Zeldapedia
Advertisement
Zeldapedia
Zeldapedia
8,034
pages
in: Archive

Zeldapedia:Articles for deletion/Archive 2

< Zeldapedia:Articles for deletion
View source
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Single Timeline Theory

I don't think its neccessary at all. Theories and all, and this one was proved wrong. --Murch(dah dah dahdaaaaaah!) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. I hate all theory pages. And this one is disproved and done away with. OtOcon^_- 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I have two friends. The one is Zap, the other is It. --AuronKaizerKennedy! 05:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comment

Hmm. Can't we just merge it with that godawful Timeline Theory project page instead? --AuronKaizerKennedy! 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Zeldapedia:Timeline Theory

Now before you get mad at me I am not suggesting we get rid of this article entirely but rather delete it from Zeldapedia and ship it to the Zelda Fanon Wiki. This was a nice article to have at first but it’s gotten overly long and has little relevance on this Wiki anymore. By shipping it to the Zelda Fanon Wiki not only goes to some place more relevant but it might jumpstart that Wiki as well. What do you think?--ShutUpNavi 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wholeheartedly agree. Aeronflux 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. As per this, I say: "HELL YEAH!!!" OtOcon^_- 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. XD, now this is strange - the "victory" part of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is playing right now. This is what's known as ironic justice. In the words of The Rock, I know what we can do with the article. We can shine it up real nice, turn it sideways, and STICK IT STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...Or move it to the Zelda fanon wiki. Anyway, just do it. --AuronKaizerKennedy! 04:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Grrrr.... get rid of them. Friggin' about time.... --Murch(dah dah dahdaaaaaah!) 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Send it to hellZelda Fanon Wiki! UberPhoeba b c 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Ship it off. Do not turn it into a talk page. It's not really a talky type of article. XXXXX Talk to me OR ELSE! 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sure, ship it off. Solar flute 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

The entire Abbrevation Template Category and Abbreviation Templates

This is just pure laziness. Who in the Dark World (clever replacement for swearing, in your face God!) is lazy enough to have to use these? Honestly, if you don't feel like it, I'd be more than glad enough to do it for your lazy ass...err, yes. So, unnecessary and morally ambiguous. Keep or delete? You decide.--AuronKaizer 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Oath to Order 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I didn't even know those existed. Definitely unnecessary. LadyNorbert 14:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. XXXXX Talk to me OR ELSE! 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I think most of them are worthless, but I thought the z template I made was useful.

Reject

Comments

Project Deluge

Now that "Project Deluge" has been revealed as a sick fantasy of one of those furry fanatics at 4chan.com, I think this does not deserve to be here. As if it did in the first place. I'd disown it if it were ever actually true. This is what happens when you believe every rumour you see out there in the world of internet insanity. --AuronKaizerKennedy! 04:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Truth. Icarus203 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yea...... I don't have much to say about it.... --God Of Thunder!!! 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Temple Elements

Can you say "useless"? What is the point of this article? --God Of Thunder!!! 19:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. XXXXX Talk to me OR ELSE! 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Use... lass. Dang, let me start over.
  2. Yes, seeing as... well, just... yes. Aeronflux 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yea, it's pretty useless, you can just read the article on it, and you can figure out what theme it is. It's just a useless page already put into the individual articles. DekuBaily
  4. Basically, I was supposed to say something here, but I'll just say something else. And yes, I can say "useless." --AuronKaizerKennedy! 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Template:Spoiler

Result was keep. Spoilers should be expected on a wiki. If we have a spoiler template, it would have to be used on every single page to get any use out of it. Wikis are meant for contributors and readers to go deep into the story, resulting in heavy spoilers. And not everyone's going to have the same idea of what a spoiler is anyway.--Richard 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Richard1990

Reject

  1. Oath to Order 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm against how Wikipedia do things. The best thing we can do is to stay away as best we can from Wikipedia's policy on matters. User:AuronKaizer AuronKaizer 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Keep it. Don't zap the thing. XXXXX Talk to me OR ELSE! 17:13, 27 May 2008

Comment

GasMaskPsychoHatGuy
AuronKaizer - "There's danger on the edge of town."
TALK - THE LIST - GAMES - PIT OF RECKONING - SANDBOX - WALRUS GUMBOOT
I don't know, I kinda like not being spoiled. Someone give me a good argument to change my impending reject vote.

Igos du Ikana
Scathee – Where the heck are my hard-boiled eggs?
TALK – CONTRIBUTIONS -- EDIT COUNT -- NEW USER HELP
Think about it. Some random guy whos only played TP and hasn't even gone all the way through (maybe he only has 2 fused shadows), and he comes in. he'll want to spoil everything b/c only he hasn't played it. Most of everything is spoiled, and it would be just a waste of space if every article has a spoiler on it. All because of 1 guy...

Millie's Father

Result was delete. I don't think this character exists, so..... Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

Reject

Comments

Treasure

This is an unnecessary page. All of the information contained on it is found in other articles. It's extremely non-specific and while I understand (I think) the creator's logic in setting it up, it really is rather extraneous. LadyNorbert 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. It's not exactly necessary. It's in good faith though! Sorry. --AuronKaizer 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reject

I redirected it. XXXXX 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I redirected it to treasure chest. That way, it gets some use. XXXXX 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DaiGoron

No information about a character by that name could be found. Could someone shed any light on this situation? AuronKaizerTalk loud, hit harder! 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. That article is just about Biggoron's role in Majora's Mask. As far as I know, nobody ever calls him DaiGoron, so I suggest we move all the information to the Biggoron page (if it's necessary - I don't know if there's anything on the DaiGoron page that would benefit the Biggoron page). Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Xykeb Zraliv for the same reasons he said.--ShutUpNavi 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Expansion Pak

Non-Zelda (other than it being necessary for Majora's Mask) related article which is mentioned few enough times for a simple Wikipedia link to suffice. --AuronKaizer 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Oath to Order 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Vanpool

Support

  1. A simple wikilink will do. The name of the company sounds like a Final Fantasy character though..or a Pokemon. --AuronKaizer 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

The Legend of Zelda: Parallel Worlds

Support

Reject

  1. I checked it out, and it appears to be one hell of a pro setup. I believe we should keep mentionable fanstuffs here, so I'm saying we should keep this. --AuronKaizer 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I agree, let it remain.

Comments

  1. Funny, I've heard of this game. I saw a dungeon being played on youtube. It's really a cool little game. The game even has

more stuff to it. Like a new storyline.


Super Famicom

I don't get it...--Power courage wisdom and time 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

Reject

  1. XXXXX Talk to me OR ELSE! 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC) It's the Japanese Super Nintendo. It stands for Super Family Computer. It was changed to Super Nintendo in America because here, families don't all play together like the way they do in Japan. Rather sad, really.

Comments

Triforce slash

This is information for a Super Smash Bros. Brawl wiki, not a Zelda wiki. I don't think we need it, but I submit to my Hyrulean brethren for their opinions. LadyNorbert 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Was already covered in the Link article. As this isn't the SSMBDSM (intentional typo? You tell me!) Wiki we don't need an entire article with damage breakdown and all that. Shouldn't really even require a vote for deletion, but whatever. --AuronKaizerTalk loud, hit harder! 23:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Anything that links to this should be redirected to the smash wiki page. There it is a more useful page and is on the right wiki.--ShutUpNavi 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Carly

Erm... not sure if this even required discussion. I'm 99% sure "Carly" doesn't even exist. —Triforce 14(...) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Do we even need a vote on this? --Moblin Slayer 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I sue Moblin Slayer for gimmick infringement, because I was just gonna say that. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Thirding you, boys. LadyNorbert 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comment

Zhahz

Wow, we're on a roll today! And here's contestant numero dos. Once again, 99% sure this guy doesn't exist. —Triforce 14(...) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. As the resident Zelda II guy, I can confirm that this article is pure horseshit. More of a speedy delete situation than a VfD. McJeff 06:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Man, if I didn't already know this is a fake article, I might have been tempted to play Zelda II just to see if it were real. No wait, I don't feel that masochistic now do I? --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. I just thought about it, and because of his description I have come to the descision that this zhahz fellow may be an intricate way to link the player group orginization XIII to zelda... after all people HAVE been complaining about the fact that it has no link to the series. Dialask77 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. I'm with McJeff. LadyNorbert 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. If it has no basis in Zelda canon, dump it. It has no reason for being here. Bek The Conqueror 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comment

