User talk:Mighty Dekunut

Hi there, Mighty Dekunut, and welcome to Zelda Wiki! Why not check out the community hub? To find out what's been going on recently at the wiki and what articles users are editing right now, head to the Recent Changes. For general wiki-related discussion and questions, head over to the Discussion Center. Also, for wiki usage and policy help, check out our Help Guide. We hope you enjoy the wiki. Thanks! — The Zelda Wiki Staff

Multiple edits on the same page

Whoa, take it easy! You have edited the Skyward Sword page 13 consecutive times, and now the patrollers and admins have to check out each and every of them. It's their job to vigilate each edit to ensure they're of good quality, so when you edit over and over a page, you're making their job harder. When you next edit an article, please use the Preview button, so you can see the changes you're making before saving them. This time, you can make the necessary corrections and additions if the case is given, and then save the change in one go. Thanks in advance! --User:K2L/sig 15:20, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Timeline placement on A Link to the Past

Why the heck did you replace the original "timeline placement" section in A Link to the Past. The original one had nothing wrong with it. It was well written WITH sources, and frankly I find yours to be very poorly worded, especially since it does not match up to the Manual of Style. I would have undid the changes myself if the wiki would have let me. Seriously, it was perfectly fine and did not need an outright replacement like that. The Goron Moron 16:50, 4 January 2012 (EST)

To further add to what I already said, it seems that you have also been replacing the older sections in other game articles with your "chronology sections", so I feel that I'm going to have to explain this a little more. I can get that you're trying to help, but what you're doing is unnecessary. You can help by adding onto sections, the sections we have now are fine and well worded, they do not need to be outright replaced with new sections.

Second, I feel that you may need to review the wiki's policies. We have policies on how the wiki is written. When we type out a game's name, we type it as ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time|Ocarina of Time]]'', which would make it appear as Ocarina of Time. That is how we link to game articles, and you can get little shortcuts if you stroll down to the insert box while in an article editor. Another thing we like to see are when information are cited or sourced. When you replaced the older "timeline placement" sections, you also removed the sources. The sections were sourcing Hyrule Historia as its source for the current timeline, while also sourcing interview quotes for older proposed placements, which I feel should also be mentioned in the sections for history sake. Your sections were not sourced. Again, the older sections are perfectly fine.

All in all, I have to ask that you be more careful when editing. If you feel that there is a problem with something, I highly recommend that you discuss about it in an article's talk page first. Thank you. The Goron Moron 17:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

RE: I know you're trying to help. But what you can do is merely ADD to the sections, and not replace them. We have been meaning to update them, so please don't feel like we're not going to do it. And no, I'm sorry, but I really do not like your sections at all. They do not really add to the articles whatsoever, and if anything make the sections look worse.

I'm sorry but I do not feel like these kinds of contributions are needed, the way you're adding them, and as I see fit as a contributor here of a few years, I feel that I'm going to keep undoing these sort of changes. The Goron Moron 17:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

RE: I have asked a wiki admin to help with this. And believe me, I do value this wiki, and I do value it not getting to such a point where an edit war arises, however it was you who had brought this. You must also understand my own viewpoint on the sections. I have already explained to you that the old sections are fine, and were going to be updated with the wiki's standards of writing in mind. I don't see why you feel that only your sections matters. The Goron Moron 17:46, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Hate to add one more thing but since the convo is meant to stay here, to reply to what MD said on my talk page, sorry MD but I feel that the newer sections were more cramped and small then the sections we had. Yes it is obvious that the actual timeline articles will be in more depth, a simple link to those articles could have sufficed. The Goron Moron 18:06, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Discussion with Cipriano

Ok, let's civilly discuss this, and MD please reply below this post. It appears that initially MD added a bit of official timeline information from Hyrule Historia to the ALttP page, then TGM came in and expanded the information, adding references, and a greater description. This sounds like what is naturally supposed to occur on Zelda Wiki between users - one adds to that of another's contribution. What I don't understand is the attachment the both of you have to your individual work. In both cases, there seems to be a sort of "ownership" attached to the contributions - this is entirely unnecessary given the nature of this wiki; no one's contributions are "better" or "worse" than any other; the magnitude of the benefit to the wiki is the matter here. In this case, it is indeed TGM's expanded information that is more benecitial in this situation. MD, you did contribute excellent information, its just that TGM's builds on from yours, including your contributions within hers. On the other hand, TGM, there is absolutely no reason to label MD's contributions as "worse", reverting them because you "do not like them", and there is entirely no instance of seniority on this wiki, no extra importance given to anyone that's been here a certain amount of years - that in itself is not all any way to treat a fellow user simply attempting to contribute just as you are. All in all, you both can work on this at the same time, no one user is allowed to monopolize any part of this wiki, and I trust that the both of you can reach a compromise in the space below this post! I'm glad to have caught this early - keep up the contributions, guys! And stay civil. :) — cipriano^talk 17:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)

