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

Zelda Wiki:Failed Nominations

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

Three signed votes in opposition of a nominated article or picture temporarily disqualify it from becoming featured.

Failed Article Nominations

The following sections are article nominations that received at least three signed opposition votes.

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass — Failed: February 28, 2008
Epona — Failed February 29, 2008
Helmaroc King — Failed March 10, 2008
ReDead — Failed March 20, 2008
Octorok — Failed April 3, 2008
Volvagia — Failed April 3, 2008
Darknut — Failed April 3, 2008
Clawshot — Failed April 7, 2008
Gohma — Failed April 8, 2008
Zora — May 3, 2008
Gel — Failed May 27, 2008
Outset Island — Failed June 28, 2008
Twilight Realm — Failed July 16, 2008
Medli — August 7, 2008
Tetraforce — Failed September 15, 2008
Tunic - Failed November 11, 2008
Hyrule Castle - Failed November 19, 2008
Temple of Time - Failed January 3, 2009

{{hide | header= Kafei - Failed February 23, 2009 | content=At first, mysterious, masked child. Possessing the strength of a man(see manga). Way faster than Normal Link. Tragic story and a main part of the best side-quest ever. Features of a Shiekah. A subtle cameo in Animal Crossing. A playable character!!!

Kafei needs to be featured, he is, while small to the Zelda universe in general, a large part of Majora's Mask. Zapdemon 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC) @

Support Vote.png Support
  1. Amazing side-quest with romantic and courageous storyline(Unsigned vote by Dekuta — see rule 6.)
  2. Kafei is a less-known character, so reading about him would interest visitors. On the other hand, any Zelda player who has picked up a controller already knows at least enough about the temple of time to at least search for it.--Claire 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. The article meets the criteria -- it is lengthy, yet detailed, containing all information available on Kafei from the one game in which he was found. There is nothing wrong with the article itself. Ancblue52 15:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. In a word, yes. This character is not only little known about, but the page has a lot of information. I'm all for making this the featured article. --Prince Deity 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Yes, this is definitely good content to feature. He is home to one of Zelda's greatest sidequests, so many people would read it for the sake of nostalgia. And the actual article is very nice, even if there are a few slightly weak areas. Twilight Wolfo 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. It is just a great side-quset, and I think it deserves notoriety.TheOracle 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. Though the character would make a great featured article, I find the content lacking. Some sections are only a sentence long, such as the Sun Mask says see Couples Mask. I think the page needs to be elaborated on before obtaining featured status. It should be almost complete within itself, and though giving links to other pages, it should give details to suffice in relation to Kafei. I don't see this yet! {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 11:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. i) The article is actually really quite short, just with a lot of padding. ii) Most of the sections are stubs, other than the intro and "Daily Schedule" (which overlaps too much with the content in Reuniting Kafei and Anju) iii) NO REFERENCES - seriously, we cannot feature something without a single reference (I'd say this makes vote 3 above invalid) iv) Another invalid, subject-based nomination - seriously, we need to get some detailed guidelines up at Help:Featured Content. —Adam [ talk ] 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Too short, no references (unless you count those two sites as references). This article needs much more work before it's worthy of being featured. --Felicia's Champion 08:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments

I guess that's 3 opposition votes. Too bad. —Alter  {T C B H } 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC) }}

Rauru - Failed April 12, 2009

{{hide | header= Tingle - Failed December 18, 2009

| content=

TRR Tingle 2.png

This article is very lengthy and well-written, and has plenty of images, all of which are nicely placed. There are also several sources. I think this would make a great featured article, seeing as how many people have contributed to (and vandalized) it. —Alter  {T C B H } 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support

Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. Nothing against Tingle, I love the guy. I think the article overall just isn't as informative as it could be. There is very little information on the Tingle's own games, which to me isn't acceptable even though they never made it stateside. Not only that, I can't help but feel certain areas of the article are underwritten, and it may be do to the general distaste for the character (that is, people not really wanting to work on this article as much as others). I may need to give this piece some personal loving, but I just don't think it's ready. Maybe next month. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. I believe Nathan has voiced my opinion, as well.—Justin(Talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. To me, what is presented in this article is written well, but it is lacking. Many points are skimmed over, and as has been mentioned, it has significant holes in the sections on Tingle specific games. There are subtitled sections with barely one or two lines, and some single sentence paragraphs. The overall formatting is not yet worthy of featuring yet, with much blank space. It isn't ready yet. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 11:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments
  1. I agree with you all. When I nominated it, I just looked at the amount of content, how well-written it was, the refs, and the images, but not how much it covered in total. I'll work on it some more at a later time. —Alter  {T C B H } 19:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


{{hide | header= Sheikah - Failed May 9, 2010

| content=

OoT Impa Artwork.png

The Sheikah article is one of the crown jewels of the Zelda Wiki. Not only is almost every sentence properly referenced, the article's flow is suave and it covers all its bases - from theories to in-game detail. The enticing placement of pictures (and there are a good bunch of them), and the article's easy-to-follow structure make it an role model for all other race articles. This article is fantastic! User:Cipriano 119/sig 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support
  1. We put in a lot of time and effort on it, but it did turn out very nice in the end. We also had contributions from several editors, and that made the project all the more fruitful. Link87 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. I might be a bit biased because I worked on this one, but it is a very high-quality article. Ganondorfdude11 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Looks good to me. The writing style actually made the page interesting. I like the big words here and there. +1 —Alter  {T C B H } 00:27, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
  4. As I was working on some of the references, I noticed that pretty much every single sentence has something to do with the Sheikah, and it is written very nicely. Really great article! Dany36 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. After the recent work done to this page, I fully give my support. --Xizor 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. This article might look good because of the overall arrangement of images and content however, the writing style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is...more reminiscent of fan fiction. When I read this article, I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over again. It's somewhat redundant. It could be cut down considerably just by taking out the redundancies.User:Mandi/sig 06:42, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Even with all the reductions and cuts the article reads way too much like a story. With overly elaborate wording, unnecessary statements and phrases, over-dramatization. This article needs a total rewrite before it could really be featured.User:Matt/sig 18:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure this article is ready for Featured status yet. While it's apparent a lot of effort and hard work has been put into the article, it feels longwinded and there are some basic writing errors that inhibit it's flow (3 sentences starting with the word "after" in a 5 sentence paragraph, for example). There's also some assumptions made about the entire race based on the few people we meet who represent them (The Sheikah are a warrior race? All of them? Really? Where did it say that?). It just... while all the information inside is cool, now that all the contributions have been made it needs to be rewritten, it needs to be polished. It's too storylike, and not encyclopedic enough, as has been pointed out. I think that's the major flaw. —Embyr 75  --Talk-- 02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments
  1. I must say Alter, that's the most supportive sounding opposition vote I've ever seen. I suggest you either reword it to make workable opposing points, or consider if you placed that in the right section ;) Axiomist (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Fixed it for him. ;) Link87 01:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Heh heh... I meant to do that... PUT IT BACK!!! lol Good catch. I mighta killed that nomination or something. —Alter  {T C B H } 02:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
  • I take offense at the criticisms levied by the opposition, as it was carefully written and has been edited by other editors to remove "redundancies". The page took a lot of work and effort to create and was a team effort, and there is nothing wrong with the writing style according to others who have read it. However, considering the critic, bias is not to be unexpected as the critic has a history of unwarranted criticism. Link87 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Firstly it was only one opposition vote. It was my opinion to which I am freely entitled to. I apologize that you take offense over my criticism of this article, however, I cannot help that it, in my opinion, is not up to feature status. As for your claim of "bias", I am sorry to inform you that there was no bias in my decision to oppose this article. My vote was decided after reading the article in its entirety.User:Mandi/sig 18:05, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, right, and the unwarranted block of last night was so indicative of no bias?? The real intent is obvious here. However, it's as you say one negative vote that is untrue in its accusations in my view. And if you read it you would have given examples to show that, and none appeared. So sorry, but I'm not buying if that's what you were hoping. Still, I will let others that have more relevance judge the article's merit for themselves. Link87 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The block was due to your harassment in the chat and your failure to ever compromise with anyone ;)User:Mandi/sig 18:49, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if memory serves me right, you were the one harassing me when I stated my disagreement with you here, calling names and such. It's there for all to see. And obviously it was not in your authority to block for things unrelated to the wiki ;) Link87 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This argument stops here. Everyone is entitled to their own vote, and Mandi's opposing vote is as per the guidelines. It should not concern you so deeply Chris. The article is not your personal project and it still has a fair shot at a featured article. The featured system is made to be fair, and if one negative vote is made for smite, that will not affect its chances. It is best just to leave it and see how it goes. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Nobody, not me or anybody, said it was my "personal project", it was a team effort that is being falsely besmirched as "fan fiction", and I will not stand by and let all of our efforts be smeared without a proper defense. I agree the argument ends here, but we're all entitled to our opinions as I said and my opinion of said opposing vote is it is based in ulterior motives. End of story. Link87 23:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Rupee - Failed May 11, 2010
Twinrova - Failed 31 October, 2010
Earth Temple - Failed November 17, 2010
Great Flood - Failed May 4, 2011
Chuchu - Failed February 28, 2011
Bow - Failed April 15, 2012
Zora - Failed April 13, 2013 (expired)
Helmaroc King - Failed April 13, 2013 (expired)

