Talk:The Legend of Zelda/Archive 1

message: We already went through this with the chronology section.  While we must agree to disagree, this is no place for fan theories.  We all know there are multiple Links, until proven which is the right explanation, we don't care about people's theories here at Wiki.  I removed those theories because it is confusing and it has no place here - go to a Zelda Forum on a site.
The only thing in this section should be info on Link's nature, like his characteristics, why he doesn't speak, and why Miyamoto named him Link - which is what I did in the edit.
I also fixed up some of history stuff, it was a little rigid and some stuf was outdated (We don't need to know Twilight Princess was unveiled at E3 2004 anymore...what is important is it comes out in November and it has a title and what we know so far about the gameplay and the development.
I added a bit about Hot Topic in the pop culture, since the SoaD thing is a bit off the radar.
I also added a holder for the Comics/Manga/Doujinshi.  I don't have time now to write it all up, but it should be mentioned on this page, not its own (it has its own page now). ~ TSA, July 1, 2005
:It may be worth noting that "Link" is a Germanic name meaning 'Left-Handed' and that Link is always portrayed as a left-handed hero... (though many action-heroes are left-handed these days) - Anon, 13 Oct 2005
:: Shigeru Miyamoto at E3 2006 revealed that Link is lefty because he (Miyamoto) is a lefty.  I have it on tape. --TSA 01:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of the Protagonist

message: It's pretty obvious when the person doesn't sign with a digital signature that it's not the person they claim to be.  I personally do not care if G-B stays on the Zelda entry.  I thought it should have its own small page and not cramp the Zelda page.  I also, personally, think the majority of the Chronology section is point less.  Having quotes and stuff is going to confuse more people, just simplify it to there is a timeline, we don't know what it is, stay tuned, though some fans still live in denial and believe they control the timeline themselves (people who say no timeline exists).
As for most of the pages, I spent about 20 hours on Wiki 3 weeks ago fixing up a lot of stuff, and I used the Japanese games/manuals to correct everything.  I actually personally ran some stuff by some NOAs to make sure it was acceptable, and it got the nod.  Zelda.com's Encyclopedia should also be updated SOMETIME as I totally redid all the entries for them to be accurate.
Anyway, back to G-B, I thought it was funny somebody made an article for me, but now its getting me in trouble, so I'd rather it just end.  Leave it or delete it...but let it be final.  I don't need GANNON-BANNED to be my legacy or something, when all it was, to me, was a short fad and now just a historical piece for those who cared about it.  I don't even use it anymore.  I only care about being known as a fan who tried to further truth in the community, as well as tried to promote the Legend of Zelda name to expand its popularity, through my site, speed runs and other stuff.
Anyway, if I ever find out who really tried to post as me, I'll deal with them.
--TSA 20:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Impersonations

message: I've moved the GANNON-BANNED section to the Camp Hyrule article. I realise this was perhaps a little too bold with the current wars over it, but I hope everyone finds it to be an acceptable compromise. --Deco 23:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the wars *were* a couple of weeks ago and things seem to have died down... except for the anon IPs that keep vandalising it... so it's probably best to leave it there. There is nothing wrong with being bold! --Master Thief Garrett 05:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this should be the best method to deal with this. I think now both parties should be satisfied, as the article still exists, but is placed where it fits. --Genesis 10:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GANNON-BANNED move

message: I justed merged content from Multiple Links Theory as a result of the VfD there. --Deathphoenix 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged content from [[Multiple Links Theory]]

message: I was reading this article, and found a mistake.  The thing about the System of a Down song is that it's not by them.  The song was used in a flash animation by Legendary Frog, and is apparently by The Rabbit Joint.  For some reason a lot of people file share this song as a SoaD song, but you can check on Legendary Frog's website and the SoaD website, at least their message board.  Just thought I'd point this out.
:Thanks for the tip. I'll take care of this. Deco 05:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture mistake

message: As part of the present proposal to expand the criteria for speedy deletion, it has been suggested that all RPG characters that do not have a basis for existence in a book or other offline medium should be deleted.  I suspect this was well-intentioned effort but seems unreasonably broad.  Since this would seem to call for the elimination of all or nearly all articles in Legend of Zelda characters, I figure that this community needs to be made aware of the impact of this proposal. Voting is also up for this proposal.
See: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/7.
--ZeWrestler 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of RPG characters.

message: When did the chronology section become so bloated?  I know there's a lot to cover, but a lot of it is speculation, and a lot of it is rehashing plot points described elsewhere.  I propose that we move the bulk of the section to a new article, say, The Legend of Zelda (timeline), and provide a short summary of the issues here (there is a timeline, we don't know exactly what the timeline is although there are clues, it has been promised that the timeline will be cleared up).  The new article could also present a sample timeline (the ZHQ timeline being the most well known amongst fans, if I'm not mistaken)... or two sample timelines, to show how they differ and exemplify the controversy.
I won't make such a major change without first seeing what you guys think. So, what do you think? Fieari 20:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Concur.  Although I'm very much against having sample timelines because I don't think the fan community has come to the place where there is concensus on the issue.  I could talk to ten different fans and get ten different timelines in return, so I don't think we should be in the business of promoting one or two or three over the many, MANY other possible timelines.  I think we should stick to the facts, saying that certain games are linked or presumed to be linked, and then be done.  This makes the process very quick and easy and ensures that we keep NPOV.  The Missing Link 21:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology