Zelda Wiki:Failed Nominations/Article

Failed Article Nominations

The following sections are article nominations that received at least three signed opposition votes.

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass — Failed: February 28, 2008

This would be an informing and new article for newcomers. --Eponasowner 19:18, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Support

1. It's the newest Zelda game so I think people should know about it. --Bigrageous 15:35, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Opposition

1. Other than the fact that this has had only one vote in almost 3 months, I think the quality of the article is somewhat lacking (there are other better game articles), and it shouldn't be featured merely by virtue of PH being the newest game in the series. —Adam ^(talk) 13:11, 23 February 2008 (EST)
2. I would have thought a more interesting article for newcomers would be something like A Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time. --AmrasCalmacil 15:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
3. I agree, though Phantom Hourglass is a great game for Zelda newcomers, the article lacks interesting content. Ika5263 23:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Epona — Failed February 29, 2008

A main part of the Zelda games, with a nicely set-out page and appropriate graphics. Should deserve a Feature. --Beanie 23:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Support

Opposition

1. I love Epona, but in my opinion, this article isn't very well written. It doesn't deserve to be featured untill it get a good rewrite.--Link hero of light 10:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)
2. It's a good article, but not great. And it doesn't cite any sources. —Adam ^(talk) 16:13, 29 February 2008 (EST)
3. I love Epona as well, but as you said it is not very well written. --Claire 16:53, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Helmaroc King — Failed March 10, 2008

Cool boss should be featured --Trogdor 3:49 19 February 2008 (EST)

Support

Opposition

1. Is that really a good reason to be featured? (Unsigned vote by AmrasCalmacil - see rule 6 above)
2. Short answer; no it's not! The article is average at best, and cites no sources. —Adam ^(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)
3. Uhh...yeaah....nowhere near as cool as most other bosses AND you didn't give a very good reason to why it should be featured. --ShadowLink45
4. Well, no? It's a good length, but links to almost nothing else in the Wiki, needs quite a bit of re-writing, and, as mentioned, cites no sources. --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

ReDead — Failed March 20, 2008

The ReDead are classic "zombies" if you will. They have appeared in most games and are probably one of the creepiest creatures I've ever seen. --Zeldagirl93 19:55, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Support

1. I like these enemies for years the redeads are a cool zombies (Unsigned vote by Lightningtom - see rule 6 above)
2. Me too. These enemys are CREEPY as heck, yet so awesome. --ShadowLink45

Opposition

1. I'm torn here, because the article is a very good article, but does not meet all the criteria for featured article status (namely, citing no sources). --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
2. I like the article, but I have to oppose because I HATE these enemies! Their screams freak me out completely! Ika5263 11:36, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
3. Just not quite good enough yet, I'm afraid. —Adam ^(talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Octorok — Failed April 3, 2008

Mainly for previously holding the perfect attendence award, pre-Twilight Princess. --AmrasCalmacil 15:53, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Support

Opposition

1. Great enemy, not-so-great article. To me, it's messy, disorganized, information-lite, and cites no sources. —Adam ^(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)
2. Has very little information and could be organized better. And no sources cited. --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
3. This article is definitely not up to standards yet - and appearing in a Zelda game is not criteria... this is a Zelda wiki, of course it was in a bunch of Zelda games. --Jase 07:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Volvagia — Failed April 3, 2008

Definitely the best boss of the best game I've ever played. It's a very descriptive article of the whack-a-mole dragon. --Sk8torchic 4:21 7 March 2008 (EST)

Support

1. I think it is a good article because this is a boss that people may be starting to forget about. Good t bring it back into memory. --Bigrageous 23:45, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Opposition

1. I like this boss too, but the article's not up to scratch. Too short, and Volvagia features in only one game out of dozens! —Adam ^(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)
2. Well, the article's writing is a little weird to me, and the format's a little weird. Needs re-writing. --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
3. Waaaaaay too short. I know we want quality over quantity, but this article's only got a couple paragraphs. ;) --Jase 07:49, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Darknut — Failed April 3, 2008

Just because it's a very interesting article, full of facts, different types of the enemy (example: Great Darknut), and very good and interesting info! It also talks about this enemy's past future, origin, and it gives just about every example about this enemy that there is, especially in the Twilight Princess paragraph. --Ika5263 18:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Support

1. decent enough (Unsigned vote by Zoralink64 - see rule 6 above)

Opposition

1. This is a strange article for me, because the first half has very little info, whereas the second half is pretty good. Still needs link fixes, sources, amongst other small fixes --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
2. If the first half was anywhere near as good as the second half, this would be featured article material. --Jase 07:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
3. Great in parts, but there are just too many incomplete sections for this to qualify for featured status. —Adam ^(talk) 12:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Clawshot — Failed April 7, 2008

One of the coolest and most unique items in the whole franchise. A descriptive article of my favorite incarnation of my favorite item, the hookshot. --Nittles 17:15, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Opposition