I haven't played Zelda II, but I have read some about it. I have never heard of the Zhahz character, but the author seems to have added an odd amount of detail for a fake article. Perhaps there is some rare version of the game in which zhahz is a character? I dunno, but we should ask the person who created the article before making a final descion. Dialask77 05:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, he definitely doesn't exist—Triforce 14(...) 12:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, the user who created the Zhaz article even added stuff about this character to other articles...--Moblin Slayer 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a old man in zelda 2 that summoned the bird and shadow,but I don't think he had a name--griff 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've played the game. There is nothing in it with any name even remotely close to Zhahz. LadyNorbert 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Carly

Erm... not sure if this even required discussion. I'm 99% sure "Carly" doesn't even exist. —Triforce 14(...) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Do we even need a vote on this? --Moblin Slayer 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I sue Moblin Slayer for gimmick infringement, because I was just gonna say that. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Thirding you, boys. LadyNorbert 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Just in case you need a fourth vote to get rid of this weird fanon or whatever this is, you have mine. Bek The Conqueror 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comment

Holodrumanic

  1. I've played through OoS >20 times and not even once did I hear this term...--Moblin SlayerI'm working on it... 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

Yeah I think it's just a word someone came up with, so buh-bye Herooftwilight 02:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Death Scenes

Wholly unencyclopedic article. Information can easily be covered in individiual boss articles. Heck, videos can even be added to said pages if needs be. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 04:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Oh, dear lord yes. There isn't anything in here that would be missed by anyone, and it isn't a great page idea to begin with. Bek The Conqueror 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Not only that, but there is a lot of debatable information on the page. --Moblin Slayer 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. O.K. I'll get rid of it.--ShutUpNavi 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Master Hand

This has nothing to do on a Zelda Wiki. --AuronKaizer 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Oath to Order 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Richard1990
  3. LadyNorbert 22:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Metroidhunter32 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Bek The Conqueror 01:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  6. ThatGuy55 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. —Triforce4Triforce 14(...)

Reject

  1. Whoever is directly involved with Zelda characters in Subspace can be kept IMO. DjMack 18:21, 29
  2. If we put in more about Ganondorf controlling him and things of that nature, we could keep it. XXXXX Talk to me OR ELSE! 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Technically, it is linked to the Legend of Zelda series. UberPhoeba b c 13:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

GasMaskPsychoHatGuy
AuronKaizer - "I know you've deceived me, now here's a surprise... I know that you have 'cause there's magic in your eyes. I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles..."
TALK - THE LIST - GAMES - PIT OF RECKONING - SANDBOX - WALRUS GUMBOOT
Err, DJMack, if you think the article can be kept, why'd you support its deletion?

[face_palm] I meant to put it in Reject. DjMack 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If we put anything that is involved with Zelda characters in Smash, why not a Princess Peach article? Zelda and Peach were held captive together. The argument, no offense to the one who said it, is ridiculous. We are not Smashwiki. Bek The Conqueror 01:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly...to compromise, we could merge it with the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why hasn't anything been done about this yet... —Triforce4Triforce 14(...) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Swords and Shields of the Legend of Zelda Series

Under the items category. Just seems like a way to take up space

Support

  1. ya just move it to items and weapons.--griff 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Same thing as Griff said. --AuronKaizerKennedy! 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Easily can be a section of the items and weapons, can I delete it when it has enough votes, i wanna test my new powers >:) UberPhoeba b c 13:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Alright. Lets get rid of it.--ShutUpNavi 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. —Triforce4Triforce 14(...)

Reject

Comments

Alright I think this has lasted long enough. You can deleate it UberPhoeb--ShutUpNavi 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete someone? or merge? —Triforce4Triforce 14(...) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's been superceded by Category:Swords and Category:Shields, so I'm of half a mind to delete the phooker. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hylian Archive

Okay, I've seen a couple of things like this recently. The page itself says it's a fansite; thus it belongs on Zelda Fanon. Anyone else agree? --Moblin SlayerIce Wizzrobe (The Minish Cap) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. While I think it's perfectly fine to feature articles on some of the more famous Zelda fansites and websites, a page that is "in contruction" AND a Freewebs page is not notable enough, nor do I doubt it ever will be. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Big Quiver

This is pretty much the same thing as the Quiver page, just with less information. I think this could be re-directed to the Quiver page, andany info that is here and not there (any?) could be added there. If not, then this page needs to be severely cleaned up. --EveryDayJoe45 23:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

Rejects

  1. Nope. It's a separate item; hence, separate article. I truly question your logic here. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. I agree with AuronKaizer. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. I third agree with AuronKaizer. --ThatGuy55 00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. I fourth it —Triforce4Triforce 14(...)

Comments

To AuronKaizer: I don't understand how its any different then the quiver, other than holding more arrows. I'm pretty sure anything covered on this page could be covered on the quiver page just as well. Should there be a page for green rupees, blue rupees, and red rupees too, when there only difference is how much they are worth, or should they all be covered under one page: Rupee. This is just my opinion, but this just seems like a pointless article that is the same thing as the quiver article, only with a lot less information. --EveryDayJoe45 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the amount of arrows isn't the only difference. The Big Quiver is an item in itself: it is an upgrade to a weapon and thus is not just the same thing with more value. Do you suggest we put Kokiri Sword, Razor Sword, and Gilded Sword into one article just because the only apparent difference is the attack power? No, because they're different weapons, whereas the differently valued Rupees are just different amounts of the same thing. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because they look different, are more important to the story arc, and have differnet powers (range, power, sometimes special powers). The Big quivers only difference is that it holds more arrows. That could e mentioned in the Quiver article. But whatever, this is obviously a pointless argument I'm not going to win.--EveryDayJoe45 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. The Big Quiver looks different from the regular Quiver. Not as different as the swords look from each other, but that's insignificant.
  2. They are not important to the story arc at all. Upgrading the sword in Majora's Mask is completely and totally optional and is just as important as the Quiver upgrades.
  3. "Sometimes special powers"? We're talking about the swords from Majora's Mask here, not any sword upgrades in any game, of course some sword upgrades are going to be more important than Quiver upgrades.

Regardless, the Big Quiver, despite not being very different from the regular Quiver, is still its own item, you have to win/obtain it in a fashion similar to any other important item. All items must get their own articles, whether or not they're significantly different from other items. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Grass

We really don't need this...if we go by this standard, we'll also need an article for trees, flowers, dirt, and water...--Moblin SlayerIce Wizzrobe (The Minish Cap) 20:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Yeah kinda blatantly obvious.—Triforce4Triforce 14(...) 02:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Wow.....just wow. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. what board sole created that page? Oni Dark Link 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Hmm, I was thinking it might be useful if put forward in another way, but changed my mind. I mean, it's pretty obvious. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 02:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Eh... tack my vote on as well if it gets the deletion process moving faster on this.--Bek (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. W00t 4 iliterrit peepulz! 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Merman

Most of the "appearances" really have nothing at all to do with mermaids/mermen. The Fishmen aren't really mermen, Joanne isn't really a mermaid, and, according to the article (I've never played the Oracle games, so I wouldn't just know myself), it is only referenced very obscurely in Oracle of Ages through an item (it would be like making an article called Roc when it's really just referenced through Roc's Feather). Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Yep, this would be a completely useless mess of an article. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. I second that— Triforce 14(...) 04:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Horrible, horrible article...Bek The Conqueror 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Its an article based entirely off speculation and assumptions...just like the Wikipedia version. --Moblin Slayer(Working on it...) 13:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. I really don't see the point of this article I didn't even know it existed or was even a serious topic until I saw a notice asking for some help with it User:991807
  6. -Duochrome

