colin (maybe). One man against hundreds of ferocious beasts would be suicide (or massacre, in this case), but not full out army vs. army. Thus, we have multiple options: Link is a one man army and it be listed as battles. Link is similar to Solid Snake or James Bond in that he solely infiltrates enemy territory at the behest of superiors (i.e. Zelda, King of Hyrule...) and defeats enemy leaders in one-on-one combat (i.e. bosses).

You were off mine the moment you said we were "misusing the battle form." There's no such thing in a series like this, I'm afraid. And every argument I have given is valid, so I would suggest you re-evaluate your own. And either way you put it, just as Oath to Order said, it still remains a battle because that is the Legend of Zelda's version of a battle. They can be kept as battles as far as I am concerned becuase that's what they are. Link is in effect a "one-man army" that represents the land of Hyrule whose sole purpose is to save it from darkness. He has powers that allow him to become that one-man army, such as the Triforce of Courage, and his ultimate weapon, the Master Sword. He uses these tools in combat against the forces of evil, and that is a battle. Hero of Time 87 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) In the words of the Poet: Here we round the prickly pear At five o'clock in the morning Oath's message was not one that supported you, in case you didn't notice.

You may want to brace yourself, because I don't see it supporting you at all. I think you really are "sore" that you aren't having a great deal of success in disproving these conflicts to be battles. If you don't like the Legend of Zelda's form of a battle, then go back to your Final Fantasy and quit wasting the time of those that really do love the Legend of Zelda. It is astounding to me that you can't comprehend that a battle is not always something that involves a bunch of armies, hence the example of a battle of wills. So I would suggest either drying up or moving on. Hero of Time 87 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o That first one was more of a joke. In a sense of battle, there are many kinds. Duels could be counted as Link and Ganons sword duels in WW and TP. A battle of wills is used to a small extent in an all out war. Two opposing strategists might meet on the field of war and, personally to those two individuals, it would be a battle of wits and wills. Overall, though, the battle itself would count on the strategy, skill, moral and number on soldiers. Not on will alone. But in the Zelda series a battle with two massive a armies (which we describe) is never portrayed directly. It's more portrayed as a lone operative (Link) sent by his superiors (various) or by his own choice into hostile territory and sabotage the enemy by defeating enemy leaders (defeating bosses), all to further the war effort. It's war yes, but subtle war. Not armies but infiltration and sabotage. I am not on any side but my own.

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) edit conflict Not a great deal of success? Already two users have said I'm right, two out six in the discussion. That's three of us. What do you call that? And you might want to preview your posts before submitting them, to avoid spamming the Recent Changes.

Point being: There are MANY kinds of battles, and not all involve a huge army, especially when one side has magical tools at their disposal that the other side doesn't. And I agree with Oath's definition of a war in the Legend of Zelda series. A war in the Legend of Zelda is not going to be fought the same way as one in Final Fantasy or the Lord of the Rings. These are small, subtle battles of various wars that further the war effort in Hyrule's favor over the forces of Ganondorf.

Actually, two users have been trying to decide between the arguments, and some have changed when confronted with the actual definitions of a battle. They actually disprove what you are saying and give credence to my statement that there are several kinds of battles, not soley what you think it is. There's no "us" and "them" in this, just you making things difficult for no good reason because there's really no grounds to your argument. And I will do to my posts what I wish, thank you very much. Hero of Time 87 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) You're perfectly welcome. I actually think that there are, in fact, many kinds of battle. That's completely true. But the battle box should not be used in each one of them. That is all. You know, you're right. I'm not getting anywhere. I just realized I was just going on about this for the sport.

Well, there are those of us that disagree with you there because they satisfy the terms of a battle. And I'm very sure you were doing it just for sport, as am I. I enjoy a good debate, especially when I know for a fact that one side has evidence and the other does not. Hero of Time 87 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Which proves how much you know about an actual debate.

