User talk:Results May Vary

Forking

So how much forking has been done for this site currently in comparison to how much is planned? I'd like to create a bunch of just-above stub articles for the main recurring enemies so thy can be filled in more conveniently, but don't want to interfere with that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? I moved the content off zelda.shoutwiki.com entirely. The whole site is off, and all the content not from hylian pi on zelda archive is preserved here. He gave me the pages and images to preserve here Results May Vary (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I meant like the enemy pages that were on ZeldaArchive, mostly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Zora

I think that Zoras probably should all be on one page, since the ones in OoT are based off the previous ones (just always friendly not usually ugly) and LBW has an extra-large amount of friendly versions of the Gillman-like ones. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Patra

Although NIWA Zeldawiki always called it a boss, in action, I don't see why it should be ranked any higher than Lanmola in that regard. I mean, they often appear multiple in a room, they don't seem to act as a boss like Dodongo does (which is degraded to generic more-than-one-in-room enemy later), and I don't think they ever roar (though I could be wrong there). They seem like just an enemy that has rather sophisticated behavior. Admittedly, "Eyesoar" (which is the same thing) in Oracle of Ages is a boss, but that's a different game. Note that "Patra" should still get name priority due to being from a manual. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me -- if you see any mistakes, I strongly encourage you to correct them--that's the whole point of wiki: properly cited facts and infromation. I'm actually counting on you to help me with name sources, since the Zelda naming is such a mess; i'm just trying to put all the names and sprites together on the Zelda 1, which has been taking me 1-2 days already to finish up. An example of a naming confusion is that Rocks is the name from in the Zelda 1 manual but they're listed under the Boulder page on NIWA Zelda Wiki Results May Vary (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure "boulder" has been used in the same context in a game since then. Either way, they're both generic names. If LTL gets involved, he should be more helpful in that regard, since he has actual guidebooks (the only guidebooks I own are the inconsistent Dark Horse ones and the Tri-Force Heroes guide) and knows a significantly higher level of Japanese than I do. From what I can tell, the only Dark Horse-translated guidebook that didn't blatantly take from the various wikis (and the hilariously unreliable Zelda.com) was the first, Hyrule Historia, and it probably did less-obvious amount of that regardless. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Does Zelda have any other Super Mario Encyclopedia-type equivalents where they take names from wikis, causing citogenesis? Results May Vary (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Also i told LinkTheLefty about this place--he didn't seem interested. Results May Vary (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The only ones I know are Arts & Artifacts and Zelda Encyclopedia. The latter most laughably blatant, rivaling SMBE. I legitimately wonder if ZD worked on that as well. Also yay, first edit conflict of the new wiki. :P Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Weee. Also regarding LTL and Doom, I think some editors would probably only join when there's more content for them to work with, or if the wiki proves its durability Results May Vary (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I additionally should mention that the manual (or at last the Western one) doesn't really separate between enemies and bosses. Overworld and underworld enemies, but not enemies and bosses, which is a bit of a minor problem as Dodongo explicitly acts as both in the game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:Since when was naming Canon?

Exactly. They act as if things can only have one "true" name. You know, despite synonyms and language/term evolution being a thing in both real life and fiction. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Note for when creating the species infobox

I'd mostly like it to be like the MarioWiki one. However, due to problems we've had regarding how relations between entities work, I'd say the relation parameters should be "variants" (for what is a subtype of another), "parent entity" or "variant of" (for the opposite), "relatives" (for what is clearly in the same group, but lacks as cohesive a relation as the previous two), and "comparable" (for ones that, while not clearly related, are still close enough to be linked to). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, do you want to create it now or should i do it? Also thank you for helping fill in the blanks on the Legend of Zelda page -- you've already been a big help :) Results May Vary (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I mean if I did it I'd just be nicking the source code off of MarioWiki, and I haven't got whatever permission I need to do that as far as I can tell....also you're welcome, it's nice to have something to do that isn't the somewhat stressful preparation for final exams. (At the very least, only two of my classes actually have those this semester...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll go create it then. It would be located under Template:Species infobox when i do create it Results May Vary (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All right then. ^^ Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, it's been created. Enjoy Results May Vary (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OG Death Mountain

Perhaps "Labyrinth" since it appears in level-like quantities in later games, when "Labyrinth" is dropped as dungeons become more theme-based than maze-based. Nice tab icon, by the way, since it's now showing up as Triforce. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you -- I noticed a lack of a favicon, so i decided to add one in. I also did labyrinth for the zelda 1 dungeon names since that's the name used throughout the instruction manual Results May Vary (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Games Template

I personally dislike templates that separate console from handheld in "Main Games," unless it's a series that actually does seem to separate continuity that way. Zelda does not. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought since Wikipedia organized it like, it would be understandable for the nav template to. maybe we can make a Console games and Handheld games category, as a category per system would have too few entries? Results May Vary (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That would make more sense to me. Doing it in template just messes with the ordering IMO. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

So would we just simplify it into "Main series" in the template? Results May Vary (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say so, or more accurately The Legend of Zelda series. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Aren't there spinoff titles in the series itself (like the CD-i games) Results May Vary (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

They don't have "The Legend of Zelda" in the title. I'd say they're in the franchise, but not the series. Quit a bit more removed than the Donkey Kong Land games were from the Donkey Kong Country games, that's for sure. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd personally be worried about The title "The Legend of Zelda series" stretching farther than Main series, even though as you said, it's more specific. I just worry about it being too ambiguous, what do you think (and tbh i confused franchise and series up to this point). Results May Vary (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It is pretty long, which is probably enough to justify "Main series." It could also be abbreviated to "TLoZ series." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:2nd Poison / Life Poison

Probably the same, since one's just a double version of the other, and milk works kinda like that in later games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppose so, since thy do work different from the variously-colored "Potions" in ALttP and onwards. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Pokemon Season 5: Master Quest/OoTGCN

I'd Have the full title for the disc and "Master Quest (mode)" for the mode itself, since last I checked the mode didn't go by the LozOoT title. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I just went ahead and called it OoT Bonus Disc, as on TCRF. There's not really any clear title of what it's called (and nice strikeout haha) Results May Vary (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The King

May you delete King Harkinan due to the King Harkinian page covering the same character? Doomhiker (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, good catch. I didnt even notice that I originally created the page with a typo. Thank you Results May Vary (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Moldorm

I don't think these guys know what the hell they're doing anymore
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
The official JP organization, on the other hand, is much more concise, splitting this into four fairly-different subjects instead of six inconsistently-different ones. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, so there's four different Moldorms? Results May Vary (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Moldorm (guy from first game whose segments all look the same), Tail (crazy li'l guy), Big Tail (crazy big guy), and Moldworm (bigmouth underground guy). The later Magtail and Tailparasan take after Tail, while Twinmold and Molgera take after Moldorm. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I finished the preliminary versions for our versions of the articles through the night, by the way. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, looks like I was wrong. There wasn't six articles for four subjects. There was seven. I didn't realize this counted in there as well: [7] Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:Opinion on Zelda Archive

I like the green, but ultimately it looks like something that could be made on MySQL with minimal coding. I'd say "MS Word" before "MS Paint," myself. It's....rough, but there's not really a lot going on with it, so that's to b expected. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I did see some unrest about the bullcrap policies while looking around on there, at the very least. The blue is likely just because images are highly unlikely to blend. I personally kinda like it, even if it makes no sense thematically. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:Timeline..

I personally would like to know what the JP guidebooks have to say, as I have a feeling that the one in the Western books was at least partially fanfic-inspired. There are a few relations definite and SS is definitely the first, but to have a whole "timeline" of everything seems a tad suspect to me. Espcially when FSA gets involved. Additionally, I have a feeling much of BotW is intended to outright break the idea of an all-encompassing "timeline." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait why would they use fanfics as a resource for explaining the timeline? Results May Vary (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Because what info didn't come from Zeldawiki and Zeldapedia mostly came from other fan sources in some insane attempt at keeping with the "Western" "canon" that some fans go rabid over. Hyrule Historia and Arts & Artifacts have slightly different timelines between them, for example. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Artwork

