Community talk:Couples of ZU

I do not really know if the page should stay, or go... One on hand, it is a big part of the ZU community, and describes the relationships between certain members. But, on the other hand, I don't really see a point of making such a page, other then to bring attention to users. (Which, I know the page was not made for.) What does everyone else think? User:Zien/sig 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about on the Wiki Contributer thread... Well if this is going to stay, then I at least suggest that this article be reformated and reworded so that it'll go with this wiki's editing standards. The Goron Moron 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, but my thought is that it should be on ZU only. It carries no importance to anyone else, and is actually a bit silly. I guess my vote is for it to go. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks importance to us. It is unnecessary and as Alter has already said, if it has to be somewhere; it should be on ZU and not ZW. This needs to go.User:Mandi/sig 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I flagged it. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It should stay. I made this article to bring attention to users and hope it positively influences them, as well as because it's a big part of the ZU community. Deleting this is basically the same as saying you don't care about those ZUers who are in love. Deleting this would be like deleting the Graphics Teachers page or something. They are also a big part of the community. Ranny 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Did you read what Zien just said? I haven't see any of the mentioned members on ZW, and I've only seen a few on ZU- and I've been a member for quite some time. The only one I see here is you. No offense...

Ranny, it should stay on ZU. It'll have a just-as-positive influence on the members there as it will here. I see no reason for it to be on an irrelevant website. In reality, It's the same thing as it would be putting this on Zelda Dungeon. ZU is part of ZW here to help contribute to the entire fanbase- not just a few online crushes. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

lol you obviously haven't read the article yet. All those couples save for me and Darius have met in person, so they are not "online crushes." And what you say makes no sense. ZU is part of ZW. Couples are a big part of ZU, as is Graphic Teachers, ZUHC, and just about all the articles in that category. Ranny 17:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding redundant, I will say this once more; having this article is pointless and it serves us no purpose. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, or a place to post a bunch of crap regarding online relationships. This article is silly and needs to go.User:Mandi/sig 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given the article a thorough read-through already, plus I can see that you haven't read a thing I've posted. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but let's take a vote. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I guess there were some changes today. NM, it's not over. ;) Steve, I'm a member of ZU first, actually (if it's me you're referring to). ZD hasn't had much to do with me, yet. I'm not saying that all non-related articles/images should should go, but I do think that this one crosses the line. I would support the over mentioned pages being deleted, such as those from ZU, ZD, and ZI. I would actually recommend this being put on the ZU page on ZW, come to think of it. I work for Zelda in my Pocket. I hope that we decide to become a part of ZW, once we get a large enough member base. I would still oppose articles of our that are similar in nature to this one to be put on this site. Zien, I think that each fansite should have it's own SINGLE page. Not a whole bunch.

I should also add that the creator of this page directly stated that this article was created to draw attention to the users. Funny how they are one of them. My thought is that it's ok if this page stays, but where do you draw the line? My girlfriend likes Zelda... We're a big part of some Zelda communities. Maybe we should put up our own page... Are you getting my point?

Don't forget- this is a Zelda dictionary! Not a fan site —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about this page being deleted?

Support

1. After changing my vote a number of times (dang, I feel like a politician), I've decided that I think that this page is undeserving of being here. If someone wishes to move it to the ZU page, that would be perfectly fine. The reason that I think it should not remain here is that it holds no value to ZW members (and very litle to even ZU members), and is completely irrelevant to the site. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2. This is not ZU. Therefore, why should we have to list the couple of ZU? I'm in favor of deleting this page. --Felicia's Champion 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
3. I support this being deleted. As previous users have already stated; we are not ZU, therefore this does not belong here.User:Mandi/sig 22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I also agree this shouldn't be on this site. Even if ZW is affiliated with ZU this is an encyclopedia used to inform people about The Legend of Zelda series. Even if this has to do with the Zelda fanbase it it irrelevant to people no connected to ZU which I bet is most people who use this site for informational reasons. If a random person who just got into the Zelda games came to learn about this game series I doubt they would care about two fans who are now in a couple. This should really go back to ZU because at least in has more of a point there than it does here. --Green 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Trust me, better articles than this have been deleted and worser ones have stayed. I'm not too supportive of the graphics teachers and ZDs many job holders articles either. And we once discussed standards of notability here, I was saying that too many people would try to find a gimmicky way to get themselves an article. And look what we've got now.User:Axiomist/sig 12:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