Which proves to be a lot actually. I apologize if the same can't be said for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case. I say enough of the time-wasting on this pointless debate however and that we move forward with completing the battles of the Imprisoning War and the War of the Wizard. Hero of Time 87 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC) No need to apologize.

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o The point of this discussion is the misuse of the battle template. We have established that the battles are different from Final Fantasy and Star Wars and Halo and real Life. Our template is specifically built for army-vs-army battles like FFWikis, and Halopedias and Wookieepedias and Wikipedias. Unfortunately, there are few examples of these kind in Zelda. What we need to do is one of two things: Make a new, different template to fit that need. Merge those battles with the dungeon articles (with a new template). It'll still be a listed as a "battle" per se, but not so much as "The First Battle of Corascant" at Wookieepdia. It'll conserve, expand stubs and everyone's happy.

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Now this is a good idea, for a change. The articles already written are actually quite good for a comprehensive chronicle on the events of the games. What do you proppose?

Yes to the first, no to the second just to appease one person. Changing the template is one thing, and that is reasonable. But it is unreasonable to merge all these battles with other articles. It's a lot of unnecessary work just to appease one person. I'm open to having a new template drawn up, but not to merging them all with just the game articles. What's more, the articles would WAY too long. We have just summaries on the war pages now, and even they are long. But these would make it entirely too long if we merged them all within one article. They need to stay separate as they are but have a different battle template made up. Hero of Time 87 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o *sigh* Here's what I meant by the second option. Take the Purging the Great Deku Tree page for example. It, generally, sums up the Inside the Great Deku Tree article. Merging the two, making a brand new dungeon-battle hybrid template and employing it would not only cover that "battle", the dungeon itself but the events that takes place before and after, then categorize it under dungeons and battles. It expands one article and removes sole coverage on the same thing in two pages.

Ah, but that is a place, this is a mission/battle. They are two different things. The whole point of our efforts are to chronicle the missions of the wars, and merging them with the dungeon articles would cause confusion about the differences between the mission and the dungeon itself. I maintain they need to be kept separated but have a new template that better fits the series. Merging would be WAY too much work and cause A LOT of confusion. I still see no real reason to even change the template, but if that's what it takes to appease some of the complainers, then so be it. But merging the battle articles of the wars with merely the dungeon articles would be a bad decision because it would create more confusion than you think and would undermine our efforts to expand the information about the wars on their pages, hence it needs to be ruled out. If you want to create a new, better battle template, then by all means feel free. I agree it would look better with different terms than "commander" or whatever else, but the articles need to stay the way they are otherwise. Hero of Time 87 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maverick King – {{{sig}}} TALK – Who cares? Ah, much better. First of, battle is defined in Merriam-Webster as a general encounter between armies, ships of war, or aircraft hence, we win. Wiktionary doesn't count, any ole fool can edit that sucker. Second, (on the subject of merging) it wouldn't be more confusing, it would be make more sense. Please elaborate on how such a simple idea could be so mind boggling.

Incorrect, because there are several definitions to the word "battle" as shown above. Yours is no more correct than those, and yours is only one type of battle, which we have concluded there are many kinds. Hence, you were "wrong" in suggesting a battle is only between armies. And yes, it would be confusing to those trying to follow the story step-by-step, hence that's not really part of the question. People trying to follow the events of the war will look to the battle section and see step by step how to proceed, whereas if you merge they will not know where all to proceed, and plus there's information for some locations for more than one game. It would become too big of a mess, and hence is not worth considering. Too much work and bad idea to begin with really, due to the mess of information it would make on certain pages. Hence, your "simple idea" would become a "complex mess." Hero of Time 87 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC) The problem here is, you think that since you wrote the articles no one but you can decide how to propperly approach that which they cover. Yeah, that's the whole problem here. I wonder why I didn't see it before. Preview your messages and stop spamming the Recent Changes and my own inbox.