Reject

Comments

there is a real mermaid in links awkening. not that, that makes a difference. Oni Dark Link 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the entire game was a dream, I don't think that really anything besides Link and the Wind Fish (and possibly Marin) from that game really qualify as "real", even within the context of Zelda.--Bek (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, why have an article concerning an entire race when only one individual is ever seen belonging to that race (and for that matter, with no other confirmed individuals, seen or not)? Any information concerning that particular mermaid would just go on her page. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait...you're saying that it's non-canonical now? --AuronKaizer! 09:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, no? I'm saying that it's not necessary to make an article about a race when only one individual of that race exists. I didn't say anything about the canonicity of anything. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant Bek's comment, about it being "just a dream" and as such not "real", even within the context of Zelda. --AuronKaizer! 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. From a real-world viewpoint, the mermaid is real; she is in a Zelda game and therefore she is canon. However, from an in-game viewpoint, she was just part of the Wind Fish's dream and therefore was never real. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 05:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have been more clear... I meant that we can't take the fact that there was a mermaid in Link's Awakening to have any significance to the actual world of Zelda (Hyrule, Holodrum et al), and as such any article on them would mostly be speculation, which is not really encyclopedic, and would contain no more actual information besides that contained in the Martha article and the things regarding the names of certain things in OoA, but it didn't really come out that way from my little comment.--Bek (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Big Deku Baba

Basically, this is a semi-duplicate article. The two "appearances" are different enough that I think that the OoT version is just a bigger Deku Baba, which should be talked about in the Deku Baba article, and the TP version already has its own article. Some of the battle information could be merged into the respective already-existing articles. What say?--Bek (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

Reject

  1. This isn't a suitable page for deletion. Since content needs to be merged into two different pages, it will need to be transferred and converted into a disambiguation. As it stands, its hard for me to tell if the Twilight Princess monsters are identical, as there's a slightly different description on combat and behaviour (i.e. one mentions that it sticks, while the other mentions it requires a bomb to destroy, etc.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I disagree with this. --AuronKaizer! 18:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. There's more than two. Besides these things are gigantic. Plus they cause more damage. I think that's enough to keep it its own. --Flashpenny (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Big Baba info should be removed, but Ocarina of Time info should be kept. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Sigma 7, there aren't any other enemies in TP besides the Big Baba that look like a big Deku Baba. Compare the pictures.--Bek (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Marine Biologist dilemma I see. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This should not be deleted nor should it stay the way it is in my opinion. "Big Deku Baba" and "Big Baba" need to be split into two seperate articles, similar to how "Skullwalltula" and "Walltula" are two seperate articles. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, is it actually called Big Deku Baba by Navi in Ocarina of Time? Or is it just an especially large Deku Baba (like the Green Bubble in the Kakariko Well)? Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is called a "Big Deku Baba". She also calls the Bigger Skulltulas "Big Skulltulas". --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the TP info and picture should be removed, am I right?--Bek (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so. I think it should be two seperate articles: Big Deku Baba being for OoT and Big Baba being for TP. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I should really do my research before making a desicion...anyway, yeah, in that case, I oppose this deletion. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, can I withdraw/archive the nomination since it's unanimous against, and the person who nominated it (me) thinks now that it can stay if it's just the OoT version?--Bek (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --AuronKaizer! 07:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Temple Symbols

Like I said for the "elements" page. --God Of Thunder!!! 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. Move the info to each of the temples' pages and the sage medallions, then delete the page. Solar flute
  2. Not useful to anyone. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. If it gave some information, MAYBE I wouldn't support so critically. 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. -Duochrome
  5. Yep—Triforce 14Triforce4 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

Shadow Insect
ThatGuy55 – Twilight Princess is the BEST Zelda Game ever!
TALK
This article was very useful for me when I was comparing the symbols of different temples in each game.

Boss battle

...What is there to say? --AuronKaizer! 01:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Completely useless. Also, the person/people that wrote it obviously had only ever played Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Yeahhhh...--Bek (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Nothing that isn't already stated in the boss articles... or couldn't be added if it isn't —Triforce4Triforce 14(...) 02:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. I don't think there was even one thing that wasn't in the bosses' articles already...that, and the the total lack of bosses from the hand held games/anything before OoT makes this article worthy of death by deletion.--Moblin Slayer(Working on it...) 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. -Duochrome

