Talk:Skull Kid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lede rewrite[edit]

I'm not sure if reverting the prior redirect edit was a good move in this case, but assuming good faith I've just tagged several improvements this article needs in order to be properly cleaned up. Most of them are self-evident like the need for sources of any kind. The lede rewrite, though, may not be as obvious. The main thing is that the lead should assert the importance of the character. Secondly, the lede should probably not spend so much time discussing erroneous translations of his name. Good luck with the cleanup. -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede looks better now so I've removed the lede rewrite tag. -Thibbs (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect discussion[edit]

This article is just filled with all sorts of unsourced or original research claims, and is extremely redundant or not noteworthy. I've made some revisions, but there's tons more that should really be cut down. I really don't think there's enough here for it's own article... Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of stuff? If it's about stuff like Twilight Princess taking place seven years after Majora's Mask, it is true. In other words, you couldn't find any sources for him, huh?--Super-tony980 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you assume, of all the junk in this article, that I was challenging that? Beyond that, let's look at my latest edit to explain what I'm talking about. I removed the following information "Ever since Skull Kid made his appearance in Majora's Mask, he was described as one of the coolest character of The Legend of Zelda series, though easily recognizable video game antagonists of all time." Now, how can you make that claim? None of the follow up information says anything about him being considered the coolest character, and nor is that initial claim sourced. Furthermore, how can you call him "one of the most recognizeable video game antagonists of all time"? As I said in my edit summaries, he's not even the most recognizeable major character/villian in the scheme of the LOZ series, (that would obviously be Ganon), let alone in the scheme of all video games. At no point does anything in the article, sourced or not, assert that he is anywhere near the likes of real famous villiams, like Bowser, for example. The very fact that this article didn't exist by itself before this month, and it's struggling to have any sort of notability makes me think there's just no way claims like that could be true, no matter how much "source searching" were to occur. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was mostly reconized as the video game antagonist of Majora's Mask because of certain reasons like he was powerful and awesome, when he was a...victim. Seems you can understand what Skull Kid went through. You know that lots of people like Majora's Mask's Skull Kid (with the mask on) more than that from Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, wishing for him to appear in Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U, like the kind of character that was best suited for Skull Kid. That's why I did that. Sorry if it's not good.--Super-tony980 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. He certainly is known, and I bet there's...some...people who want him for Smash Brothers, you do have a source verifying someone saying that, it's just a huge exageration to take that, and state that he's "one of the most recognizeable video game antagonists of all time". The fact is, he's not recognizeable to hardly anyone who hasn't played LOZ. And I think thats the problem with a lot of this article, it relies on your opinions and interpretations instead of verifications through reliable sources. (I assume most of the article is your work...looking at the edit history it seems most everyone else is removing content rather than adding it.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the problem I'm having, while I'm adding infos, including some good source users find that excellent for the article, users seem to remove most of them and confuses me of what I need to write down. They got to understand what they are removing from the article. Yes it's true, most of the article is my work, ever since Skull Kid was resurrected, I don't have my opinions in the article, they are true, but if there are stuff that could or couldn't be true until the official statement, they have to be removed, because it's original research, isn't it?--Super-tony980 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. You need to wait until you have sources, then add it to the article. Please read WP:V and WP:BURDEN. If things are challenged, due to things like lack of sources, it's the person who wants to re-add it's responsibility to find sources. In this case, that's you.