I wonder why I didn't see that you're a couple of inplacable hypocrites that didn't "win" anything but rather ran around in circles trying to prove a point you failed to prove. I think nothing of the kind about the articles, but I know a bad idea when I see one, and I am here to say that it's a "stupid" idea in addition to a bad one. And if you don't want your inbox spammed, then leave the forum. Hero of Time 87 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 21:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) We don't agree with you, therefore we are hypocrites running around with a stupid idea. Do you even know what a hypocrite is?

Newsflash: Not everyone agrees with you either. You are hypocritical to try to say there's only one type of battle, then admit there's more than one, then try to say you "win." That's purely hypocritical.

We've agreed that a new battle template could be in order, so I see no reason to continue this pointless debate. Hero of Time 87 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC) restored Show me when I said there's only one type. Show me the quote.

We've agreed that a new battle template is in order. One of us will probably try to construct a better-fitting one. But moving all those pages into a discombobulated mess like you're suggesting ought to be out of the question. I think that's more than fair to both sides to alter the battle template but leave the pages alone and quit bickering over nothing. Hero of Time 87 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC) You deleted my message! Tell me it was an accident or I'll call you a vandal.

I did nothing of the sort, you probably did it yourself. I won't apologize for something I didn't do intentionally or at all. And in that case, just look above if you want the answer to that question. As I said, it's time to end this bickering since we have worked out a fair way of resolving the issue, so I implore you to be reasonable. Hero of Time 87 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC) It's clearly shown in the page's history that you deleted my message. Unintentionally... well, let's all assume it was so. I'm glad you agree on the modification of the battle template. However, about the merging of the articles, if anything, there should be a voting on the subject. And no, don't bother saying there won't be any voting and that the articles stay as they are. It's not your call, this is how a Wiki works.

I stand by the fact that I did "not" delete anyone's message and never would. If it was deleted, it was during an edit conflict then and not by me.

And I see no reason for a vote on anything about them, and it's not your call either. No one else seems to have a problem with them as they are but you. And they don't need to be merged over one person's objections. They are just fine the way they are, and I say we end this discussion and let the rest of us get back to work on making the pages better. All you're doing is wasting valuable time when you could be helping us make them rather than try to ruin them by forcing them into another article where they really don't belong. As I said, it's not your call either, and I see no need for a vote of any kind because any page can be created on here. It's not for you to say it should be shoved in somewhere else. For example: Ganon's Tower. Do you know how many Ganon's Towers there are throughout the series? And the Forest Temple? and the Temple of Time? The point is, many of these places overlap into other games, and trying to put battle information into a page like that would confuse the person trying to follow the wars. It's just not a practical idea. Hero of Time 87 22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC) That's why disambiguation pages exist.

What's the difference of letting them stand on their own then? There is none. It's a lot of work for nothing, no gain at all. All it's going to do is confuse a lot of people. It's not a good idea and they need to be left alone as they are. New readers that may not know a lot about the series would really be confused more than any, trying to decipher what happened when and where. In their interests, this is a very bad idea, and I still believe the pages should be left alone to expand them as events and not just as places. Hero of Time 87 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Asserting something over and over does not constitute an argument. Propperly done, the merging process would not confuse anybody. I've seen it, many times, in Wikipedia and in (*gasp*) the FFWiki.

I don't care how you spin it, it's going to confuse several readers, especially new ones that are new to the series to begin with. If I came here not knowing much of anything outside of playing Twilight Princess, I know I would have a very difficult time trying to read about events from that game or others if it was just lumped in with places I'm not familiar with. It's just a bad idea overall, and as I said they need to be left alone. That's too much work to do and with no payoff to it. All you're proposing is a method that's going to confuse people, and that's not needed here. Hero of Time 87 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC) I don't understand. What's to be confusing on a single article rather than three or four covering the same aspect? Forget about it. I'm going to look around and proppose it later. If nobody wants to merge anything, then it's fine; if they do, then it's fine.

