This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.
Template:NESproj Template:Zeldaproj Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5 Template:Todo priority
 | Link (The Legend of Zelda) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Link (The Legend of Zelda) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
 Archives |
|---|
Revert
Okay. I don't know who it is that made the huge, sweeping changes to this page, but they need to stop it. I'll admit that it wasn't perfect, but it was rated highly and got a half-star. That means that while it needs impovment, it is still on the right track. You don't take that and destroy it. The newer form was awful; it had few headlines so it was difficult to find out where you were. In any case, just work off of the current page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)
- Ummm, No. The article is on its way to being defeatured as we speak, and I am in the middle of fixing it up. There were tons of unjustified, unsourced and un rationaled images that were removed, there was a trivia section that are not up to FA quality that was removed, and the sectioning was horrendous and was simplified, and vital information such as character creation and characteristics didn't even have sections.
- True, the article currently looks bad as it is being totally reshaped to meet current Featured Article requirements and requires a massive copyedit, so lets fix up the prose, add more references, and not revert back to the version riven with errors and destined to be de-Featured. Clear enough? Judgesurreal777 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not quite clear. This article has been the way it has for months, with minor improvments being added on over time, and now you come in and remodel it in two days? You don't get to chage this article all on your own. The countless others who worked hard on it don't get their stuff thrown in the trash because you, (and you alone, I might add,) don't care for it. It still needs to be changed, but not by the discretion of one individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)
- This is outrageous. This article will be de-featured unless it is brought up to the current FA standards for writing about fiction, and you are attempting to keep it as it is, even if that means that it will LOSE the FA status? Totally outrageous. I have every right to improve any article I wish, and can remodel any article I wish as can anyone else, as long as it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia and is for its betterment. AND the things I have done have been requested at the Featured Article Review. Judgesurreal777 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not telling you not to edit it. I'm just saying don't trash the page. It has a lot of good info in it. Besides, good wikipedia manners would require you to state what you dissapprove of on this talk page before taking things into your own hands and deleting others hard work. Its not just yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)
- Here, take a look at the Featured Article review currently going on now, and you tell me what should happen to the tons of unjustified fair use images, and extranneous gameplay text that belongs in their respective game articles and not here. For example, here is a recently featured fictional character Palpatine. That is what this article needs to look like to stay featured. I am not trying to undo your hardwork, but the article may lose its star to save it. Judgesurreal777 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't talk about Link without mentiong the games that he's been in. How is it unjustified? And, please, be specific so we can be on the same page.
Look at the sword & sheilds section. That article is ridiculously long and does need to be trimmed. It only needs most of the first paragraph and the picture of various swords and shields, not all of the additional, excess stuff. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)
- Your right you must mention the games, but that's the point, the layout should be this:
- Appearances in games
- Characteristics
- Concept and creation
- The appearances in games must be concise, but in the old version there are huge paragraphs about his weapons, clothes, all of which belongs in the article, listed in the Featured Article Review that relates to Links weapons and items. That is a start, and you'll hear the FAR reviewers echo that.
- Also, there needs to be fewer images, since those multi-game image collages are problematic for multiple reasons. Also many of them are duplicative or have unclear usage in the article, which is why I reduced it down to the lead image, a shot of Link from the original Zelda, and him from Windwaker and its unique art style.
- Finally, there needs to be a lot of sourced information added, like who created Link, and why was he named Link, and all the real world information the article needs but doesn't currently have.
- There may be other stuff, but those are the main points. Judgesurreal777 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here, click on this and read it, these are the reasons, but many people other than me, why this article is being redone. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Link (The Legend of Zelda series) Judgesurreal777 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I agree to a point. Look at the sword & sheild section, which I am trying to use as an example. I condensed it down to the more essential info. And, there was a point made about the pictures being collage's. I don't know if the swords picture is, but if it can't be sourced, then how about replacing it with a picture of one Master Sword form a particular game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)
- But that section doesn't even belong in this article, it belongs in the weapons and items article. It needs a one Sentence mention, not a section here, it's not the place for it. Judgesurreal777 04:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The mention of his weapons are definatley deserving of a section. Not in the elongated form it has now, but breif mentions of his Master Sword, secondary weapons, and magic. You could put all of that into one fairly short paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)
- I'm going to have to agree with Judge on this one, anon editor. Obviously, the need for a major overhaul of the article is not only held by one person and obviously, Judge has been working very hard to keep this article featured. He has cited the current existing featured article review, a process which has the possibility of delisting current featured articles, as his reason for the major edits. On Wikipedia, all older revisions are stored in the page history so if any absolutely vital information is deleted, there is always a record of it in the history where it can be retrieved and rewritten into the article if necessary. Judge's sweeping edits are based on his own (and others') initiative and desire to improve the article and part of the reason he feels so strongly is because all of his edits were casually reverted by an anonymous editor with less than 30 edits to his credit. As it stands, most of the "pre-Judge" version of the article is not vital to the understanding of the topic and also violates the Manual of Style regarding fiction, specifically focusing too much on the in-universe aspect. Much of it already has perfectly suitable destination articles for the excess information (such as the individual game articles, the weapons and items article, the animals article, etc.) which would make the article much more readable because of the shorter length. In a nutshell, the Judge is trying to make the article better and reverting two days of hard work isn't going to help it in any way. Axem Titanium 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- 67.114, please do not disrupt the editing to this page - it is being edited based on comments on a FARC, and this is delaying the work effort. Please stop; if you wish to voice your opinions, please do so on the FARC page (you can click the link at the top). — Deckiller 05:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I was also wondering why the article had been completely changed, seemingly for the worse. my comments in the FA review pertained to this version rather than the old. i understand why fair use images were removed, but there was a lot of good info there which just needed sourcing, and the layout was better too.
i tried to edit the current video game section, but realised i was deleting pretty much the whole thing as its all about the storyline. theres less about his character now than there was before. i cant edit it at the moment because i dont know what you're trying to do to it... but we'll see how it is after this major edit anyway. -- jeffthejiff 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)