1. Cool item, but unfortunately the article is too short and cites no sources. Also, in the same way as Boomerang (a past featured article) this would need to be merged with all other variations (Hookshot, Longshot, Grappling Hook etc.) in order to qualify, and I don't feel that would be appropriate. —Adam ^(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)
2. While I'm not sure about the article being too short, I will say that I agree with the problem of the article citing no sources, and I don't agree with some of the writing (inappropriate contractions, etc.). --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
3. I agree with Adam, it needs to be merged with the other variations if it is to be featured. The opening statements could be flushed out a little more as well (unfortunately, I'm not much of an expert on TP). --Guy ^(T|C) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gohma — Failed April 8, 2008

Has been in the zelda series from the beginning so yeah--Lom678 6:54 16 February 2008 (EST)

Support

1. For quite a while when I played Ocarina of Time, Gohma was my favourite boss. That may no longer be the case, but I do believe it deserves to be featured. --Yuvorias 12:48, 19 March 2008 (EST)
2. This is a great article with lots of good info about a classic Zelda boss. --Seraphim 20:16, 23 March 2008 (EST)
3. This article tells you about all the different Gohma's through the games and she is the most recurring boss and one of the coolest at that (OOT's Gohma being my favourite)--Kresh64 16:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
4. A cool boss that's been featured and changed enough, and the article covers each form pretty well --Emeryn 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Gohma is one crazy boss. I really like her in Twilight Princess and she's been featured in the game since the very beginning. Gohmas' got my vote! --Zeldagirl93 17:13 6 April 2008 (EST)

Opposition

1. While it is a decent article, it fails to cite sources and is a little sloppy in some places. Adzma 03:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
2. Like Adzma said, its organization could use work here and there. I'm fairly certain some of those sections (LA, FSA) could use a little more detail too. I wouldn't call it bad, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of being featured either. --Guy ^(T|C) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It's okay, yet dosen't cite sources and some of it could use more detail. --David ^{(T : C)} 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Zora — May 3, 2008

This race is one of the most important and reacurring LoZ races. They control the water that goes through Hyrule. They are also some of the most interesting characters in the game. They are very important if you ask me. I love the Zora. They are so important to the LoZ series it isn't even funny. They carry the most mystery and their forms are so awesome that I would love to learn more about them. They deserve their limelight moment. Zane ^(talk) 17:19, 14 April

Support

1. I just think that Zoras are cool, they look so proud. --Olle93 22:35, 19 April
2. The Zora are a sophisticated cool looking race, In Ocarina of Time you help them and they help backso you can get the water spiritual stone. That's my vote. --Maggalo 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

1. I think it needs a bit more information about the Zola from the original Legend of Zelda. There could be more information for the specific game descriptions. More about the possibly Rito theory with sources would be much better. (The Rito page has an entire section about the evolution theory yet the Zora page has a simple sentence). This is a decent article, but I think the standard for a featured article needs to be raised and I don't think this is quite, 'complete' for it to be available. Mases 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
2. The article is too brief. It should be expanded. It just skims over the material without giving enough information. There is much more information that can be added. As it is, this article is incomplete. Not up to the standards of a featured article.--Matt 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
3. They're an awesome race, Zoras. Still, we need more information in some of the sections before it can be featured. --Yuvorias, 11:02, 3 May 2008 (EST)

Gel — Failed May 27, 2008

A very simple enemy with detailed descriptions. Article has several official sources as well artwork and screenshots. Something different than the more known typical featured items. Mases 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

Opposition

1. Although your improvements to this article are impressive, I have to say no. This article could serve as a model for improving articles about similar enemies. Then it will be only one out of many. This has happened with other featured articles before. Also, it is still quite brief by featured article standards. There is not a whole lot more information that can be put into it.--Matt 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
2. It's a little bit short. Gels really don't really have much to speak for. I want the little, unknown things of the Zelda universe to become featured articles, yes, but there isn't enough info about these.--Rdnckj258 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
3. I have to agree with Matt on this one. Usually, we don't feature articles that are 1 of many. (P.S. I'm not putting you down or anything, keep up the good work, man!) --Seablue254 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Outset Island — Failed June 28, 2008

Support

Opposition

1. Bleargh...pretty average, I have to say. Plus, no references, just a references category... --Yuvorias, 16:09, 28 June 2008 (EST)
2. Yeah, pretty average, but longer than most. Again, no references,and it's not quite organized right.--Rdnckj258 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Too short by far and is mainly composed of images. Also, when nominating, could we please at least add a signature and date stamp? Thanks. User:Adam/sig16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Realm — Failed July 16, 2008

This article thoroughly explains Twilight and it's many facets. --User:Pawtamus, 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. I really like this article. Since I've been here, this article has caught my I the most. --Gluemann267
2. It may not have references and it may be quite short, but I believe that this mystical Twilight Realm is a key point in Twilight Princess and their would be no storyine without Twilight. This article is short, sweet, and to the point, and yet, it is very informative. --weyes Ise

Opposition

1. Not long enough. Not enough sources. Not that interesting. Not formated correctly. Not that important. Not a chance of being featured.User:Matt/sig 06:57, July 16, 2008 (UTC)
2. No sources. User:Seablue254/sig 12:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Not a single reference, it's all one big section, and despite that it's short. User:Ando/sig 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Medli — August 7, 2008