That's just it: They "don't" cover the same aspect. At least not very many of them do, and that's what I'm trying to tell you. They need to be separated because they occur in different wars in different games. And there's overlap from several games in several places, it would just get to be confusing, especially for someone new to the series. That's why I've said it's an unnecessary thing that would in the end be a detriment to some people. Hero of Time 87 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC) A good article covers every aspect of its theme. See Link's article, which I'm working on currently. And, of course, we'd take just the similar article into a single merging (i. e. we'd take the arbiter's ground and the infiltration to the Arbiter's ground under a single article, but not the Siege of Hyrule in OoT and the Twilight Invasion just because they're both invasions to Hyrule).

No, a good article is clear and concise and is very detailed. Link's article is that way because he's the hero and protagonist of every game, hence a small summary of his deeds are placed for every game in his page. These are events that occurred during several wars, something completely different. Take Ganon's Tower: Are we going to tell how it was invaded in OOT? And how it was flooded in TWW? And how it was stormed in ALttP? Don't you see what I mean? And that's just one example. The events of the wars need to have their own articles to avoid confusion and remain concise about their content. Like I said, for the sake of appearances and for the sake of new readers, the articles about the events of the wars need to be left as they are. Tampering with them like that would be more detrimental than helpful, especially to those with less knowledge of the series. Hero of Time 87 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC) This last paragraph that you wrote is important: No, a good article is clear and concise and is very detailed. This does not exclude the article covering every aspect of its theme. In fact,if it's "very detailed" it must cover every aspect of its theme. Take Ganon's Tower: Are we going to tell how it was invaded in OOT? And how it was flooded in TWW? And how it was stormed in ALttP? First of all, those three Ganon's Towers are not necessarily the same building, so no, we would not merge them. We would redirect "Ganon's Tower" to a disambig page where we would list all three of them: GT (OoT), GT (TWW) and GT(ALttP). Simple. And not confusing, which is more important. Tampering with them like that would be more detrimental than helpful, especially to those with less knowledge of the series. Those with less knowledge of the series, and I think it's pretty evident, would prefer to be sent to a disambig page that asks them if by typing "Forest Temple" they meant OoT's, TP's or ALttP's similarly themed Skeleton Forest. Again, very simple and not confusing.

The articles "are" covering every aspect, in case you hadn't noticed. Just look at the battles of Zant's Invasion, there's visual proof there. And "disambig pages" are not going to help someone who doesn't know to look there in the first place, in case you hadn't noticed. It'd be VERY confusing for someone who knew little to nothing about the games to have to fumble around for the place where the event happened if they're not even sure what the place's name is. And I beg to differ about your third paragraph. They'd rather see it lined out within the war article step by step rather than have to go searching for a place they may not know the name of. It'd be confusing for them as I said. You need to stop thinking about someone like you or me that may know a lot about the series and wikis and start thinking about those that don't. And there's an example for you: you just called it the "Skeleton Forest" and its true name is the "Skull Woods." Now what if some newcomer didn't know that was the actual name and didn't know to search for that place? They'd be confused as heck and not know where to look. Hero of Time 87 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Are you sure about that? I could've sworn it was the Skeleton Forest... Maybe it's a revision, you know, from ALttP SNES to ALttP in GBA. And, anyway, if I typed Skeleton Forest, and I were a newbie, we could arrange that a redirect sent him to the Skull Woods. I'm thinking of Wikipedia. If I ignorantly put down Raphael and expect the Ninja Turtle, I instead get the Renaissance painter. But there's a clear link to the disambig page that indicates that there would be more than one artible under "Raphael"; one of them would be the article I need. I might be a complete newbie on the subject, but if propperly directioned, I wouldn't complain. I'd even get the bonus of knowing who Raphael really was.