1. I support it staying. ZU's graphic teachers, ZUHC, etc. are irrelevant to ZW, so why are they staying? If they can stay, so can this article. Ranny 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Actually peeps... This has everything it needs to be in here. It is a community category that describes some of the history of a member site. It is a privilege they get for being a member site. Just like members get user pages. The pages in these categories help explain certain things that are not exactly easy to do on the sites in question. Having them here will cut down on the number of threads created asking about them. Granted, the articles have to be considerably more well organized. The wiki is supposed to be a wiki for each site involved. This is why there is a category for Zelda Universe, ZeldaInformer, and Zelda Dungeon. I still admire the enthusiasm here. From both sides.User:Matt/sig 19:17, February 1, 2009 (UTC)
3. I think you're all forgetting that all of you have contributed your fair share of meaningless content to the wiki. If all of you supporters agree to delete EVERYTHING unrelated to the games (including all your "precious" fan art on your user pages), then I will change my vote.User:Steven/sig 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Yeah, Matt basically hit it with the ZU category point. We've got all of those pages, and now all of the ZD category pages -- they're member sites, so they get certain privilages regarding wiki coverage. Clearly, we're not going to cover absolutely everything (random pointless topics, etc.), but the category is "Zelda Universe Community"; anything that's notable to the ZU community as a whole belongs there. User:Ando/sig 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Ok, what is with the odd font, and color of most of the talk page? Anyways, if other ZU-related pages are allowed to stay, then I see no reason for it to be deleted. This statement, would utterly destroy all of the reasoning beghide the support part of this voting. Which, would lead to the page staying. Wow, what a problem I started... :Z User:Zien/sig 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC
6. Vote changed... Though I do think this site should be more specific to Zelda, the policy (as said by the admins above) does allow such pages for member sites. I just think this needs more work, pictures and possibly to change the abbreviated title to "Couples of Zelda Universe".User:Melchizedek/sig 09:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
7. I do not think this is even a subject that is up for debate. As was explained to me when Zelda Dungeon joined the Zelda Wiki, this is a fundamental principle of what makes the Zelda Wiki a collaborated project. It is not a 'standard' wiki like Zelda at Wikia or various other Wiki's. This is a site collaborated project, and thus, as Matt stated, the information at Zelda Wiki is NOT JUST an encyclopedia of Zelda information, but a community hub for supporting websites. As Jason pointed out at the creation of the Wiki, he wanted to eliminate the need for each site to have its individual Wiki for their site and for Zelda content. That is what Zelda Wiki is. That is what it will always be. Mases 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

Well, this is really more of a comment rather then a "neutral vote" so....I am not changing my opinion by any means, I voted for the deletion of this article and and that is where I still stand on the matter. However, I cannot deny the valid points brought up by some of the members opposing the deletion. Yes it is a part of ZU, but why should we care about the relationship status of Zelda Universe members? This is Zelda Wiki. So while this may be a large part of the Zelda Universe community, what value is it to us?User:Mandi/sig 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

7 to 5, eh? Well, with all of the reasoning behide the opposive side, I don't see how the support side can win. Besides, I think we all know what the outcome of this vote is... Unless, of course, someone comes up with a really good statment to bring the suppport side back. But, I can't see that happening... {Wow, was this neutral at all? :P} EDIT: If the opposive sides wins, should I change the name to "Couples"? (Or some sort of other name to show that the page is not all about ZU}? We could easily have sections like "Couples In ZU", and "Couples In ZD". User:Zien/sig 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All ZU sections should have 'of ZU' or preferrably (ZU) at the end. Much like the current moderator, webmaster pages of ZU and ZD. Mases 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't have a problem with the page- I just have a problem with it having it's own page. I've been a big part of Zelda Universe, and honestly, I don't give a darn who met each other on there. If someone wants this to be a part of the ZU page, then fine. But I sure can tell you that there needs to be a fine line. Should every site that's part of the wiki have tons of pages like this? People don't care about this kind of stuff, especially if their not familiar with ZU! ZU-ers that do care would look for this stuff on their own site, anyway. They wouldn't even expect it to be on here. I should add it was 6-1 for 2 days until some votes were changed... Anyone agree that this page should at least be incorporated with Zelda Universe? —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree Alter, this page shouldn't exist as it's irrelevant to the Wiki's purpose. However, as long as these kinds of pages are considered relevant, I see no reason why this one isn't.User:Steven/sig 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... I didn't realize how many there were. You're right, as long as the rest of those pages are there, it makes no real difference. I'm not trying to pull off a major overhaul, but perhaps a large-scale merge would be a good idea. For all the pages like these. What do the rest of you think? —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all up for getting rid of it all, some of the others think so too. Merging all topics isn't a bad idea, but it would become too large and disorganized quickly. I think is we merged similar things, such as all of the ranks, then that would be a bit less troublesome.User:Steven/sig 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It'll be a process, but I'm willing to help in any way I can. :) —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)