A really good article with lots of refrences.--Link hero of light 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. This article has lot of references and it deserves the place.(Unsigned vote by Molgeratwinmold99 — see rule 6.)
2. Alright, fine. I'm not going to waste my July vote, so I'll cast it for Medli. It's about as long as it's going to get without becoming tedious. --Felicia's Champion, 16:29, 16 July 2008 (EST)

Opposition

1. Hmm... This article doesn't have a lot of references. It is mostly references. It is much too short to be a featured article.--Matt 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree, the article is short and not very detailed and a ton of referencesPoe 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Yeah, I'm afraid this doesn't really cut it. And with only one valid (but half-hearted) positive vote in it's favour in more than three months, it's clearly never going to make it! User:Adam/sig 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tetraforce — Failed September 15, 2008

i know its non-canon but its such a good article. well written and overall a perfect article. best on this whole site! remember the whole idea is to pick a well written article. it never said it was canon-exclusive. even fallen sage if its written well. some of you may be missing the point. NOBODY said it had to be canon. forget canon. this is a great article. im suprised im the only one who picked this.Dragonstetraforce 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

Opposition

1. No, its fan-made, a rumor theory thing. i dont think it should be nominated. Luroberto
2. I concur, the Tetraforce theory is non-canon and should therefore not be a main article. Even though it is well written and all, there are still other articles that should get first priority. Angmar
3. The fact of the matter is, that this theory has no place in Zelda, other than fan-made rumours. According to Shigeru and Nintendo, it does not exist, so why feature something that doesn't exist? And if you want another reason, some of the sections are very short, three lines or less. No sources either, which immediately prevents it from being featured. Plus, it's just not appealing to look at, with a single tiny image of the Hylian Shield. At best, we should give this a mention on the Triforce page, which is already featured. --Felicia's Champion 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tunic - Failed November 11, 2008

Link's trademark Tunic has stayed with him for ages, and there are many variations that are stated clearly here. --Ingo 07:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. The tunic is his main clothing were would he be without it, and the different colors are an added bonus.--HeroOfTime6 10:00, 1 November 2008
2. The tunic was used in ALL of the video games. It is something new and would be a good choice.--HeroOfTheWinds10 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
3. The Tunic would make a very interesting subject, because it never has the same explanation in any two games. Since I've only played A Link to the Past and Twilight Princess, I'd like to know the other ways Link aquires the Tunic.--Marbro 22:38, 9 November 2008

Opposition

1. Each of the sections are too brief. There is a great deal of information that could be added to it. It needs some expansion before it can be featured.User:Matt/sig 03:09, November 2, 2008 (UTC)
2. An interesting nomination, but as Matt says, it would need great expansion before it could be considered feature-worthy. Also, the dreaded "you" appears in this article... --Felicia's Champion 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
3. I don't see how this article would be even interesting to feature. But, that is beside the point. The article is too brief (I see I'm not the first to point this out), I just can't see a whole article on this. User:Mandi/sig 05:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyrule Castle - Failed November 19, 2008

what would hyrule be without its castle?Dragonstetraforce 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. I agree, Hyrule Castle has been in many of the games and is where you face off with Ganondorf at the end of some games. The article is well written and lengthy and it would make a great featured article. --Kresh64 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
2. So do I, Hyrule Castle is the very symbol of Castle Town, like the Clock Tower to Clock Town.-Jedi 10:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Definitely. I always liked Hyrule Castle because you did something really cool there - i.e, sneaking past the guards in OOT; fighting the Moblins and Darknuts in Wind Waker; and it was the final dungeon in Twilight Princess. -Zelda45 17:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Second, It is the shiz! zacharyk88 21:14, 17 November 2008

Opposition

1. Uhh... What? The only votes so far seem to be about Hyrule Castle itself, not this article. Though a couple sections are impressively written, others almost seem like stubs. It's missing citations in important places as well. --Douken 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Yep. This article could be featured. But not now. It needs more expansion. And, above all else, sources! We can't feature something with only one source.User:Matt/sig 05:52, November 19, 2008 (UTC)
3. The one source this article has isn't even about Hyrule Castle directly...it's about Link's destiny. Sources before any featuring, I say! --Felicia's Champion 05:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Temple of Time - Failed January 3, 2009

This awesome spectacle should be featured. Its really important to Zelda game history. Especially in Ocarina of Time. I think the informational sections are long enough, and it has great pictures of the outside and inside of the Temple itself. The Temple of Time needs its time to shine.--HeroOfTime6 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Agreed. It was really incredible in both Ocarina of Time, where Link made his long sleep; and Twilight Princess, where it was a really good dungeon and the first place Darknuts appeared. -Zelda45 15:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree as well. very nice place, link is hotttttt--ILoVeSaSuSkE 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
3. The Temple of Time is a really good level. In OoT, it was a place of epicness. Two huge rooms ensure that this is a sacred place. A large praising room (It would appear) and the huge room that houses the Master Sword through an indestructable door. The Twilight Princess temple looks like an actual dungeon, not a place of worship. Petman1325 19:59, 24 November 2008
4. The Temple of Time is not only a very important place in OoT and TP but is also very cool. It has my vote.--HeroOfTheWinds10 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
5. This article has a great spread I would be proud to have this be my first vote on ZW.--Makar11 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6. A well organized and descriptive page, very hard to come by. It's a very important landmark of the series and definitely important enough to be featuredUser:Steven/sig 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
7. The Temple of Time is probably the most important Temple in the Zelda series, there is always something important there when it is featured in a game. So it wins my vote this time and I loved the music there in OOT, so mysterious.--Kresh64 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes, it is very descriptive and it does have a important part in two games. And as the article says "one of Hyrule's most ancient edifices." Defiantly should be featured--SenselessAura 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
9. The article is simple, but well written. It is interesting to look at the differences between the temple in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. There is a good combination of the old and the new and I think it is worthy of being featured. DawnPrincess 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