What I added to the ALttP was actually an older section that was replaced by MD. But yes, I do feel that the older sections are much more benefical because they have more information and is sourced. The Goron Moron 17:58, 4 January 2012 (EST)

TGM, I hope now you can see how inappropriate your treatment of MD was - continued conduct would've warranted a temporary ban. Every user deserves to be treated with respect; I'm surprised MD didn't lash back at you at the way she was being treated. MD, make sure you continue to contribute, we need all the help we can get, and if you're interested in adding Hyrule Historia information, there are still many many articles on this wiki that lack official content! — cipriano^talk 18:09, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I apologize for lashing out then, that's really all I can say. It may seem hard to believe, but I did wanted to work things out more civilly. The Goron Moron 18:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Thank you for understand Cipriano, and thank you for your apologies TGM. To at least calm everyone in that things will be ok, let me just share my thoughts on my project.

Right now, the Timeline Placement (or whatever the section is called), is more of a recollection of how the game's placement in the timeline has been build upon, rather than clearly stating 'this is its place in the timeline'. Now, both the facts (where is the game placed) and the theory (what did people think at what point in time) are crammed into one section, and you have to sift through the information to find the facts of where the game is placed.

Considering most of the interpretations of the timeline prior to Hyrule Historia have been mostly fanmade, I would rather see a factual description of the actual place in the timline on the game page, and an explanation of the process of how the timeline came to be, in the History of the Zelda timeline article.

So to recap, what I'm working on:

• The game's pages features a short, to the point, section on the facts of the game's placement in the timeline.
• The official story details, will be detailed in the reworked Zelda Timeline article.
• The history of where the game was believed to take place in the timeline, will be detailed in the History of the Zelda timeline article.

All I ask now, is to let me show you how it works out in the end. And as you can see by my edit history, this is a matter of days at most. The information will not be 'lost' for weeks or months.

Once it's taken its final form, I will let both of you know and will gladly discuss any improvements from there on. Mighty Dekunut 18:21, 4 January 2012 (EST)

As much as I adore your enthusiasm, MD, you simply cannot monopolize an article - it is a policy held dear to this wiki, for more information look to our Quality Standards and Editing Etiquette in the Help Guide. I alluded to this above, both of you are allowed to, and are supposed to, work on a page at the same time. If you wish to work on an article without fear of having it reverted or edited, please copy and paste what you are working on to Microsoft Word or a comparable word processor and work on it from there. It is simply not fair to lock out an entire page to a world of editors simply because one person is working on a project. Lastly, thank you both for apologizing to each other, that means a lot to me that you two are capable of working past petty arguments. :) — cipriano^talk 18:28, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I didn't mean for it to come across as 'monopolizing' the article. If you want to reword things or whatever, I have no problem with that at all; please be my guest. All I ask is to keep the spirit of the section (only telling the official story), until the context makes more sense once the project is done. If then, you still feel the old section is better, we can discuss that, but since it's a work in progress, it is vulnerable in a way, since like what happened now, one might look at it and feel it lacks information, while it's just a matter of 'more to come'. Mighty Dekunut 18:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Not to sound offensive, but I was trying to discuss about the older sections earlier. I admit that I was coming off rude, but to recap, I did felt the older sections were more informative. If they were being too informative (I don't see how if you said they were cramped), then they could also be condensed. I do have to agree with Cipriano though, I'd like to work on those sections as well in a bit. If you also don't mind me asking, why can't the sections be called "timeline placement"? It's straight, to the point, and most people would understand it. The Goron Moron 18:43, 4 January 2012 (EST)

MD, I fully understand what you are trying to do and where you are coming from. As a user on this wiki, though, you must see that regardless of what you'd like to see in an article, it will ultimately change, even if you are working on it in the interim. If TGM would like to change the entire feeling of it, he is welcome to - you are working on the section privately, after all, are you not? When you finish, both you and TGM can discuss changes, as you said above - but for now, we need to be as relevant, informative, and complete as possible and I'm afraid that means that the expanded version of the information should stay on the article until you are finished your project. At that time, you can return and add/subtract anything you feel necessary, as can anyone else that follows you in changing/adding to this article. If it is a work in progress, as you say, it would be best to complete it "off-wiki", and then bring the final version back on for critique and implementation! — cipriano^talk 19:08, 4 January 2012 (EST)