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

I switched the images

...for this.

I think it's a better representation of the Dodongo in Twilight Princess because it's in a natural pose. Also it's transparent so I think that's a plus. Is everyone okay with the decision?-- Green_Tunic (Talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think the Picture is MUCH better. Where did you find it? Or did you make it yourself? DekuLink 05:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The new image looks much more professional.User:Mandi/sig 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it on another Zelda site. I forgot where. But I made it from a png to a gif (don't worry the image quality remained intact) and made it transparent.-- Green_Tunic (Talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


How does one really cite information that we can simply observe in game? I mean the only way I think that this can be addressed it to find questionable statements and mark them with the Fact template, indicating that a particular statement needs to be cited because it's not simply accepted. I just think the References template at the top is a bit, no pun intended, over the top. --Xizor 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more of an art :p Which is why we all hate doing it, I guess. My method is to find anything mentioning the subject then forcing the reference in. Axiomist (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Seeing as this was tagged with an improve template, lemme just say this: not every reincarnation of the Dodongo needs an infobox of its own. :P We could just add a gallery, you know. I'll see what I can do. Dany36 16:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article status

If this article is tagged with the improve template, does it still deserve to be a featured article? Not to mention it lacks references... Dany36 04:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time for a policy decision. I suggest that it be discussed about the removal. If it's agreed that it's bad enough, then we take it down. Alter  {T C B H } 01:14, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article has been salvaged as of late. Refs have been added and it was given a full reorganization, a much needed one at that. At this point, I see it capable of re-upholding its featured article status, one that has definitely raised the bar in terms of article quality since the old days. I vote to keep it featured! — ciprianotalk 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Baby Dodongo

Base on recent events revolving around splitting articles, am I the only one who thinks Baby Dodongos would benefit from having their own page, and yes I know they are infant Dodongos. Any thoughts? XXSuperXXNintendoXx 19:02, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Seeing as how Big Deku Baba has its own page, I think we may have been a bit hasty on this one. Baby Dodongos behave differently than normal Dodongos, so maybe they should be split... -- Dany36 14:17, 2 February 2012 (EST)
If you can say everything there is to say about Baby Dodongos in three sentences (as it currently stands), a split hardly seems worth it. Unless we can really expand our info on them, I don't really see the point. — Hylian King [*] 14:56, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
As Hylian King mentioned on Skype, we'd still have to mention it on the Dodongo page and link to it if we decide to split it off. Since the entire thing is 3 sentences long, we'd recap the whole thing on this page anyway. Unless that section grows, there's no point in splitting it. — Abdullah [T] [C] [S]  16:12, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

All current info on Baby Dodongos can be said in two paragraphs, most likely making any separated page a stub. So, I vote no.-Nya (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I vote no. Not enough information. Less stubs is better.InvisibleGanon (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)