Failed Picture Nominations

The following sections are picture nominations which either expired or received a score of -3.

Lightsword.jpg — Failed April 3, 2008
1243690847 64601fc368.jpg — Failed April 4, 2008
Hidden11.jpg — Failed April 29, 2008
Zant012.jpg — Failed May 8, 2008
Spinattack.jpg — Failed May 8, 2008
Mastersword.jpeg — Failed May 10, 2008
DLGanon TP.jpg — May 11, 2008
Darkhyrulecastle.jpg — Failed due to invalid nomination
Kingofredlions.gif — Failed May 17, 2008
TP Twilit Bloat Render.png — Failed June 17, 2008
Desertcolossus.jpg — Failed June 28, 2008
Link evo.jpg — Failed July 6, 2008
TP Ganon Render.png — Failed August 6, 2008
Darkhyrulecastle.jpg (nomination 2) — Failed due to invalid nomination
Master Sword.png — Failed August 21, 2008, withdrawn by nominating user
Emptybottle.png — Failed August 20, 2008
Hidden11.jpg — Failed August 31, 2008
JumpTwilight.jpg — Failed September 10, 2008
gohma early.jpg — October 3, 2008
TP Death Sword Render.png (proposed replacement for Deathhh.jpg) — Failed on October 16, 2008
MM Deku Royal Family Artwork.png — Failed on November 11, 2008
LA Great Hyrulean Sea Storm Artwork.png — Failed on November 17, 2008
PH Scene 1-2.png/Ph scene 1b.jpg — Failed on November 18, 2008
Link and Ezlo.png — Failed on November 18, 2008
Twilight Sword.png — Failed on February 22, 2009
TRR Tingle 2.png — Failed on March 11, 2009
MM Twinmold Artwork.png — Failed on April 14, 2009

{{hide|header=PhantomHourglassscene13.png (Bellumbeck) — Failed on April 18, 2009 |content=


This picture is from the ending sequence of Phantom Hourglass. I think it's style is pretty neat.--Link hero of light 16:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support
  1. This is a great picture showcasing the artstyle of Phantom Hourglass's cutscenes. I major Yes. -ATRUEZELDAFAN 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. PH has no featured pictures yet, this is worthy on it it's own, it reflects the action and style of the game very nicely. Much more than being a nice image, it's the perfect example of what can be expected from Ph's innocent appearance and fearsome phantoms. Axiomist (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. An awesome picture, very stylish and cool looking. Also, a nice action scene. Axle the Beast 04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. I love this style and tried to do something like that, too. And therefore I can say that this picture is one of the best from the cutscences and not as simple, as it may seem. And also, if PH doesn't have any featured pictures yet, this is another point for it. --Nelde 18:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. This is a really good picture from what is perhaps one of the best portable games ever. It shows all the dynamic emotion and styles that were used in the game, as well as how the boss is fought, in a sort of vauge way.--Petman1325 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. The Phantom Hourglass cut out style is so unique!Corey Lord of Tacos! 02:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. This image is incredibly small. It is much smaller than most of our currently featured images. Plus it is one image out of many that are very similar to it. Doesn't really strike me as awesome. Not compared to what we have.User:Matt/sig 21:47, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Matt. Although Bellumbeck is awesome, this cutout doesn't stand out from the others in my opinion and doesn't really seem like much compared to other nominees. Kind of droll really. Then there's the size. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 04:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Bellumbeck would have made a good featured picture however, this image is incredibly small. Hardly eye catching or even interesting. Not really feature worthy.User:Mandi/sig 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments

Size is reason enough to not vote for it, but hardly justifiable to Oppose an image. The Images above are all great but Opposition votes with the reason of "We already have several very similar images featured." would fit in the rules as stated above. Just bear that in mind before Failing this image. Axiomist (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I as well, will not oppose this image, we have had Phantom Hourglass nominations before. I'd hate to see this one fail because of my vote, but it's certainly not featured material. First of all, Link hero of light, when Matt and Mel told you the image is too small, they meant the image itself; increasing the thumbnail size will do no good. Also by "large", they mean LARGE at least 900px in height, and size of an image does matter (large images give the "wow factor"). Even in the guidelines it states "it's too low resolution" as one of the examples as a justifiable opposition.— Steve 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


{{hide|header=Epona w link.png (Link with Epona) — Failed on October 1, 2009|content=

OoT Link Riding Epona Artwork.png

This is a very cool image that needs to be featured. There are not very many Epona pictures but I think this one is the best. It really captures the image of Ocarina of Time. It is very nicely drawn and old school. It needs to be featured.--Lt. Hammerspace 03:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. Eh...my first and real gripe with this image is the quality. It seems choppy and the transparency job is rather poor. It's also rather uninteresting.User:Mandi/sig 04:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. The transparency job is done badly, but the image also offers nothing special. It is rather stock-standard, not encapsulating any mood or interest. It doesn't draw people in. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 04:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  3. There are several visible leftovers from a quick and somewhat sloppy transparency job. The tail seems a little choppy and it looks like the sword is missing a few pixels. The tail and mane also look like parts are missing as well as having some background left over. As far as I'm concerned this isn't the highest of quality.User:Matt/sig 04:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
Negated.png Negated/Retracted Votes
  1. I absolutely love it. Great image. —Alter  {T C B H } 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. —Alter  {T C B H } 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments
  1. Clean it up, and then we'll talk. Also, doesn't Link know it's dangerous to lean back on a horse while it's rearing? Noble Wrot 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. The image doesn't look that great now that I know what it is. It's not bad, but not featured quality. —Alter  {T C B H } 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Link and Ezlo Still Life.png (Link and Ezlo Still Life) — Failed on May 10, 2010
ST Link Phantom Zelda Spirit Train Artwork.png (Spirit Tracks Artwork) — Failed on July 28, 2010
LinkImpa.png (Link and Impa) — Failed on September 13, 2010
Ambrosia Lite.png (Ambrosia Lite) — Failed on October 7, 2010
Great Deku Tree.png (Great Deku Tree) — Failed on February 25, 2011
File:PhantomHourglassscene10.png — Failed on February 28, 2012
File:Mirror of Twilight (Front).png - Failed on July 12, 2012
File:SS Faron Woods Artwork.png (Scenery from Skyward Sword) — Failed on July 10, 2011
File:Triforce.jpg (Artwork of the Triforce from A Link to the Past) — Failed on December 20, 2012
File:TWW JP Box.jpg The Wind Waker Japanese boxart — Failed on March 16, 2013
File:Screen Shot 2013-03-12 at 4.33.27 PM.png Master Sword Fan Art — Failed on March 16, 2013
File:Linkinwiiu.png (Link in the Zelda HD Experience) — Failed on March 17, 2013
File:TWW HD.jpg (The Wind Waker HD Screenshot)
File:ALBW Hyrule Lorule.png (A Link Between Worlds Artwork) — Failed on June 14, 2014 (expired)