January 25, 2020

🏎️ Knight Challenge #3 🏎️

Gear up for a new set of Challenges!
From writing, to research, to images, find your preferred way to contribute with our third theme: Vehicles!

Latest Announcements

Category talk:Link

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have a question... should the Link article go in here as well? Dinosaur bob 20:55, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Diffrent articles for difrent Links

I think that each Link should have his own article. The same goes fro zelda. Basicly, we could have a Link (Twilight Princess) article, a Link (Wind Waker/Phatom Hourglass. When someone types up Link, we could have a page asking which Link you would like to read about. The only problem with this idea is that Link couldn't be a featured article any more. Articles like Young Link and Toon Link could be merged with Link (Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass) and Link (Ocrania of Time/Majora's Mask). What do you think?--Link hero of light 19:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, a discussion was started a while back regarding merging several of the Link articles with Link... Toon Link has already been merged with the Link article, and I'm not sure what was actually decided for Young Link. Adult Link, I think, needs to be merged with Link, and Links just plain needs to go. I guess I should go add those templates, then. --Ando (T : C) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Does anybody agree with me? Should all Link's have seperate articles?--Link hero of light 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

yesDragonstetraforce 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up the page would make the resulting pages seem too cheesy. If we did this we'd have to do it for Zelda as well. That would make the Ganon article look weird and we'd have to split that one up too. It would be a jumbled-up mess that would just look horrible. So I'm against the idea.User:Matt/sig 00:08, September 20, 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Matt. Plus, Ganon and Zelda wouldn't be the only ones. We're talking about taking, eventually, all the recurring characters and instead of having their information in one article, scattering it in several. This would result in, instead of one great page, many sub-average pages. Neither Link, Ganon or Zelda would be worthy of featured status this way. So yeah, I'm against it. --Felicia's Champion 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Taking the example of Ganon; the articles Ganon and Ganondorf were merged into one a long time ago (2006), then last year someone decided to split them. You can see the resulting fallout on the talk page, but basically it was agreed to merge again. And this has been the tendency wherever possible; to merge fragmented aspects of the same subject into one complete article. This way it is less confusing to the reader, easier to find information and allows for a greater overall article quality. The above suggestion is unworkable, and I fail to see what there is to gain by basically fragmenting every subsection into a series of incomplete, isolated mini-articles. User:Adam/sig 07:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Adam, who agrees with Yuvorias, who agrees with Matt. I've been wondering why there's even a category like this to begin with. Shouldn't all these articles (with the exception of Dark Link) be merged into the Link page? Alternatively, should they have sections merged to his page, then make use of the main template to cover the subject under a broader scope? As the article stands, most of the pages aren't even linked to at all... which... leaves me wondering why it's featured. --Douken 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So we going to do this or what? Let's go and do these mergers.User:Matt/sig 19:39, November 14, 2008 (UTC)