1. It doesn't have enough sources for me to vote for it. It's a fairly decent article otherwise, but I cannot vote for an article without proper citations.--Rdnckj258 17:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
   • Vote retracted by voter. User:Ando/sig 01:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
2. People have a tendency to study what they already know, and the temple of time is known to pretty much any Zelda fan. However, a less well-known subject would be more informing. --Claire 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes the Temple of Time itself is awesome. But we're not voting on the Temple of Time. We're voting on the article. The article is not impressive at all. It just seems mediocre and average. Nothing in it stands out. It is small and not even close to most of out other featured articles.User:Matt/sig 10:46, December 14, 2008 (UTC)
4. Despite that fact that it is a very informative topic, it is to well known. No doubt people already know a lot about this topic, and there is no need to feature it. --Prince Deity 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

• Okey, I really can't go either way with this one. That's not the point, how is voter 2 valid? If anyone has a good reason, I'll totally lay off. User:Mandi/sig 14:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ando and I talked a bit about it. It is valid from what I gathered. But his closing sentence was not appropriate. So he should not randomly insert it anymore.User:Matt/sig 15:40, November 30, 2008 (UTC)
• What about opposition 1 does the article really not have enough sources?--HeroOfTime6 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • We've already asked Rdnckj258 about that. We're waiting for a response.User:Matt/sig 18:45, November 30, 2008 (UTC)
    • Okey, I'll lay off :P User:Mandi/sig 18:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• The opposition regarding the lack of sources was added when there was only about two references on the entire page. The reference list has expanded since. I've contacted the user about possibly retracting the vote now, but I haven't gotten a response back. If we hit three oppositions with no response, I'll likely just negate the vote anyway as there really isn't much more to be added. User:Ando/sig 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• I've rescinded my opposition, but I'm not really openly supporting it. The citation additions made it a better article than it was when I added my opposition (there were a total of 3 citations at that time, not nearly enough to warrant FA status.)--Rdnckj258 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Votes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 all seem to be voting for the Temple itself, and not the article. Didn't we agree that this is not allowed? Or did I miss something? --Felicia's Champion 08:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It peeves me too. But we do not have any guidelines set up here. So we technically can't do anything.User:Matt/sig 08:13, December 5, 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm beginning to think that we need to add guidelines for EVERYTHING - support / opposition, article / picture. We'll discuss this and hopefully have something up by tonight. User:Ando/sig 17:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kafei - Failed February 23, 2009

At first, mysterious, masked child. Possessing the strength of a man(see manga). Way faster than Normal Link. Tragic story and a main part of the best side-quest ever. Features of a Shiekah. A subtle cameo in Animal Crossing. A playable character!!!

Kafei needs to be featured, he is, while small to the Zelda universe in general, a large part of Majora's Mask. Zapdemon 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC) @

Support

1. Amazing side-quest with romantic and courageous storyline(Unsigned vote by Dekuta — see rule 6.)
2. Kafei is a less-known character, so reading about him would interest visitors. On the other hand, any Zelda player who has picked up a controller already knows at least enough about the temple of time to at least search for it.--Claire 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
3. The article meets the criteria -- it is lengthy, yet detailed, containing all information available on Kafei from the one game in which he was found. There is nothing wrong with the article itself. Ancblue52 15:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
4. In a word, yes. This character is not only little known about, but the page has a lot of information. I'm all for making this the featured article. --Prince Deity 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, this is definitely good content to feature. He is home to one of Zelda's greatest sidequests, so many people would read it for the sake of nostalgia. And the actual article is very nice, even if there are a few slightly weak areas. Twilight Wolfo 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
6. It is just a great side-quset, and I think it deserves notoriety.TheOracle 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Though the character would make a great featured article, I find the content lacking. Some sections are only a sentence long, such as the Sun Mask says see Couples Mask. I think the page needs to be elaborated on before obtaining featured status. It should be almost complete within itself, and though giving links to other pages, it should give details to suffice in relation to Kafei. I don't see this yet! User:Melchizedek/sig 11:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
2. i) The article is actually really quite short, just with a lot of padding. ii) Most of the sections are stubs, other than the intro and "Daily Schedule" (which overlaps too much with the content in Reuniting Kafei and Anju) iii) NO REFERENCES - seriously, we cannot feature something without a single reference (I'd say this makes vote 3 above invalid) iv) Another invalid, subject-based nomination - seriously, we need to get some detailed guidelines up at Help:Featured Content. User:Adam/sig 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Too short, no references (unless you count those two sites as references). This article needs much more work before it's worthy of being featured. --Felicia's Champion 08:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

I guess that's 3 opposition votes. Too bad. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rauru - Failed April 12, 2009

I believe that Rauru is very worthy of receiving featured article status. Although it is a bit short, it is very well-written and thorough. It properly sources it's information, and the images are of high-quality. This page needs your vote! —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. I think that Rauru is great he helps link. --Link6767 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

1. This is very small page. The references alone make up nearly a third of the page. It is way too brief to be featured.User:Matt/sig 23:34, March 28, 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. It is quite short. Reference section is longer than the actual page. Not long enough to be featured.User:Mandi/sig 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
3. The page is rather short. I don't think something this short on information should be featured. →Kochjr 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

Tingle - Failed December 18, 2009

This article is very lengthy and well-written, and has plenty of images, all of which are nicely placed. There are also several sources. I think this would make a great featured article, seeing as how many people have contributed to (and vandalized) it. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

Opposition

1. Nothing against Tingle, I love the guy. I think the article overall just isn't as informative as it could be. There is very little information on the Tingle's own games, which to me isn't acceptable even though they never made it stateside. Not only that, I can't help but feel certain areas of the article are underwritten, and it may be do to the general distaste for the character (that is, people not really wanting to work on this article as much as others). I may need to give this piece some personal loving, but I just don't think it's ready. Maybe next month. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
2. I believe Nathan has voiced my opinion, as well.—Justin^(Talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
3. To me, what is presented in this article is written well, but it is lacking. Many points are skimmed over, and as has been mentioned, it has significant holes in the sections on Tingle specific games. There are subtitled sections with barely one or two lines, and some single sentence paragraphs. The overall formatting is not yet worthy of featuring yet, with much blank space. It isn't ready yet. User:Melchizedek/sig 11:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

1. I agree with you all. When I nominated it, I just looked at the amount of content, how well-written it was, the refs, and the images, but not how much it covered in total. I'll work on it some more at a later time. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 19:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Sheikah - Failed May 9, 2010

File:Impa2.png

The Sheikah article is one of the crown jewels of the Zelda Wiki. Not only is almost every sentence properly referenced, the article's flow is suave and it covers all its bases - from theories to in-game detail. The enticing placement of pictures (and there are a good bunch of them), and the article's easy-to-follow structure make it an role model for all other race articles. This article is fantastic! User:Cipriano 119/sig 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. We put in a lot of time and effort on it, but it did turn out very nice in the end. We also had contributions from several editors, and that made the project all the more fruitful. Link87 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I might be a bit biased because I worked on this one, but it is a very high-quality article. Ganondorfdude11 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Looks good to me. The writing style actually made the page interesting. I like the big words here and there. +1 —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 00:27, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
4. As I was working on some of the references, I noticed that pretty much every single sentence has something to do with the Sheikah, and it is written very nicely. Really great article! Dany36 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
5. After the recent work done to this page, I fully give my support. --Xizor 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

1. This article might look good because of the overall arrangement of images and content however, the writing style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is...more reminiscent of fan fiction. When I read this article, I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over again. It's somewhat redundant. It could be cut down considerably just by taking out the redundancies.User:Mandi/sig 06:42, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
2. Even with all the reductions and cuts the article reads way too much like a story. With overly elaborate wording, unnecessary statements and phrases, over-dramatization. This article needs a total rewrite before it could really be featured.User:Matt/sig 18:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure this article is ready for Featured status yet. While it's apparent a lot of effort and hard work has been put into the article, it feels longwinded and there are some basic writing errors that inhibit it's flow (3 sentences starting with the word "after" in a 5 sentence paragraph, for example). There's also some assumptions made about the entire race based on the few people we meet who represent them (The Sheikah are a warrior race? All of them? Really? Where did it say that?). It just... while all the information inside is cool, now that all the contributions have been made it needs to be rewritten, it needs to be polished. It's too storylike, and not encyclopedic enough, as has been pointed out. I think that's the major flaw. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

1. I must say Alter, that's the most supportive sounding opposition vote I've ever seen. I suggest you either reword it to make workable opposing points, or consider if you placed that in the right section ;) User:Axiomist/sig 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Fixed it for him. ;) Link87 01:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Heh heh... I meant to do that... PUT IT BACK!!! lol Good catch. I mighta killed that nomination or something. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 02:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

• I take offense at the criticisms levied by the opposition, as it was carefully written and has been edited by other editors to remove "redundancies". The page took a lot of work and effort to create and was a team effort, and there is nothing wrong with the writing style according to others who have read it. However, considering the critic, bias is not to be unexpected as the critic has a history of unwarranted criticism. Link87 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Firstly it was only one opposition vote. It was my opinion to which I am freely entitled to. I apologize that you take offense over my criticism of this article, however, I cannot help that it, in my opinion, is not up to feature status. As for your claim of "bias", I am sorry to inform you that there was no bias in my decision to oppose this article. My vote was decided after reading the article in its entirety.User:Mandi/sig 18:05, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, and the unwarranted block of last night was so indicative of no bias?? The real intent is obvious here. However, it's as you say one negative vote that is untrue in its accusations in my view. And if you read it you would have given examples to show that, and none appeared. So sorry, but I'm not buying if that's what you were hoping. Still, I will let others that have more relevance judge the article's merit for themselves. Link87 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The block was due to your harassment in the chat and your failure to ever compromise with anyone ;)User:Mandi/sig 18:49, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if memory serves me right, you were the one harassing me when I stated my disagreement with you here, calling names and such. It's there for all to see. And obviously it was not in your authority to block for things unrelated to the wiki ;) Link87 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument stops here. Everyone is entitled to their own vote, and Mandi's opposing vote is as per the guidelines. It should not concern you so deeply Chris. The article is not your personal project and it still has a fair shot at a featured article. The featured system is made to be fair, and if one negative vote is made for smite, that will not affect its chances. It is best just to leave it and see how it goes. User:Melchizedek/sig 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody, not me or anybody, said it was my "personal project", it was a team effort that is being falsely besmirched as "fan fiction", and I will not stand by and let all of our efforts be smeared without a proper defense. I agree the argument ends here, but we're all entitled to our opinions as I said and my opinion of said opposing vote is it is based in ulterior motives. End of story. Link87 23:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rupee - Failed May 11, 2010

This article is very well written. It's extremely informative, and I feel that it does its job very well. I Think that we can definitely proudly display this article. It's really a great article, and I feel that we'd be doing a great disservice by leaving it in obscurity. Let's show it off to the world, eh?—Justin^(Talk) 03:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

Opposition

1. My vote is no. Upon first glance at the contents table, I thought it was a lengthy article, upon closer inspection I've found that it is actually quite small (the numerous sections seem to give it a larger feel). And it doesn't have any references at all. What information is there isn't bad, but it's not really feature worthy. User:Mandi/sig 19:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
2. I also vote no. It has no citations/references at all, which, in my book, disqualifies it from earning a distinguished status. In fact, shouldn't pages citing zero sources be tagged for revision? Hmm... Embyr 75 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Upon looking at this article again, I've smacked myself and wondered what exactly I was thinking. It's nowhere near ready for featured status. My bad :P—Justin^(Talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

I think it needs for info in some parts. It feels more like a "listing", rather than an informative page. The Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland section also needs some more work. *Everyone looks at me* —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 20:33, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit listy for me as well, the amount of actual written article content is small. If every section had a legitimate amount of written info (explaining ways to collect, the different wallets, most expensive purchases, etc... you get the idea) it would secure my vote.User:Cipriano 119/sig 06:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Twinrova - Failed 31 October, 2010

File:Twinrova.png

Matt pointed this one out to me recently, and now that it's complete with full references, I think it definitely meets (or exceeds) all the requirements. A very well put together article about one of my favourite bosses of OOT! User:Adam/sig 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, the article is well written and organized, and has lots of references. It looks interesting enough to be featured. User:RupeeLord/sig 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
2. This is another one that was basically a stub when I got here. Now it is so much bigger, better. And with cool pictures we didn't have we back when. A very good article indeed. Plenty of references now. That's good. Must be featured.User:Matt/sig 20:01, May 2, 2009 (UTC)
3. Very well written, very well laid out, and plenty of references. It is very well sized and has great pictures. This one is a must-feature in my opinion. Shnappy 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4. It is well written and has good pictures. It has references and is looks very interesting. It is 'featured worthy'. Well done to everyone who wrote it. - ShellShocker 09:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
5. I vote this gets up. There doesn't seem to be an issue about the section and it gives a lot of info about Twinrova. - AtrumLevis  (My Talk Page) (My Contributions) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Well organized, has enough references. Needs to be featured.User:Mandi/sig 06:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Very well organized, plenty of images while not overboard, enough references, I see no reason why to not reference it. —ZENOX ^T C 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Great organization, good images and references, and a good article to look at on the wiki. - Josh 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
9. This is a great article. A good amount of length and detail, as well as enough refernces and pictures to easily allow it to be published. Two thumbs up. Psychoboo13 11:50, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

Opposition

1. Hmmm...I finally decided to read this article, and the first thing I noticed is that it needs to be better organized. Pretty much what Cip said: some of the sections get horribly redundant, like Koume and Kotake's MM sections, and later on, "Twinrova's" MM section. While it has all the references it could ever need, I just simply cannot vote in favor of this article until its get reorganized. :( Or at least, the Majora's Mask sections, which is what a few people seem to complain about the most in the comments section below. I'll put up a talk page today to try and see how we can improve this article even more. Edit: It seems that the redundancy has been a problem for a while now and nothing has been done. I checked the Twinrova talk page and there are two sections about it: "Separate sections" and "Majora's Mask." So yes, something NEEDS to be done about the redundancy before this gets featured! Dany36 13:45, 18 September 2010 (EDT)
2. After reading this article, I have decided that more detail should've been given. The OoX section isn't even filled in. Pokemainiac 04:49, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
3. Took a look at the article and the first thing I noted were several wording errors, grammar mistakes, and other such faux pas. I was willing to overlook these mistakes until I saw the empty sections where the Oracle games should be. That's a complete red flag in my book. We simply cannot feature an incomplete article, no matter how great the rest of it looks.User:Justin/sig 04:05, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