And your opinion's litered throughout the article, whether it's the part we're arguing above, or things like "Skull Kid has no more fear on Link as an adult as he did in Ocarina of Time, it may hint that he reconized him as the boy who befriended him (though Twilight Princess takes place right before Ocarina of Time's adult timelines)." or However, Skull Kid seems to still be physicaly a child, despite his new appearance in Twilight Princess. or Skull Kid has now a face similar to that of the Moon from Majora's Mask, although, with a smile.. These area all just your person observations and speculation from playing the game. All original research. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have included "changed to match Wikipedia's quality standards", because I can't remove it, Skull Kid would have tried to kill Link, but instead, he played with him. It proves that Skull Kid reconized Link. And yes, Twilight Princess is right before the Adult Timeline, the Hyrule Castle was destroyed. The place where it tells that Skull Kid is still a child is where I really meant that he doesn't age. Since Link was an adult in Ocarina of Time, he still is the same as seven years ago, except for Twilight Princess, where his design sightly changed. I said that Skull Kid has a face similar to that of the Moon, is because I thought that was true, since I saw that in the Zelda Wiki. But I'll do something about it, I'm currently editing. O.o--Super-tony980 (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly been removing unreliable sources that you've been including, such as forum posts and newly created websites. Hopefully you'll get a chance to read through WP:RS so you have an idea of what to look for in terms of reliable sources in the future. What I would recommend is that you go back to the Characters in The Legend of Zelda series article and return the Skull Kid section from there and expand it. Since you seem to like the character, you should have no problem working in the reliable sources you found for this article. If it looks like the section is getting too big, open up a discussion on Talk:Characters in The Legend of Zelda series to see if it should be split into a separate article. If you need inspiration, look at Midna to get a feel for the type of sources you should be looking for. In the meantime, this article should be returned to being a redirect. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, have mostly been removing original research and/or things that don't make sense. For instance, character development is not randomly describing how the character looks in different games, or looking at different ways his name is translated. Not only that, but you had no sources for that info either, so there's a number of reasons why that's not appropriate.
Also, the article needs a lot more third party references. As in, ones that aren't straight out of the game or straight from Nintendo. I'm still not sure this article would survive an WP:AFD if editors looked at the sources being used... Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll write it here since the link I gave in the edit summary contained a typo and didn't work; I removed the links to the Zelda wikia links put in the External Links section because it violated WP:ELNO Point #12. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the article has to contain[edit]

I don't understand any of things you've want to do. Rather than helping, you want to remove than to include. I had every examples from the articles of other Zelda or Mario characters, including Midna, the character who currently appeared in three games instead of ten games in total. But you guys think that this article only have to include what it has to have, and remove what it isn't obliged to have (which what other articles you know do contain), just like what happened with Wart, but no. Skull Kid's situation is sightly different. In other words, you users are saying that it should be like a regular character article like others, but you're turning it into a different one by removing sources. Skull Kid's half infos have removed enough. My lastest edit on the Skull Kid was almost compared to that on other characters and what kind of sources do you want Skull Kid to have anyway? You should know. And I believe what you guys removed, which you guys called original research, are the stuff you didn't believe and thought it was lies, rumors or stuff like that. Hints gave me answers and they are true. The thing about Skull Kid being ageless was true. Let me ask you this, what kind of source Skull Kid has to have? Don't tell me what it shouldn't have.--Super-tony980 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want us to stop removing your information, then stop adding things that are either original research and back up your claims with reliable, third party sources. I suggest you learn what these things are. They way you write articles, both this one and the "Wart" one, suggests you don't understand. Additionally, read up on WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia values what you can "prove" over "unsourced things that you think are true.". In general, you seem to have an attitude of "well we don't know for sure, so let's add it and find sources later", which is a backwards way of doing it. Find sources confirming the information, then add it to the article... Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how OR is bad. Look at your section on the LOZ manga. There are 0 sources confirming any of that information, only personal interpretation. That's bad because 1)Different people can interpret the same thing very different than others, possibly radically wrong. Your viewpoint may not be correct or commonly believed, thus adding a bias. 2) If there's no sources, it's very easy to vandalize. It'd be very easy for someone to slip in "and in the end, Skull Kid died a terrible bloody death". Doesn't seem to be true, but if there's no sources for editors to check background information on, there's no way for most people to see if that's true or not. Does that makes sense? Therefore, you need sources verifying the information, reliable ones, to show that it's both true, and not just personal opinion.

Beyond that, even if you disagree, it's a major wikipedia policy, and you'll be hard-pressed to convince anyone that this article is an occassion to ignore such rules. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't into the Manga. But the rest, including the receptions, were my problem. Sorry about the manga, I never seen "Skull Kid died a terrible bloody death". It seems to me the Manga was a big problem to you by the fact it was the largest of the "original research", but not others, yet you guys removed them. When you said "find sources confirming the information" seems to mean that you are not sure whether the infos are true or false or just plain suggestion/speculation (original research), and I'll need to have official referies and sources-to-confirm for proof. Because of that, they are currently considered as original research by you guys. If I find them, I'll bring them back and make new ones for him and you'll stop re-removing them again.