I'm as sure as I'm sitting here that's what it is Skull Woods. And again, redirecting is not going to help every situation. Because what if someone thought it was the Forest Temple? Or the Skeleton Temple? Or the Skull Shrine? You can't redirect every single possibility. It'd just be confusing. And what happens when the page doesn't bring up anything when they type in "Skeleton Forest?" And what if they are new and don't know how to redirect pages? Most "newbies" are new to wikis too, and likely won't be familiar with all their controls. There's too many liabilities. The events need to stay like they are, plain and simple. That one small instance is a perfect example that it needs to stay like it is for those who aren't familiar with locations around Hyrule yet. Hero of Time 87 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AuronKaizer - "The icepick method. Insert a thin metal pipette into the orbital frontal cortex. Enter the soft tissue of the frontal lobe. A few simple, smooth, up-and-down jerks sever the lateral hypothalamus... all resulting in a rapid reduction of stress for our little patient here. Total time elapsed? Two minutes. Only side-effect? Black eye. Recommended treatment: sunglasses." TALK - THE LIST - GAMES - PIT OF RECKONING - SANDBOX - WALRUS GUMBOOT I don't see how a merge with the articles would help.

Maverick King – {{{sig}}} TALK – Who cares? Where's that lightning wit of your's AK? Apparently, Fatherin isn't the only one who want change, get your numbers right, I believe two people other than him want change. Yes, you can redirect. That's the beauty of it you baboon. Have you no experience? It's done on every single wikia! It's used extensively on Wikipedia! and the beautiful thing is IT"S WORKED! Just shut up and admit your wrong, you're only digging a deeper grave you twit!

I don't see any good coming out of merges eiter, as stated above AK.

Forgive me MK, but your statements are ludicrous to the last degree and betray a hint of stuidity. And no, you can't redirect every possible thing they may put in, unless you have a crystal ball that can foretell what newcomers may or may not enter. So get it right, you "baboon," is it? That one made me laugh, honestly. And no, it appears only you two want to disrupt the process of chronicling the battles of the conflicts of Hyrule, and I tell you now that what you are proposing is a bad idea, one that like Avril and AK have said, no good will come of it. I think it's you that needs to "shut up and admit you're wrong" because it is you my friend that is wrong on this particular issue. You are the one digging a grave for yourself, and the longer you keep this pointless bickering going the more you look like a fool. So if we can all be reasonable, let's forget the "merge" idea and just go with what we agreed upon earlier, changing the battle template. Hero of Time 87 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AuronKaizer - "My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention." TALK - THE LIST - GAMES - PIT OF RECKONING - SANDBOX - WALRUS GUMBOOT It's because of guys like you, MK (and CSM, and BH, and...well, the list goes on for ages honestly) I use my "lightning wit". We don't need you robots from the FFWiki here, this is an honest project. Bloody minimalists.

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o I'm going to recap the whole discussion. At first it was misuse of the battle template. That issue was resolved with either remaking the battle template or making a new one. Then, we moved on to merging and now the pros and cons of disambiguating pages. I'll kill the newest one. The cons are a extra little work and it might confuse a newbie. The pros are a more organized wikia and clearly defining locations, people and hell knows what else. We get all that bonus and you fear someone might get confused? What's the big deal? This world is a swirling mass of confusion and disorder. A little confusion can be cleared by a few questions and some typing. As for merging the pages, I'll give an example. If a sound minded individual came here looking for detailed information on, say, Arbiter's Grounds he would probably type "Arbiter's Grounds" in the search box. After finding the page he would, no doubt, read it. The page should have all the desired meterial. If, per chance, it had a link to Infiltration of Arbiter's Grounds he would finish reading and fallow said link. Now, here's where the problem comes: if the dungeon article has all it's game history, theme, enemies and maybe some theories (in encyclopedia style), he would gain the desired knowledge, no? Now, if he fallowed the battles link, wouldn't that cover the same exact event (i.e. Link's journey through the Arbiter's Grounds) minus some more details? The only difference, to me, at least, would be writing style. The dungeon page would be encyclopedic while the battle page would be historic, lore-like, but with less in-game detail. Our browser would, in his/her sound mind, more then likely find two pages covering, one in the same or better detail, subject and/or event redundant.