Neutral Comments

1. I think it is a GOOD passage but cloud need more detail about them...--Link6767 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I think the page needs just a little bit more work before becoming featured, although it's well on its way. A little bit more info for MM and OoX will earn my vote. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
3. I feel some of the things are a little... off. Take the Majora's Mask section. It's rather small, and a little bit misguided. Maybe I am being a stickler with these featured articles, but if a article is to be featured it should be pretty much 100% true to the facts. They played a pretty big role in MM, yet are barely mentioned in passing. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Upon closer inspection, while the article is informative, well sourced, and nicely written, the Ocarina of Time subsection of appearances is very cluttered with images and video, and is actually a bit redundant between talking about the individual witches and their appearances in the games, in respect to the whole page. A simple reorganization should do the trick, then this article'll be hot. User:Cipriano 119/sig 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
5. It is really good except that some sections, especially the Majora's Mask section. 68071 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Negated/Retracted Votes

Twinrova is sooooo easy. I hate her! Gammadiologist 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Vote negated due to opposition guidelines at the top of the pageUser:Mandi/sig 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Earth Temple - Failed November 17, 2010

Hey, it's a great and detailed article. The Earth Temple is a great and detailed article, but it is constantly overlooked. Give the Wind Waker some appreciation! Template:Nosig

Support

1. This article is beautifully written, complete with maps, info, and plenty of pics! --Linkdude101 6:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

1. I'm going to have to oppose this one for a number of reasons. First is the length; I actually think this article is both too long AND too short! By "too long", I mean that there's redundant information (things like the general storyline detail) and the content carries a lot of unnecessary padding. It's already been cut down a lot, but I think there's more work that needs to be done in distilling the content down. But even at its current length, to me there's too little relevant information contained in the text to warrant it being featured. Secondly, I don't think it's especially well structured or laid out, and the section headers seem a little odd. And the third issue I have is the actual subject itself. While that's not normally of much relevance, I do have reservations about featuring a page about one dungeon in TWW over any of the other dungeon articles. For example, the Wind Temple article could be nominated on the exact same basis; it's written in exactly the same style and has all the same merits (and problems) as the Earth Temple article. For me, it just doesn't tick the box of being unique, or even exceptional for that matter. User:Adam/sig 16:30, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
2. Gonna agree with Adam here. It wouldn't really make sense to feature the Earth Temple and not the Wind Temple. It could also use some cleaning up. Dany36 19:04, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
3. Pretty much what Dany and Adam said. It has a lot of rather redundant and irrelevant information. Not exactly feature-worthy.User:Mandi/sig 21:10, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

Great Flood - Failed May 4, 2011

File:Ganon and the Great Flood.png

The Great Flood is one of the most important events in the Zelda Universe. Though somewhat short, this article does a fantastic job of describing it. Furthermore, every reference in this article is taken directly from the games themselves making this article very reliable and feature worthy. Zelda4life 20:46, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Support

Opposition

1. I'm gonna have to say no here. First off, the importance of the subject does not automatically make it worthy of featuring. The article is very short and there really isn't any material that could even be added. In fact some of it has to be removed. A lot of the text is overly elaborate and dramatized as if it was for story telling. Very unencyclopedic. It used to have a lot of speculation in it, though most has been removed already. But still the wording is excessive and drawn out with a slow pace and it dances around the point. Encyclopedias aren't for story-telling, they're for the facts. I'd say it has to be completely rewritten before even considering featuring it.User:Matt/sig 00:41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
2. I agree with what Matt said, however, I think that there is room for improvement. I'll see what I can do with it later. But for now, at least, no. —ZENOX ^T C 16:44, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
3. I agree with the users above me. --Masked Kafei 06:05, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Neutral Comments

As I've voted for Hyrule Castle, I can atleast have some say into this article. It's rather nice, but it's one of the few articles that are big, but the information is rather short. As Matt said, it's really basically too short of an article, and it's literally like a story or a tall-tale, as he said. But in honesty, it can be literally redone, as Zenox has said, and it could be much better then what it is now. But I'm not taking any sides, I'm simply stating that this isn't bad, but it isn't good, either. It has much more work to be done, heck, even potential, but little at the most. Hylian Historic 16:05, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Negated/Retracted Votes

I really like THE WIND WAKER. So this is a great story. (Negated due to rule 5)User:Mandi/sig 17:18, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Chuchu - Failed February 28, 2011

File:Chuchu.png

One of the greatest enemies in the Zelda series. The article is neat, detailed, descriptive, and not one chuchu is discluded. It encourages you to read the whole article. Very cute, and it deserves to be featured. --Masked Kafei 20:31, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Support

Opposition

1. This article is lacking in references, and therefore, I do not think it is worthy of the title "featured". --TheHK ^{(T) (C)} 17:42, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
2. No references. No not one. Zelda4life 18:13, 7 November 2011 (EST)
3. OK, nobody's addressed the issue of missing references, so until that's been corrected this can't be featured. User:Adam/sig 02:32, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Neutral Comments