If I couldn't have the appearance in the Concept and Creation, I'd have to make the appearance section to describe how he looks (which most of the fictional characters do have), but it was removed. The thing about Skull Kid's name was also removed. I didn't ignore such rules, it looked quite clear to me that you consider them being speculations or something like that. But I wish I was wrong on that.
About Skull Kid and Wart, the situation is rather different, I told you. Wart may contain original research the most, they are removed, but the rest infos disappeared as well, since no one, even I, have searched for sources no more when Wart had the most throughout the web than Skull Kid do. Skull Kid's article was the hardest one I ever worked on, yet I was able to hang in there. But the removal problem make things harder for me. That's why it is different. But that's a bit off-subject I admit. -_-'--Super-tony980 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, argue all you want, your approach needs to change. You need to write articles around the information you have in third party references, not write all sorts of your thoughts down and see if anyone challenges it for being OR or unsourced. Start with sources. Then write info into the article. If you follow that principle, it would fix all of your article's problems. Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a race and a person[edit]

It should probably be spelled out that it seems that "Skull Kid" can refer to both a particular person, and to a race/group of people in general. (That's what the article seems to claim. Is this true? It seems awkward, or the equivalent of naming a human character "Human" or something.) Anyways, this should be verified and explained. As it is now, it's confusing...Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the--Confusing? This is your fault for making this article confusing as it is now. This article is about the same as Yoshi or other notable characters with part of the subject about his race/group, are you trying to make this article very different than that of other fictional characters' articles? It doesn't matter if it's about Skull Kid is about the character and a race/group at the same time (though I mention Skull Kids rarely in that article), though it had to, desribing how he looks, the reference of Skull Kid being listed in, or mentioning about his name. They aren't junk.--Super-tony980 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not really sure what you're going on about, all I'm saying is that somewhere it should say Skull Kid is both a person, and a race. If that is indeed true. It seems to be, but I'm checking here first. Often times editors ask questions before adding information, rather than just going by "I'll just add what I think is true now because there's no proof its false and we'll see if anyone challenges it..." Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime, it should talk about the notable character who was always seen solo, like the one Link played "Saria's Song" to, the one with Majora's Mask and the sage of the Sacred Grove, which both of these incarnations is Skull Kid himself. Know what I'm saying? Try to get some examples from Yoshi, Birdo or other notable characters that talk about their race origin, you'll see what I'm talkin' about.--Super-tony980 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to re-explain that, I have no idea what you're getting at, or how it's related to what I'm saying... Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you're confused. All I'm suggesting is there to literally be a sentence at the beginning saying something like: "Skull Kid" can refer to both the character, and as a race of beings. You could even use "Yoshi's" as an example I suppose. I'm not saying you re-write the whole article about the race and not the individual. I'm just saying it should be explained that there's both. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, and I would try that (I already did that but the article is changing). But, I'm not so sure because you will remove most of my infos and sources again. I'll just hope you won't. So let's do this.--Super-tony980 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just a moment. I'll have to note on how he looks (his appearance) in the caracteristic section, like others do, even Yoshi. The name will be later, 'cause I am not sure where to write the down. I beg you, please don't remove them.--Super-tony980 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop begging me not to remove stuff. Make it so it does have a source, and/or isn't OR, and it won't be removed. I have every right to remove original research and unsourced claims, it's one of the main principles of wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Yoshi's article has been tagged as "needing cleanup" since 2009. So, while it's still better than this article (by a longshot), the argument "Yoshi's article does it, so this one should too!" isn't necessarily true...Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought "If other articles can, so this one can as well". Why not? I wasn't talking about original research/unsourced claims, I meant my infos and they are not original research. So, I still need to have sources.--Super-tony980 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's simple:
  1. Majority of what I've deleted of yours has been unsourced or original research. If you oppose what I delete, all you have to do is add a source. If you are unable to provide a source, then it's very possible I was right about it being original research.