Yes, Oath, there would be A LOT of confusion, where there's overlap between the games especially. You are not thinking like a newbie, you are thinking like we do, like people that know a lot about the series. Many of the battle articles cover things that have nothing to do with the location articles. Take the Journey to the City in the Sky for example: it tells of how Ilia's memory is restored, how the cannon is found, how we get to the city, etc. There is information in there that does not belong in the location article for the City in the Sky. The battle articles cover more than what you are giving them credit for, and to move them would be an inappropriate move because there are several parts of the articles that don't have anything to do with the locations. You have to stop for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of someone who may know very little to nothing about the series or wikis in general. This is a bad idea and no good is going to come of it. It's just a bunch of unnecessary work that's only going to backfire in the end. There's no need to do any merging of any kind. Hero of Time 87 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AuronKaizer - "I'm a leaf on a windy day. Pretty soon I'll be blown away... how long will the wind blow? Until I die..." TALK - THE LIST - GAMES - PIT OF RECKONING - SANDBOX - WALRUS GUMBOOT Wow, that was impressive Oath. Here's someone who can deal with things in the proper manner. Funny thing we should be using the "Arbiter's" Grounds in a discussion like this, because we're looking at one. I hate to resort to words like I did just then, but A man has his limits. Props to Oath.

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o Thank you AK. And I'm thinking like a sound minded newbie. If I, as a n00b, was looking for information on Arbiter's Grounds (events and the like) I would go directly to that article. If it had all information on said subject (i.e. Link's journey there, it's plot importance, Link's journey through it and so forth) but linked to the battle article that covered the same but less detailed information, what would be them point? Really, tell me. On the subject of redirecting, we would only do the obvious. Such as redirecting Gannon to Ganon. And I know for a fact "Skull Woods" was renamed "Skeleton Forest" in the Advance version. We would redirect that as well (if though, the remade name is reoccurring, it would be properly disambiguated.

As I told you before Oath, there are things in the battle articles that are not in the location articles. They do not belong there, that is the basic idea. You're telling me that restoring Ilia's memory belongs in the City in the Sky article? You're telling me that the Battle of Eldin belongs in with Kakariko Village? I apologize for there is no intended rudeness, but that is a VERY silly idea. And I know for a fact that it's still called the Skull Woods in Advance (you may want to replay that game), because I'm holding the book for the game. As I said, the history articles are novelistic for those that like to read the story of the wars step by step. It is the absolutely wrong move to move them.

And you see? Even you goofed on that name. And you expect someone that has little to no knowledge of the series to know to look under that title? Hero of Time 87 03:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o Wouldn't restoring Ilia's memory be in... Ilia's article maybe? Or Battle of Eldin split in Eldin Provinces, Goron Mines, Kakariko Villages and Death Mountains articles? Here's what I'm getting at, to be precise: the Arbiter's Grounds battle solely covers, now tell me if I'm wrong, Link's first and primary trip through Arbiter's Grounds, no? Doesn't the dungeon article already covers all of that plus more? Granted, those pages, because they cover a group of events, would stay. The only difference maybe would be more summarized and a links to pages that deal more in depth with the subject. Then where have I seen "Skeleton Forest"? I know it refers to that forest. Is it the other way round? Maybe it's the forest as a whole while Skull Woods refers to the dungeon within? Well that doesn't matter. What we would do, like FFWiki, like Wikipedia, like trillions of other wikias, is to redirect the obvious and blatant. Such as an reoccurring misspelling (Gannon, Ganon), name change (Palace of Darkness, Dark Palace) or otherwise. What somebody in the Arctic accidentally misspells is not possible to redirect nor does it need to be. That is their mistake and they deal with it. If they really want to find the page they'll ask someone or make a forum. Redirection is not for covering every single mistake in existence, it's for the famous, blatant or altered.

No, Oath, that would only serve to shatter the articles rather than do anything to help them. Fragmenting the battle articles would only serve to confuse as I've said. And they are doing no harm to anyone or anything, so I see no reason for you or anyone else to complain if there are those of us that wish to make novelistic pages for the details of the games. They all need to be uniform, and they are uniform as they are now. It's not a good idea, and that has been made clear.

And as I said, you can't redirect everything, that would turn into a nightmare. And as I said, you have avoided ansewring my question: If even you didn't know that title, how do you expect newcomers with little to no knowledge of the games to know it? You can't! That's the point. These battle articles are just fine the way they are going, and this proposition to merge will do nothing but fragment and confuse in the end. Hero of Time 87 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o Let me rephrase myself. Granted, those pages [that you mentioned (Journey to the Sky and Battle of Eldin], because they cover a group of events, would stay. The only difference maybe would be more summarized (i.e. shortened) and add a few links to pages that deal more in depth with the subject (i.e. at a certain subject, redirect someone to a main article, Ilia on restoring Ilia's memory, if you will). As for redirecting, we wouldn't try and redirect every single mistake or misspelling. We never suggested that. We would only redirect famous one, like Gannon to Ganon (I know you about that one) or a retcon and such (Palace of Darkness, Dark Palace). I never suggested redirecting every name. Faethin probably never meant it that way either. We redirect what's necessary, not everything related.

Oath, you know as well as I do that you don't take "parts" away and "leave" others. That's where the mistakes start rolling in along with the cofusion. You and Fethin have failed to both answer that question after making that same error in title, and yet you have avoided ansering my question: How can you expect newbies to know information about the games when you yourself do not? The simple answer is that you can't. There is no reason to break the articles up, I think you and Faethin both know that. There is no need for merges nor would that be appropriate or good for the will of the newcomers. So why don't we drop this silly idea of shattering the articles several of us have worked hard to build concerning the battles and go with what we'd decided earlier by making a new battle template. The articles, however, remain intact as they are. Hero of Time 87 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fused Shadow – Undo darkness... Undo light... Create Twilight TALK – 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC) NOT TAKING SIDES If we do make a new template for the battle pages, I say we rename it the event template, and say on the war template "events" instead of battles. That's all.

Agreed. That was my suggestion. Hero of Time 87 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AuronKaizer - "Wouldn't it be nice to live again? High on a hill, making love again..." TALK - THE LIST - GAMES - PIT OF RECKONING - SANDBOX - WALRUS GUMBOOT As an afterthought, the whole template could be changed to something not-so-war-like; I don't consider Zelda war games, as such. I got no good suggestion for what else to call it, but I just don't think the word "commander" fits in here.

Faethin – {{{sig}}} TALK – 21:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, let me wrap things up. I don't want to star an edit war anywhere (that's why I came here in the first place instead of going ahead and prance around the articles). We agree that: The Battle template must be converted into an "Event Template", of which the blanks will be defined later on. Since Hero of Time is the main event contributor, I guess he should have an important say on this. There will be no unnecessary merging. This is the hot spot: I'm willing to talk things through and be civil before I do anything; I still think some articles could and should be integrated though. The redirectings will be done as needed. The more redirects we have, the less ambiguity we'll face. I went ahead and googled "Skeleton Forest Zelda" and, behold, the Skull Woods topped the search. While I have no evidence, I'm therefore inclined to think this was a case of retconning, i. e. the SNES version called the Dark World's version of the Lost Woods the Skeleton Forest, while the GBA version called them the Skull Woods. We need to confirm this. Do we all agree?

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o Aye.

I agree with AK, about the template being toned down from being so war-like. And yes Faethin, I am agreeable to that and it is reasonable. What's more I do think it would make the articles look better. So you have my blessing there.

