July 25, 2020

👭 Knight Challenge #11 👬

Want to try your hand at these challenges? There's a couple of things you can do!
From writing, to research, to images, find your preferred way to contribute with our eleventh theme: Couples!

Latest Announcements


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

Information lacking

Labrynna seems to have less detail or info than holodrum. It seems to be a pattern with ages/seasons articles, with the information or quality leaning heavily toward seasons in most cases. I suggest that each oracle article be compared to its counter point in order to obtain a more uniform appearance for the wiki. Any thoughts?--Magnus orion 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that more people have played Seasons over Ages (although I've yet to beat either, I'm working on Ages right now). Many people haven't played, let alone beaten, either of them, hence the Wiki's overall lack of information regarding them. I agree with the idea of trying to get a more consistent feel throughout the Wiki by comparing and contrasting article differences; after all, that's why the game pages are so similar as well. —Ando (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Labrynna's Locations and Landmarks

You know, Link87 is doing a great job at expanding this article with well-written content, but it's almost kinda sad that his descriptions of the places are waaaay better and more elaborated than the ones in the main article. Take for example the Black Tower page. It doesn't talk about how Veran's possession of Nayru changed completely the direction that the Black Tower took as she was manipulating Queen Ambi. What I'm suggesting is that the more elaborated sections (the ones by Link87) are copied and pasted over to its respective main article, while giving a brief summary in the Labrynna page of the history of that place. I don't know if this made any sense to anyone other than me... o_o Dany36 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that makes sense to me, so I have no objections if that is what everyone would prefer. I'm very flattered indeed. If this is what is preferred, I can copy and paste as Dany suggested and create an abbreviated version of the content for this page in its place with a link to the main page. Link87 19:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's just that it doesn't really make sense for the Labrynna article to have a longer explanation of the Black Tower when the Black Tower article was just two small paragraphs. I'm not blaming you, though, but rather it amazes me how much great detail you put into the pages. Dany36 00:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Lol, well English was my favorite subject in school and I love to write. I figure if I'm going to write something, I ought to do it right and give it my all so that others can enjoy it and learn whatever information on the topic they seek in an enjoyable way. And I understand what you mean, and I fully agree. So what I may do is write the longer, fully detailed versions and transport them to their respective main articles and then create an abbreviated version of it for this article. If viewers wish to read more about the topic then they can follow the link to the main article, so it works out nice overall that way. And once again, thank you for the compliment, I am indeed humbled. :) Link87 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "Improve" template. I think this article is very well done. Of course, future edits are welcome, but I'd deem it up to standard. =] Good work, Link87. -- Xizor 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Why thank you Xizor, I do appreciate the compliment. And yes, any and all future edits are welcome by anybody. I am nearing completion of the article, though I do have some work left to do. I'd like to complete the text for the sections and then perhaps add appropriate pics for the article as well. Once those two things are done, the article will be complete, and then it will be on to the next one. I have a lot of fun helping to improve the articles that need it, and I look forward to all the others to come. ;) Link87 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Zora Seas theory

I have came to a conclusion that it may be possible that the zora seas and great bay could be connected....No?Yes?--T Locks was here-- 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I see nothing to disprove this, I would need to see supporting evidence for it. I am of a mind that the Zora Seas is indeed connected to the ocean that borders Hyrule, if that makes sense. Take for example that we know that Labrynna is in the same universe as Hyrule, not a parallel dimension like Termina, and that we see Link leaving on a boat at the linked ending of the Oracle games that looks very much like the one he was traveling in during Link's Awakening while on his way home to Hyrule. This is a theory I have come to believe after such evidence to support it. It is possible I'd say as well though that this same ocean could somehow be connected through a portal to the Zora Seas and the sea bordering Hyrule as well (this is how some believe the Gerudo originally came to Hyrule, from Termina), in a similar way that the Lost Woods contains a portal to Termina's Clock Tower. So in short, I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am saying that I'd need to see supporting evidence to judiciously pass a yea or nay on it personally, evidence like that for the aforementioned theory about the Zora Seas connecting to the one containing Koholint Island. Link87 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My supporting evidence is my common sence supporting that if you put two and two together you would get this theory!these two just happen to be the only large areas of water with water extending out of their respective maps.Do you understand?But there being one portal to termina there is probably another.--T Locks was here!--_ 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


I've decided this article is far too large, and will be cutting it down to remove unnecessary, fluffy information. This is an independent action taken based on previous discussions by the entire ZW Staff. --Xizor 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While the effort placed into this article should be commemorated, it simply is quality over quantity, and I agree with Xizor, wholeheartedly. To be honest, the majority of the subsections contained content that shadowed even the main articles they had linked to, in sheer size. I suggest that, because the content discussed in those sections was thorough and hearty, that the main articles that used to be in the "Locations and Landmarks" section should be added to with such information. Perhaps the landmarks are worthy of a listing, at the least, but not whole paragraphs and essays. The page was beginning to lock up my browser, it was so long. — ciprianotalk 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The entire section was simply removed. The article itself is part of the category with all those places. I see no need to list 20+ things on this page. This page is not a category. --Xizor 06:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Then again, we could make a simple chart for the places, instead of lining them up down the page. I do believe they should be on the page somewhere, because while we, as frequent users see them as useful and benefitial, normal users/readers run the risk of the categories going completely unnoticed. Just a thought. — ciprianotalk 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest restoring what Xizor removed, but not to this page in particular. I propose taking that information and doing one of two things: make a subpage for locations and place it there or take each place's text and put it on their respective pages if their pages are lacking. There's no need for all that hard work to go to waste one way or the other. I would like to see something on the page too, though I can understand the size concerns. I just think we can do better than "cut first, ask questions later". Link87 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd start with placing as much of the removed information on those respective pages, if they need it. The point is to have information only on the relevant pages. It spreads out the information and makes it easier to read and load. On other pages it's supposed to be a quick summary, not a full explanation. Some of the information there was far more detailed than the main pages were. It's supposed to be just enough to make the person want to see the main page for what was mentioned, not an insertion of that article. It's a good way to balance, information, page size, and boost page views. More views seem to help boost the popularity of the whole place.Matt (Talk) 00:28, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

That would be my assessment as well, I concur. We had some good material there that as you say was better than what was on the actual pages for those places, so that's probably the best course of action in regards to that. Now the question is who is to take on that task. I would think that the person wishing to reduce the size of the page would be a natural choice for it, given that the work for it is already done. I wrote much if not all of those descriptions, and I don't mind to move them when I get time, but if it's such a pressing issue to cut the article's size, a little help would certainly be appreciated since I've been swamped with schoolwork as of late. Link87 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the content in the section is better than the content in the respective articles, shouldn't that content be split?--Knife 03:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the point Matt and I are making. The question is who's going to go back through the history and restore all that data to the respective pages that need it. I wrote most of it, but that's going to take time I may not have at my disposal immediately since it requires going back through the history now since Xizor already removed it from the page. I can try to do it when I get the time, but I would have thought that if it was of such importance that the page be shortened that the natural person to do this work of restoring that data would be whoever removed it if they have access to more time that I may have at the present time. There's no doubt a lot was put into that data, and it would help the individual pages. Link87 05:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge project

As suggested above, the removed information from this page should be merged into the each article to which it pertains. The text to be merged is below, please remove each section once it has been included into an article.


I'm just curious Adam, but how were you able to do that?? Pull all of that material back out of the history without all the coding stuff?? I've tried to do it before, but all the coding stuff gets in the way, so I thought maybe you know something I don't know about how to get it. This makes it a lot easier to get this material over to the pages too, so thank you for that. Link87 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A republic or a province of Hyrule?

I have doubts about the government of Labrynna during Zelda's age. The article says that Labrynna is ruled by the mayor of Lynna City, but I found no evidence of this. Logic dictates that a mayor rules over a city, not over a country. On the other hand, the Princess Zelda of Hyrule comes to Labrynna (in a linked game) because of the trouble in that land. My hypothesis is that Labrynna became a province of Hyrule. My evidence is weak, but it is still stronger than the one supporting a republic: Zelda sends her emissary Impa first, then comes in person, the same way a rightful ruler would come and inspect one of his/her provinces in trouble; in fact, no one in Labrynna calls for Zelda's help; furthermore, the mayor seems little concerned about anything that happens outside Lynna City. --Abacos (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)