  2. The Yoshi article isn't perfect either. It too contains unsourced info or original research. Just because no one's currently challenging it doesn't mean it's perfect. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that if some infos that doesn't have a source (despite it's real or obvious) is considered as original research? Except the ones that everyone knows and is quite obvious, but part of them too has to have sources as well and they disappeared. Yoshi isn't the only one who is mostly know to have fellow friends though. Yet, I have examples from other characters, like Midna. She has lots of referies.--Super-tony980 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Skull Kid and his fellows, it's kind of different. There were three ones seen in Ocarina of Time, except Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, when they were only one Skull Kid, the character that is. I think it's why the article is mostly focused on the character than the species and talks bit less about him from Ocarina of Time (except the Manga). I've nearly forgotten about Majora's Mask Manga and Twilight Princess (if there is).--Super-tony980 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources removed were because they didn't meet Wikipedia's standards for being reliable. (Messageboards or blogs, for example, can't be used.) As for the rest of your questions about the references, they're pretty much summed up by WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That's what I need to do for this article to be totally okay and no more problem will ever happen.--Super-tony980 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saria's Song, other OoT plot points[edit]

They should NOT be in the article. In general, the article is supposed to be written so that general audiences can understand it. In this case, it should be understandable to people who have never played OOT. And thus, things like "Saria's Song" means nothing to a person who has never played the game, and ultimately, the song has little relevance to Skull Kid, so it doesn't make sense to explain what the song is in the article either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to merge back?[edit]

I really feel like this should be merged back into the list of LOZ characters article.

  • While it has 9 sources, half are "quotes" from the game, and a few more are sources directly from Nintendo. It only contains 2-3 actual reliable, third party sources.
  • The article is still mostly WP:OR descriptions of characters and plot points, usually without any sources to back up claims/interpretations.
  • I don't see any real potential to grow. He just hasn't gathered that much third party coverage. He just doesn't have that big of a role in the series.

So anyways, I just wanted to get consensus before I make this move, so I can point this discussion if there's a minority who disagrees. (Or conversely, I guess I could learn that it shouldn't be merged back...) Any thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article does not demonstrate notability by official guidelines. If you still want to try and make Skull Kid have quality content on Wikipedia, do it on the list article until you find 5-10 good sources like the 3 currently in the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for trying to improve his editing, Serge, although we'll see how much of it sticks. The article doesn't appear to stand on its own, sourcing-wise, so it should go back to the main list. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose he gets ample coverage already. http://wii.ign.com/articles/830/830760p1.html And did you contact the major and recent contributors to this article before discussing this? Two people agreeing with you in two days, doesn't seem like a lot of participation. Dream Focus 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you spent any time at all looking at what's going on here this article? I've been trying to explain simple wikipedia concepts like third party sources and original research up and down this talk page to the sole person who thinks this article exists (Super Tony). He's been told many times through this talk page and edit summaries for the article that there is not enough for an article here. Have you read the article? It's all fluff/unsourced/OR except for a very short reception consisting of like 2-3 reliable 3rd party sources. Not to mention that the redirect I reinstated was the same one that existed from May 09 until mid-August 2011, and the article has shown little to no progress in these past weeks. I agree I moved a little quickly, but really, how much do we need in this scenario? You've suggested one IGN source. Any reason why the "list of LOZ characters" article can't contain that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has to prove itself notable, not its content. The IGN source certainly does that, and I believe the last two sources do as well. "Best Kids in Video Games" UGO.com and "Top 5 Villians that weren't the final boss." ScrewAttack.com. It should contain as much valid content as possible to fully explain every aspect of the subject. Dream Focus 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You still haven't explained why we can't put a few of his sourced appearances in top 10 lists in his paragraph paragraph on the list of LOZ characters article, like it's been for the last 2+ years. If you strip away all the OR/unsourced info here, it's results in little more than the short reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And we could eliminate every article in the entire Wikipedia and replace it all with a redirect to a single page that says "stuff happens". If you don't like the article, then don't look at it, find something else to complain about. You can't destroy something simply because you don't like it. And primary sources are fine if the validity of the information is not in question. Dream Focus 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, I really wish you'd look around on this talk page and page history before you make accusations that I'm getting rid of it because I don't like it. Almost all my contributions have been regarding sources or original research. And I'm not out there trying to destroy all articles, I'm all for saving articles too. (cough) So yeah, it's fine to disagree with me, but lets keep it about the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dream, 3 sources with quick mentions in lists does not make an article notable. Whoops, that third source was a user blog. So that hinders this article even more. Skull Kid can be placed perfectly in the list with other characters. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help out searching for sources, no matter what they are, even it's about Skull Kid being listed in one of the favorable villains and stuff. And thanks alot Dream Focus.--Super-tony980 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought ScrewAttack was an acceptable source, but looking now, I don't see anywhere that says they are. They are just a user blog site. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paid staff has to review anything and approve it(See their Frequently Asked Questions). So its not something anyone can submit something to and have it hosted. Therefore, its a reliable source. Dream Focus 01:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some confusion here between the concepts of notability and independent notability. Skull Kid seems to be notable based on the 1-2 actually relevant 3rd party sources that Tony has found. However, he's only notable within the context of "semi-recurring characters of the Legend of Zelda". Independent notability is a higher standard which requires other things like real-world impact or influence on other works. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable enough to be covered on its own. You don't have to show any real world impact or influence at all. Most articles don't, nor has that ever been a requirement at anytime in Wikipedia's history. If it meets the General Notability Guidelines, which it clearly does, then it gets its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 11:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is were that clear, then we wouldn't still be discussing this...>_> The fact of the matter is, this article is a mess beyond a few references that covered him in "top 5 vilians" type articles. There's very little here of substance, and no reason the few good parts couldn't be merged into a larger, better article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can not delete something because you don't like it. There is no consensus to eliminate this article by deletion, merge, redirect, or whatever. Dream Focus 23:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can if the reason for not liking it is it being poorly written, poorly sourced, and already having an area where it could better and more succinctly be summarized. Which is what I keep saying. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well some of us believe a longer article which is interested to people who actually read Wikipedia for information like this, is much preferred than just eliminating it because some prefer a much shorter version crammed together with other things. This article has been viewed 4595 times in the last 30 days. Any further discussion is pointless. It meets the requirements an article must have to survive, and you can not merge without consensus, which you will never get. So go find something else to destroy. Dream Focus 23:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 1)Page views mean nothing, and are irrelevant. 2) You can't say there will never be consensus. (In fact, right now we've still got more people in favor of merging than not.) and 3) Don't you find it ironic that you, the person who declared "not enough discussion had taken place" is suddenly declaring "discussion is pointless" when only one new person (you) has joined the discussion? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three for this, two against. Consensus is not voting. Discussing this farther with you is pointless, since neither of us will convince the other. Dream Focus 00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's not a vote, I'm just saying the numbers make it that more ridiculous to claim that there could never be consensus to merge. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they do, maybe they do not. Check out other articles, excluding Skull Kid, you'll see one of the fictional characters has these ScrewAttack references. Birdo does as well.--Super-tony980 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've said before, just because one article does it, doesn't make it right. That just means both articles could be in the wrong. Blake and NARH both seem to think it was written by random users on the site, not by Screw Attack editors. It's similar to how info from a Gamespot editor's article would be acceptable, but info from a user on the gamespot messageboard/forums, would not be. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid since it has proper editorial oversight. They don't just let anyone posts something there. I brought this up on the reliable source notice board, but still haven't got any feedback on it. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Screwattack Dream Focus 14:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is it editorial like they review/check over the work, or do they just make sure that there's no profanity type stuff? Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of God, I have said it very clearly - it is NOT WRITTEN BY A STAFF OF SCREWATTACK. The person who wrote it has, at best, equal credentials to me. I can go on there, right now, and write my own blog. It would certainly not qualify as a reliable source.