As far as merging, I wouldn't move any of them right now at least. Not until we determine exactly what's going to be in some of them, b/c some of them aren't even complete yet. Like I said earlier, they are more of a novel of the games and their events for people that may not have caught certain story details while playing the games. In short, in the absence of an official novel of the series, that is the function these articles perform. If you'd like to take certain pieces of the articles and copy that information into the location articles, I'd be agreeable to that. The reason I'm not totally for merging the articles is because it would make the flow of the story told by them incomplete and there are some parts of them that do not really belong in the location articles. However, like I said, if you'd like to copy some of the parts of the articles and place them in the location articles, that's perfectly fine by me.

I have the book for the Advance version of ALttP, and it calls it the Skull Woods too. But that's beside the point. I have it here in front of me in black and white: "The Dark World equivalent of the Lost Woods is chockablock with skeletal remains-as well as pits that open into a vast cavern network. You'll need to rise to the surface and plunge back in many times to crack Skull Woods."

So in conclusion, I agree with everything that you've said, but I would discourage deleting any part of the articles or merging them in any way. But copying the information that is in them that is appropriate for the location articles is fine by me, and that would help to add to the location articles while still preserving the story told by the event articles. Hero of Time 87 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maverick King – {{{sig}}} TALK – Who cares? hmm... that works. After all, the Zelda series is based more on exploration than combat.

Precisely. So with that, I think we can move forward and make the necessary changes and start copying some of the information in the existing articles and placing that information into the location articles. Does anyone have any ideas about how to go about changing the template to an event one? I'm not the best at programming yet is why I ask, otherwise I myself would try to do it. Hero of Time 87 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath to Order – The perceived badassery of any given action will increase tenfold if the action is performed while on fire. TALK – 0_o I know as much about coding as the rock in my front yard does. I know who does, but I'll only ask him when we find out what we need in said template and if nobody else does.

Well, I'd say for the content of the "war" templates: when the event began, when it ended, the place it occurred in, the outcome, the sub-events that made up the whole, the major parties involved on either side, any concurrent events that took place in the other branch of the timeline, the major historical event that preceded it, and the next major historical event to follow it. If anyone else has any additions or thoughts on these ones listed, we can hear them here.

For the sub-events that make up the major historical events: the major historical event which it is a part of, the place(s) it occurs in, the outcome or objective of the event, the parties involved on either side, perhaps the major characters it involves, perhaps any important deaths that occur in it, the previous event, and the event that follows it. Again, these are just brain-storming, so if anyone has any additions or comments about these ones listed, feel free to discuss them now so that we can do the necessary work with the existing articles before moving on to the ones that have yet to have their content added. Hero of Time 87 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fused Shadow – Undo darkness... Undo light... Create Twilight TALK – 03:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Wait, are you saying that we should make the wars into major historical events? Not that I'm against it but I just want to know for sure. And don't forget to add an image to the the template too!

That's correct, the wars become major historical events, with the smaller sub-events that comprise them. It would be the most logical thing to do so that not every game's events looks like a World War II article. And yes, I forgot that! Thank you Fused Shadow. Yes, definitely leave room for images in the templates as well. As I've said before, one of the key things to a great article are good pictures. Anyone else have anything to add to the template or discussion about what we have already listed? Hero of Time 87 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fused Shadow – Undo darkness... Undo light... Create Twilight TALK – 16:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC) So the names of some of the pages need to be changed as well. Zant's Invasion is fine I think since he did invade. The Imprisoning War is an official title. But the War of the Wizard and the War of the Revival might need changed names if we are not considering them wars.

I don't think it's necessary to change the War of the Wizard because it basically was a war that Agahnim began in order to break Ganon fully out of the Sacred Realm and so Ganon could then wage war against Hyrule, similar to Zant really. The War of the Revival however could be changed since it was merely a scheme of the Twinrova sisters to revive Ganon. So I do think that would be a good thing to do for the events in Labrynna and Holodrum, but the War of the Wizard I think could stay with its current title because it was basically a war that was began by Agahnim to take over Hyrule and release Ganon. Hero of Time 87 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)