Image[]

Is covering up the Help Guide Nav at my screen resolution. Might want to find a different place for it. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 15:20, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Is that better now?Matt ^(Talk) 21:45, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's still hovering on the right over the Nav thingy. Weird. O_o Don't know what to tell ya on that one. =\ —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 18:02, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

I don't get this problem, and I even resized my browser to a bunch of different sizes. What's your resolution?—Justin^(Talk) 18:09, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

My screen res is 1280x800 and I'm running IE7. I KNOW I know, everyone hates IE. =P But if, per chance, anyone else comes here using the same resolution and browser, they will probably run into this issue as well. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 18:25, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Then that's the problem. IE does not conform to nearly any of the established web standards. It frequently has buggy display and rendering that places objects in the wrong location. IE has similar issues with most other coding on the wiki. There's little that can be done for it. Most of our viewers, according to Google Analytics, actually use either Firefox, Chrome, or Opera. We have more Firefox viewers than IE. So the majority will see it correctly and there's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent most IE bugs. The best that can be done for the user is to either upgrade to IE8 or to another browser.Matt ^(Talk) 23:19, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well. Wikipedia doesn't give me trouble, like, ever. So. It isn't impossible to fix. O_o I mean it seems like we worry about search results and professionalism but only as long as the viewers aren't using IE... Just sayin'. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 19:33, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, but Wikipedia is mean and won't share their fixes with us. (Sarcasm). I more meant there's nothing we can personally do ourselves on the face of the wiki. It has to be done with applying bugfixes to the wiki's installation. Good luck motivating them to do that.Matt ^(Talk) 23:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. That kinda sucks. Oh well. =) —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 19:49, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Matt, you know that Adam handles the skin fixes. And if I can find out how to fix it, Adam can apply the fix. So don't give up just yet ;)—Justin^(Talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Name[]

Useful page, bad name. This is a glossary, not a dictionary (oh, by the way thanks for this, Mandi ;p). It needs to be at least renamed to Help:Glossary (I just added the "...of wiki terminology" to clarify that it's wiki-related, not in-game). Thoughts? —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 08:46, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Seriously, any objections before I just move this to "Help:Glossary"? I mean, I'd just go ahead and do it, but we saw how that went last time... —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 07:13, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

Go for it.—Justin^(Talk) 09:42, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

I agree. Glossary seems the better term. User:Cipriano 119/sig 13:26, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I have no issue with "Glossary", it would fit. That's a lot better than the other title that you used. At least this time we have a consensus!Mandi ^Talk 02:19, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Help:Glossary works for me. We don't really need any clarification beyond that because I feel that it being in the Help namespace it already has the implication that it's not about the games. To me the Help namespace has always been more about the wiki itself. Whoever does the move should remember to update the name in the help nav bar too.Matt ^(Talk) 02:23, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

This and Zelda Definitions[]

So... I feel like this and the Zelda Definitions page are kinda one and the same. I propose a merge between the two, preferably with keeping this as the page name and moving the info from Zelda Definitions here. I just don't see the merit in having two pages, especially when this has relatively few links to it. I feel like a glossary title is more appropriate than "Zelda Definitions," however. So I guess discuss away.—Justin^(Talk) 03:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. This page seems to be geared towards wiki terminology while the Zelda Definitions page is for recurring Zelda terminology. I don't know if we should be mixing those. - Tony^{T S C} 04:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "Help:Wiki Terminology" and "Zelda Terminology" then, to give the pages more clear titles? I agree that they should be separate, but I think they should be clearer as to their purpose. --SnorlaxMonster 03:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. The names that we currently have are slightly ambiguous and inconsistent. I also agree that we should leave the pages separate from one another. They explain different topics, and merging information on Wiki terminology and Zelda terminology would just create one large mess. By this, I mean that it may be annoying for somebody who wants to know how the Wiki works if they had to read about things like "Lava" and "Grass." Likewise it would be irritating for somebody who wishes to learn about the Zelda universe to come across terms such as "Autopatrol" and "Parameter."

While I'm here, I'd also like to point out that some terms on this page seem like they would fit better on the Zelda Definitions page (Ambiguously Canon, Canon, and Fourth Wall). While the former two do have some relevance to this page, I think that the latter should be moved. Dannyboy601^Talk 08:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning out the wanted pages[]

While cleaning out the wanted pages I found a red link for this Special:Log/renameuser|renameuser is there a way to fix this as it seems to be something important (maybe) or is it something we can simply delete and move on with. I only ask cause I'm a little OCD when it comes to red links and this one I'm not too sure if it'd be cool if I simply removed it. --Shadow Reaper 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. — Hylian King ^[*] 23:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)