Also, I wrote in an angry and tense way because I am very tense and very sick right now. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, as long as that is directed towards Dream, and not me. I'm on your side, I don't think it should be used either. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: It looks like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Screwattack also is against using Screw Attack. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IGN [1] coverage is still there, plus he is on a notable list on the UGO site. I'm still against any merge. Dream Focus 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expected as much. However, now there's even less coverage, and you're outnumbered 4 to 2. (And no offense to Super Tony, the only person who agrees with you, but he doesn't really grasp many of wikipedia's policies.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge what we can or shorten up the current section in Characters in The Legend of Zelda series#Skull Kid, which is just about as large. Personally, I would lean towards the former as I think the section in the list article is in better shape currently than the standalone article itself. –MuZemike 21:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it definitely needs to be shortened down, as much of what is here currently, beyond the reception section, is OR and/or plot summary type stuff written by a user's interpretation of the game. Once you trim it down, it fits best as a section in the "Characters" article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now a "merge" is supported 5 to 2, and the article has lost one of the few instances of third party coverage due to it not being considered a reliable source. Can we merge it back now? Or perhaps create/polish up the short version to be used at the LOZ characters article first, and merge after that's all set? Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think the section that currently exists in the Characters article sums it up well already? I think it'd be fair to just redirect this article at this point. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with redirecting right now. MUzemike was in favor of shortening his section over at the LOZ character article, but that can be done just fine after this is redirected, so I guess that's not a factor really... Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-merge discussion[edit]

This is so wrong what you've done, and it doesn't fit well in the Character list at all. You've said to me to do what I should do and you could help, but seems to me you wanted to do what you wanted to do to Skull Kid, like redirecting it instead of improving it. Just as I'll have more stuff for Skull Kid you can rely on, Skull Kid will have his own article back.--Super-tony980 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either put more references in the character list(which is a fine place for Skull Kid to be.), or make a sandbox in your userspace. Do not revive the article until we look at it and see it has significantly improved. Redirect/Revive wars are not a good thing. I want to stress that the list is a fine place for it to be. It fits just fine. In fact, all of the characters in the list should be closer to Skull Kid's size(well, almost), and if they can't, then they don't need to be on the list. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can still add to his section in the LOZ character list article. Work on that, and maybe someday there will be enough content/coverage to support it's own article. Furthermore, I'd, in good faith, suggest you do more work in learning wikipedia policy and how articles are written. Many of your arguments and mistakes in writing this and the Wart (character) article boils down to that... Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I did that, Skull Kid's size of infos will be increasing, so he will have to be revived. Talking about Redirect/Revive war, is almost as Death/Life war. You guys (to me) are doing wrong, you want to take Skull Kid's life while we are protecting him and improve him as well. Me, Dream and others want to protect him. Pfff...Oh whatever, his revival will have to wait. Lol, seems I'm talking as if someone's life is in danger. That's crazy.--Super-tony980 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know about all of that...but again, I reiterate, add more verifiable, sourced content, not original research, to the section, and maybe someday there will be enough to have it's own article. Right now there is not enough. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But he is not dead. The content still lives. It is just presented in a different way. We are not doing wrong. We care about articles. But there is policy which must be followed which restricts characters without significant coverage to be displayed as a separate subject. I would love for many characters to have full articles, but without the right sources, it isn't possible. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liar...--Super-tony980 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who? And why do you say that? At present, this article simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, but perhaps it could in the future. Reach Out to the Truth 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super-tony, at this point, it's clear that no power could convince you that the article is not up to standards. If you will so willingly fight consensus on Wikipedia, then I would either suggest learning to adapt to not getting your way, or leave Wikipedia, as this combative attitude is not acceptable.
I can only assume that you're accusing Blake of lying that he wants many characters to have full articles, which is complete bunk. Blake loves him some character articles. Blake wrote the Charizard article, I wrote the Midna article. He wrote Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, and I wrote Glass Joe. He wrote Pit, and I wrote Birdo. Why do you think he's lying? Because he was very cooperative and, along with two other users, tried to help you find sources?
Food for thought: No one is going to want to work with you if you're going to act like this. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this, and it really echoes my past comments too. If you're going to take the time to write articles here, you may as well take the time to learn the policies. It makes more sense than just doing whatever you want, and then getting mad when it gets (rightfully) removed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are keeping on jumping into conclusions. You don't know what I'm gonna do. I have my own way of being a user. I'm not giving up, I'll never leave wikipedia, Skull Kid will be revived. I'm not that kind of guy. And I hate fights, which is something I was not good at. If Blake would really want Skull Kid to have his article, he would help with everything he could. I know myself he's not against characters. However, if he would love for characters and/or other characters to have their own articles, why would he say that not everyone needs articles? You can see in my talk page. I'm still not sure if you guys would love to have mutiple articles and it could happen in the future. And when I said "Liar", I didn't litterally mean that he actually lied. I meant that I didn't believe him. I know how I accuse people for lying and I didn't.
And yes, you guys care about articles. If you didn't, you would leave it to me and wouldn't not redirect back once without talking to me, I admit that. I wouldn't be an ingrate for you telling me about sources and other stuff. It isn't the only thing I shouldn't do after all. Don't worry. I swear, I'm not being sarcastic at all, and sarcasm was not a good behavior, it still isn't.