Negated/Retracted Votes

1. Me like chuchu. --Toon Link Guy 00:40, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Liking the subject of the article is not a valid vote. Dany36 21:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Bow - Failed April 15, 2012

File:MM HerosBow.png

As one of the usual handful of items and equipment in the Zelda series, and to Link, as he almost and always has in his inventory, this item is rather important as a tool and weapon throughout all of his adventure, as this article is very nicely detailed and described rather throughly, maybe short, but it's to the point of what it's to be and of it's use in the series with its upgrades. ~ Hylian Historic ~ 02:18, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Support

Opposition

1. The article is alright, but isn't outstanding like a Featured Article should be. The article somewhat lacks neutrality. Although it may have potential, I think I can quite definitely say that it doesn't belong up there with the Featured Articles yet. — Hylian King ^[*] 20:43, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
2. It's a decent enough item-based article, but nothing special or particualrly engaging, and the layout seems kinf of chaotic to me. User:Adam/sig 02:32, 28 February 2012 (EST)
3. First thing I noticed was the lack of references, which is something that a featured article must have. --Dany36 14:54, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Neutral Comments

1. I think the point of Featured Articles is being missed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what makes an article feature worthy doesn't come from its importance to the series. There are better ones that should be featured *cough* Hyrule Castle *cough* but I'm staying neutral. Zelda4life 23:17, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Negated/Retracted Votes

1. this article should be the fetured article because not only in almost every game but it's effective against most enimies --Ruchq 17:43, 24 June 2011 (EDT)ruchq

Has nothing to do with the content of the article, rather the subject.—ZENOX ^T C 01:42, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

River Zora - Failed April 13, 2013 (expired)

• Score: -1
• Final Date: April 13, 2013

File:Zola.png

This page was refreshing for me. It's an older enemy that got limited exposure in the series. I thought the article was well-fleshed out and in-depth for such unpopular enemy. It has plenty of references, lots of details, a pleasing layout, everything you'd want in an article.User:Matt/sig 02:33, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Definitely one of the best enemy pages on the site, its got quite a nice layout without losing vital information, and doesn't confuse details across games unlike many other enemy articles. If it has any faults, its that it probably has a few too many images at the moment of writing, but it has a lot of accurate information and is presented in a good manner. Fizzle 14:58, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Opposition

1. The article may be well written, but it's lengthy, and the theory section needs to be cut. With a bit of work, it'll be perfect for featuring. User:Darkness/sig 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
2. I agree with Darkness. It is lengthy, and with some cuts here and there, it would be great! Ankazar 23:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

1. I don't really know, it looks pretty messy to me. The page certainly has enough information, and quite a few references, but image usage especially makes the page seem just ... I don't know, umm ... messy is still the best term I can think of. Especially the trivia section. Just a bit of cleaning and it has my vote. —ZENOX ^T C 22:16, 17 February 2011 (EST)
2. As I have already voted "for" Hyrule Castle this month, I'll just say that it is a good article, but I would recommend losing the trivia section if you wish it to have a real chance at being featured. Vyselink
3. The article is well written, and well-sourced. My only gripe is that it is perhaps the longest "common enemy" article, and it is not yet harmonized with the other "common enemy" articles that have, for the most part, taken on a similar layout. Once this is done, I think this'll be prime for featuring. — cipriano^talk 00:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Negated/Retracted Votes

1. This picture just does not look good. I agree with Zenox. It is really messy. I hate that enemy anyway(Not that my opinion on the enemy itself matters.). TriforceSlash 12:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT) (this is about an article not a picture)'User:Mandi/sig 19:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Helmaroc King - Failed April 13, 2013 (expired)

• Score: 1
• Final Date: April 13, 2013

File:Helmaroc King.png

This article is full of knowledge, without excess or repeated information. I think it has amazing detail, especially on the Appearances and Strategy section, and just shocked me when I first saw it. Including the figurine template and plenty of resources, I believe this article has the potential to be featured. --TheHK ^{(T) (C)} 18:05, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Support

1. Agreed, for all the reasons stated in the nomination. --Xizor 18:38, 6 December 2011 (EST)
2. I read this article, and was surprised by the detail it held. When I played Wind Waker, I had no idea this character had this much history in the Zelda series. I thought it was just for that game. This and more I learned from this article. Good nomination, General Tarken. Ankazar 23:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposition

1. In my opinion, unless the Helmaroc King makes a few more appearances in future titles, there won't ever be enough content in this article for it to deserve a special mention. It's well-written, to be sure, but there isn't enough variety to make it outstanding. Some articles just aren't meant to become Featured, unless Nintendo decides to give us more to work with! — Hylian King ^[*]

Neutral Comments

Negated/Retracted Votes

I agree for this article to be nominated because, when I first played Wind Waker, the Helmaroc King really struck me as amazing. -- Shyla12323 15:24, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Negated because liking the subject is not a valid point to support a nomination.User:Justin/sig 01:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see this article featured because of how amazing this boss battle was as well as how impressed I was when I saw this boss for the first time. User:GeneralTarken/sig 03:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Same reason as previous. — Hylian King ^[*] 13:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)