Reject

Comments

Majora's Last Stand

Read it. If you can find any redeeming qualities or any argument as to why it should be kept, you're a better man than me. --AuronKaizer! 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Complete and utter speculation; relatively useless. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Meh I don't really like these anyway. 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. So much utterly groundless speculation being stated as facts.....I suppose we could just rewrite it, but at the moment I think we should just let it die. I guess it just proves how far Big Poe=Nice Guy and Flashpenny are willing to go to "prove" their theories, huh? Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. I vote we tear it down then restart from scratch. In hindsight that would still technically count as a support. I also don't believe everything that's on that page Zraliv. --Flashpenny (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. —Triforce 14Triforce4 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reject

Comments

As a heads-up I actually edited that page and "fixed" it. In other words I removed most of the speculation and the rest (which is just one out of five speculative things there) could clearly be identified as speculative info. - Flashpenny

Queen Seline

This character exists ONLY in the LoZ comic book series issued by Valiant, so her existence is not technically canon. Also, the name isn't even spelled right; it should be Seline, not Selene. But since she's from a non-canonical source, I don't think she should have a page. LadyNorbert 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

Reject

  1. We do have non-canonical information here, but I do support changing the spelling. Dialask77 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. What this guy said. Notable non-canonical character, but needs serious help. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to check the comics. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. This wiki is about anything zelda, and although this is not cannonical, it still deals with the zelda universe, and thus has a right to be here. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Not much more needs said.—Triforce 14Triforce4 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Zeldapedia:Zeldapedians

The result of the discussion was: oppose


The listusers special seems more than adequate. -Duochrome

Support

  1. -Duochrome

Reject

  1. -I propose following Duo's suggestion (see below) of making it a redirect to the list of users.—Triforce 14Triforce4 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. -It's a project page. If the admins wanted, they could have Zeldapedia:Chicken to tell about how much everyone likes chicken (nobody would do that). It's just like user pages, they are meaningless, and project pages can be whatever they want. UberPhoebLink standing ALTTP 02:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. -I like the idea. The special usercount displays active users from when Patton was president (I know, I know he never was). A page needs to be made checking for active users. Perhaps with a census every month, whomever made one or more edits every month stays on the list. When looking for a list of active users, using the special is mostly worthless. Dialask77 Ice Wizard Ice Sorceror 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. -It's a good idea for a page. Baltro [ talk ] 01:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Only problem is, there are a bunch of categories that use this I think.—Triforce 14Triforce4 19:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

=/ Turn it into a redirect to the special maybe? -Duochrome

Well Flashpenny, you missed the point of the article, but that's beside the point. That might work Duo.—Triforce 14Triforce4 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So, what do I vote if I feel that it should be turned into a redirect? -Duochrome

Block

The result of the discussion was: oppose


Same as with "grass." At least in my opinion. --Moblin Slayer(Working on it...) 02:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

Reject

  1. Objection! This article is actually pretty useful, but not in its current form. Let's see what we can do about it before we axe it like yet another grilled cheese sandwich. --AuronKaizer(...Kaizer!) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. I agree with AK. If we get some people together, we might be able to actually do something with this stub of an article to actually make it useful. Lisa URAQT Click it. You know you want to
  3. Great importance. I added a little bit...I mean it's uses are almost as elaborated as it could be so I unstubbed it... Dialask77 Ice Wizard Ice Sorceror 22:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. -Duochrome
  5. As long as we fix it up.—Triforce 14Triforce4 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. See AK's comment. Baltro [ talk ] 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. I agree. Let's fix it up, then keep it. The Midna 13:58 24 July 2009(talk)

Marker

The bad horrible markup can be fixed, but I don't know if it is notable enough to keep in the first place. Seems logical to work it into the Phantom article or something. --AuronKaizer! 16:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Not nearly noteable enough. Zelda isn't even the only character that works that way. Not to mention the name makes no sense since we dont have a page for Marker with out a game added to the title. Oni Dark Link 16:46, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't think there's any real big reason to keep it. The marker in the game is pretty self-explanatory and there's not really much to say about it. It's kinda like if you decide to explain to someone what the word "the" means. There's not really much to explain and the person probably already knows, anyway. —Lisa URAQT Click it. You know you want to 23:51, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
  3. There's virtually nothing to say about it, ans what little can be said could be detailed in the gameplay section. Not that even that is necessary. Jedimasterlink (talk) 00:09, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm sorry I think this just goes without saying.—Triforce 14Triforce4 21:56, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  5. This article is for thing that shows where Phantom Zelda is going? TheMidna™ 22:09, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  6. It's a gameplay element, it doesn't really physically appear in front of her. - McGillivray227 22:36, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  7. It's kind of lie making an article on the A Button...characters may mention it, but it's pure fourth wall breakage to explain the controls. It's not an actual in-universe thing in any way. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 06:25, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Reject