Why are you talking to me as if you didn't want to redirect him? You were actually doing your way. We could have search for source (with unregistred users). Yet, you wanted to redirect him into the character list. You said "If you're going to take the time to write articles here, you may as well take the time to learn the policies. It makes more sense than just doing whatever you want, and then getting mad when it gets (rightfully) removed." It was a sign of you doing whatever you want with Skull Kid, right? You have proven me that, since you said that Skull Kid is fit to be listed back to the Zelda character list. You had your way and we had ours. You know that Charizard, Midna, other characters you edited was a different story. Wart and Ness were different too, which are the articles I ressurected. Looks quite to me it was a long time ago. What about the next articles you are gonna edit? If the rules says that an article should be a good article that meet the quality standarts (if I remember correctly), would you redirect it because it doesn't have enough good reliable sources (or other reasons) or would you help out so it should be stayed alive? But it is quite confusing. What I'm talking about was about what you said you would do in the Talk Page of Skull Kid. You actually kept on removing infos because they were original research and unreliable sources to you, when I'm want to get them back or searching for new ones. But, you did it in the end.
It's true, I am the user who actually has Skull Kid as one of my favorite Nintendo characters (mainly the Majora's Mask incarnation), I brought him back because I thought someone like him would deserve an article, with a artwork of him from Majora's Mask. And talking about users doing stuff like redirects to fictional characters, some of them are doing this, mainly because they hate them. It is not something that could be ignored. I hope you are not like them. But you are different. You don't hate Skull Kid, but I don't mind if you don't like him.--Super-tony980 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, if you bothered to learn the policies of wikipedia, and used those policies to explain why the article should exist, or used those policies and ideals to make the article better, you'd accomplish a lot more here on wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep assuming that we have not looked for sources, and have not tried to help you with the article. This is false. We would much rather find a few good sources and keep the article then sit here arguing with you about why it doesn't meet guidelines. We have looked, and they don't appear to exist. The sources we have removed were not usable for the purpose of notability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion 2021[edit]

The article is exactly the type of low-level, wikia stuff we've been trying to get rid of over this last decade. No dedicated coverage. No significant coverage. Just a bunch of fictional story content and a reception section built around the most mundane observations cherry-picked out of these Zelda articles churned by these low level Gamerant and Comic Book Resource type sources. It's a minor character with no out of universe impact. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a non-issue as both copyvio close matches are mirrors of actual articles on Wikipedia. Haleth (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree that there is no out of universe impact, the question is whether there is enough coverage to justify a standalone article. If the character truly has no out of universe impact, no one would have bothered making a fan film, or do any of the other fan labor stuff devoted to the character like this or this; the significance here is that they attracted attention from mainstream game press beyond dedicated Zelda fansites that would indiscriminately cover every minute detail of the Zelda fandom's activities. There is more commentary from other reliable sources in response to the Skull Kid fan film, including The Verge and Game Informer, but both sources are not yet cited in an appropriate section under reception. On the scholarly side, there are for example this paper where page 185 is entirely dedicated to discussing the character as well as as well as pages 16-17 of this article republished in Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies, along with some discussion about the character within the context of the Ben Drowned creepypasta thing here and here. There's also a recently published peer-reviewed paper which is entirely devoted to discussion of the character which I found on Google Scholar, though I am not sure whether anyone have qualms about their editorial process or standards. I haven't dug real deep yet so I am not expressing an opinion, but I do wonder whether all of the other participants in this discussion have done some independent research as opposed to simply taking the proposer's word for it. If there is indeed enough to write a short article, would this merge discussion or the earlier edit war to forcibly merge the article be necessary? Haleth (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to say that I have come across several Zelda related articles that have been neglected for a few years and could have been expanded with additional sources. Haleth has highlighted that additional sources exist for this one, so I think it is worth doing more work on this article to establish notability. Fieryninja (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, this is not the only poor Zelda character article I've come across. Despite the franchise being as popular as ever, it doesn't have much activity on the character side of things. I have no objection with creating a draft out of its current state and seeing what you can come up with when you're ready to work on it. But it's far from a good state right now, and based off the page's 17 year page history, I don't really see it coming together organically any time soon. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose I could work on it in draft and then you can decide what you want to do with it in its current state for now. Fieryninja (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skull_Kid&oldid=1201433351"