What do you think about me taking artwork from the NIWA Zeldawiki? Often it's cropped badly, and I actually do have all three of the poorly-"translated" books (which themselves have artwork), but there's still a lot of sourced artwork on there I'm otherwise unable to access. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the Arts & Artifacts book? I have an official PDF if you want to use it. taking from other wikis is kind of a last resort, in my opinion Results May Vary (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have all three. Hyrule Historia, Arts & Artifacts, and Encyclopedia. This however does not include, for instance, the Million publishing guide artwork for the first game, and skips several artworks from games it does cover. I particularly have my eye on this art for the Zelda 1 Moldorm. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I allow it--but like Mario Wiki, i'd recommend not adding images with fan-applied transparency. how about you? Results May Vary (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no rule on there against that. The rule is that transparency shouldn't have artifacts around the edges. I've added transparency to images myself, but I know how to do it carefully and thoroughly, and to make sure the images is sufficiently crisp before doing so. For example... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay--usually fan transparency is a jpg converted to png, which usually inflates the file size. But i wont bother you any further/ Long story short, my answer is a yes. I'm just giving recommendations, as Mario Wiki does not like fan transparency images, or jpg to png converted files Results May Vary (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I mean the .jpg thing is pretty obvious to anyone who works with pixels a lot, and I'm a spriter, so... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ohh i see what you mean. Yeah that's definitely alright--i thought you meant about altering jpg artworks from computer images rather than a manual. sorry for the confusion Results May Vary (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The only time I've done a .jpg -> .png was with book scan images copypasted from imgur that I wasn't sure of the file type of at the time (though I know NOW it was a .jpg due to the "save image as" function), but that was a couple years ago. And even then, I applied the same rules for cropping. So yeah, it's only happened for me in what amounts to an accident. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time

The item really should take priority there, since it's the thing that's actually called just "Ocarina of Time." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah i've been wondering about that. I could add an about template on the Ocarina of Time item page then? Would that sound like a better solution? Results May Vary (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Indubitably. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:OoT Characters

I'd put the major/supporting characters in a table with info, and give the minor characters an article-linking gallery or list one section below. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Enemies

I personally have always disliked the "new enemies vs old enemies" setup, as it messes up alphabetization and can be bucked up if new information arising showing things to be the same. I prefer to at most mark new enemies with some symbol, like an asterisk, and be done with it. And again, that's "at most." I'm perfectly content mixing them without differentiation, especially if there is an overwhelming amount of new enemies. It just seems cleaner to me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gohma

Gohma is generally a boss. What I was talking about was Gohma Larva (from OoT) as comparing to Baby Gohma and Young Gohma (from TP), since they both derive from Larva. I wanted to see if either shared a JP name with Larva so we'd know if either was intended to be the "original." To wit, the tiny Baby Gohma hatches from Gohma Eggs like GOhma Larva, but scuttles around slowly in huge groups either in circles or in Link's direction, and Young Gohmas act more like and are about the same size as Gohma Larvae, but are found freestanding. Neither resemble Gohma Larvae visually, since the Larvae were based on the bizarre OoT Gohma redesign (which Miyamoto apparently said is a redesign of the same entity), and the TP enemies are based on the more....restrained TP Armogohma design. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)

Moldorm

My hope with showing LTL the Moldorm thing is to quell any worry that we'll be anything like Gamepedia ZeldaWiki, by showing just how much I'm differing from what they do. Namely, I'm doing it better >:P Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

there we go, thats the spirit mate. So others also have problems with the Gamepedia wiki? I looked at the Gamepedia wiki & I dunno why but I just notice so many things there being improved (but i dont think they'd allow it due to strict manual of style) Results May Vary (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

People have problem with their, ahem, "canon policy." Namely, it's bogus and blatantly so, but the powers-that-be won't change it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How come they dont change that? Results May Vary (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Because they are seemingly too thick to realize that Dark Horse copied straight from them (that "Hand" thing makes them, ahem, "red-handed") and they wanna go by "English name canon" over "what the creator was going for." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So basically they like to feel like their research is authentic and use the Dark Horse book as a means of proving it? Results May Vary (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:How is the wiki?

Yes Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't like to pick favorites. Every franchise has its ups and downs. I love some of the better games in the Frogger and Phantasy Star franchises, but loathe the worse ones. Just, for example. My favorite video game franchise adaptation to a non-game media would be the young-and-innocent EA's older Harry Potter games, hands-down. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Link's gender needing citation

Eh it seems a bit mean-spirited to have a section for mocking the other wiki's poor standards. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)