Comment

Neutral Neutral: I change my vote. After changing it up a little, it isn't nearly as bad. It's still slightly useless though. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:37, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Neutral: I am, like Joe, neutral. It is noteworthy, but how you go about using the info is the deciding factor. Maybe make a page about Link controlling other characters? Ray Talk 2 meDoggie Mask 21:53, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ataru Cagiva

Err, is it really that notable? I mean, personnel articles are all well and good, but covering something like a manga artist? Eh? --AuronKaizer! 07:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. I see this as kinda pointless...at this rate, we may as well list every single person who has worked on a Zelda game/manga...oh, and to the above person, you may want to put your vote in the "reject" section; this section "supports" the deletion. --Moblin Slayer(Working on it...) 12:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. What I think should be done is what I did with the ten or so composer pages; merge it into something like Manga artists of the Legend of Zelda series, which can be much more informative as one article than many seperate ones. Baltro [ talk · edits ] 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Yeah. TheMidna™ 23:02, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Reject

  1. I think if it is viable non-canonical information, then why delete it? If his work was published under the Zelda name then, this may just be me, he deserves to be mentioned. Dialask77 Ice Wizard Ice Sorceror 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. I think it would be kind of interesting if the article was a good one. I personally own most of the mangas, and as it is undeniable that it is connected to Zelda... I vote for a revision and correction of the page, not a deletion. (Khanson)
  3. Well, unless we delete all the other people, I don't see why this one must be too—Triforce 14Triforce4 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. I believe that it should remain, and more info should be gathered. Ray Talk 2 meDoggie Mask 21:53, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  5. It should help Zeldapedia grow --AmazingLink (talk) 21:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC)AmazingLink
  6. He made Nintendo approved manga, did he not? ZeldaQueen12

Comments

I personally don't care either way on this one. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:14, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Kakashi: The Search for Tingle

Game that is suffused with rumors and little to no substantial information. I move for a deletion until or if the thing is proven to be real. --AuronKaizer! 23:44, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. I agree. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. It IS fan made. Super duh... AlpacaDoggie Mask 17:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  3. If it is fan made or only a rumor then it shouldn't be here. If it turns out it isn't then we can always remake it Oni Dark Link 17:28, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  4. —Baltro [ talk · edits ] 17:42, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  5. sure.Hylianhero777 (talk) 19:25, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  6. It is unneeded.-- C2 / CC 20:12, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  7. At this time... POINTLESS --AmazingLink (talk) 21:47, June 13, 2010 (UTC)AmazingLink
  8. I agree, also. TheMidna™ 23:03, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Opposed. Tincle (talk) 03:51, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  2. no, if it is proven to be fake, then fine. until then innocent until proven guilty. well never mind.EDIT: Wow, that was terrible.I tried to put in a line and failed epicly. Think I fixed it though.I need to learn more about formatting on this wiki...Hylianhero777 (talk) 14:21, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Where did this come from? Something that's rumored to appear shouldn't really be here but I would like to know more about it before voting it off Oni Dark Link 18:31, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain why you opposed, Tincle? --AuronKaizer! 11:25, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Well I did make the page. :) Although it seems that its a fan made game, I think it's a big enough project to have a little page. I mean Zelda and Tingle fans would be interested in it anyways, right? Tincle (talk) 17:06, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
If its fan made game it should go on the Fan games Page. On that subject I'd like to move all that fallen sage info there too Oni Dark Link 17:31, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yes... also, Hylianhero, it has been proven to be a fan game. While not a "fake," as such, it still fails to satisfy the criteria for a separate article status. Oni's suggestion is the way to go here. --AuronKaizer! 14:22, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
OK, we can just move it to the fan games page. I think that's fine if all of the other games are there as well. Tincle (talk) 22:49, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement