As it has been pointed out elsewhere, this article's information has now become outdated with the release of newer games. It doesn't use any references, and although the topic is a very popular one, it's highly subjective when compared to the largely factual body of information normally promoted as Featured. --Adam 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. As one of the original authors, I definitely feel that the page has bounced between 'less then perfect' and 'total crap' for quite some time... it was written under a completely different atmosphere then the (preferable) one that currently permeates the wiki and for a completely different period of zelda-related theory. The article could not possibly be 'brought up to date': the entire timeline-series needs to be almost totally redone. Disqulify and, if there's no change in a couple months (the chances of which are slim, likely dependent on myself and one other party [1]), delete. --Mmmmm PIE 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Meh. No sources, too much subjectivity (which, given the topic makes it... tolerable?), not to mention, as stated, it's outdated given the recent releases. Also, the writing style doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. --Ando (T) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep

Maybe controversial, but this article seems to me to be just one amongst many. It's no longer the latest game (as it was when it became Featured), and wasn't actually voted in but rather selected by the staff. Also, the single token reference doesn't really cut it, and the YouTube video included doesn't work. --Adam 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. I love Twilight Princess, but I have to agree with that. I've always seen this page as just one among many. If this is featured, then why not all the other games, like Ocarina of Time? --Yuvorias, 11:21, 11 May 2008 (EST)
2. It's true, Twilight Princess has lost some of its glory :( --Seablue254 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep

When this article was featured, it was definitely the best website article on the wiki, having been one of the first to use the infobox and be properly subdivided and include references. However, now that so many other website articles have been improved in the same way, it's simply average. Fairly short, and it seems a little unfair to promote only one of our member sites in this way. Also, nearly a year on it seems that the controversy of the launch must have died down enough to make it less than newsworthy. --Adam 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. The articles really not that well written.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Agreed with Adam. At the time the site was new so it was interesting, but it is now old news, the article is not too exciting to the point that our visitors should be looking at it as featured material. Make room for better articles that everybody can enjoy. I don't necessaryily think its bad to have a website featured, but in the future, I don't think featured websites should be mixed in the rotation, but rather, just get a 2month run or so and then that's it. Mases 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. There isn't anything unique about this article anymore. Just one of many.--Matt 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep

1. Since the addition of "The Masterminds" section on the menu puts it on EVERY PAGE on the wiki, "featured" status is kind of unneeded at this point, but I could care less which way this one goes. --Captain Cornflake 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This one's been around for a long time, and while it is a nice article, it's nothing revolutionary. The sections are pretty short, and while interesting it's hardly that noteworthy. Time for a change methinks! --Adam 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. Yeah, its sections are rather short. There really isn't anything unique about this.--Matt 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree...not anything special...ZeldaGirl96 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Nothing special about this article. It is Short, Simple, and Boring, not worthy of being featured. Mases 01:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Nothing Important. —Seablue 12:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep

This one was my nomination, and I wasn't so sure at the time that it us good enough. But I nominated it anyway for the sake of having at least one place as a featured article. Now, compared to the other great articles we've featured, it doesn't come up to the same standard. --Adam 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. Destroy it -- er, remove it from Featured Article status. It's decent, but there aren't even any references. --Ando 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
2. This shouldn't be featured anymore. It's a popular location in many Zelda titles but this article really isn't anything special at all. It is just filled with large maps and little information. As Ando pointed out, there are not enough references either. Can it. Mases 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I know Lake Hylia is an important location, but I personally don’t think much of this article. The parts about Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess are good but the other Zelda game info is a bit bare. Also the picture used for Lake Hylia on the main page is quite dull. I think there is much better written articles on Zeldawiki that could really show off the talent of its authors such as the Hyrule Castle article. Paulreilly86 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
4. It's a good article and has a fair amount of information, but as some have said, it does not have any references.— Steve 11:49, 30 July 2008 (EST)
5. Midget article. Not exactly well written. Few sources. Not much potential.Matt ^(Talk) 02:42, November 24, 2008 (UTC)

Keep

1. Yeah...err No. This is one of my favorite places. It is also a good article. --Seablue254 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually really like this image, just not this version; it's too busy, cropped and covered in logos and text. I've suggested here that it be replaced with what I consider to be a much better version. However, given that it's so different, perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to remove the current featured image and upload and re-nominate the new one separately? --Adam 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. I don't like the image at all. I think it's rather ugly.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
2. My vote goes here, as described here. --Ando 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
3. The suggested replacement is better. Disqualify this one, and put the other up for nomination.--Matt 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep

Not a fan of this image. The background (as others have pointed out) is very dull, the image itself is hardly exceptional, and it's not even from a Zelda game! I wasn't keen on this being featured at the time, except back then we had no opposition voting process! --Adam 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. There is a whole set of images like this one from SSBB. Just having one of them featured is not fair. We should avoid nominating content that is one of many in the future (remember the former planet, Pluto :P!). We should not give images like this featured status just because it is cool. This one isn't even canonical.--Matt 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Nothing that is too exciting here. There are plenty of sweet Super Smash Bros Brawl images that are much better than this one. This was good while SSBB was a new game, but no longer is needed as a featured picture. Mases 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
3. It is a one of many image. We have others of the same. —Seablue 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
4. I would knock Faron down a peg, but this needs to be removed ASAP. --Douken 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep

Okay, I know I uploaded and nominated this one. And while it's good quality and I like the subject, that's about it. It's not an exceptional composition, the background is dull, and it's one of a great many Twilight Princess images. Also, since it took over 2 months to get enough votes to be featured, I suspect that if we'd been running the opposition voting scheme at the time it may have never made it. --Adam 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. To be perfectly honest, I thought this monkey was a wolf. Before I played Twilight Princess, that was. I never took a close look at it, however, which is one of the reasons I assumed this. If we're not going to nominate the others, it seems fairly pointless to keep just one. And yes, it is just one of the crowd. Personally, I'm not a fan of the Midna image we have up right now either. --Mr.Mystery, 19:01, 13 June 2008 (EST)
2. "They may be deemed worthy of being featured by merit of an important or rare subject, or simply for being visually interesting." I don't see this image as such, and there's already an upgraded version going for feature anyway. --Douken 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Ya, Steve/Markol's version is far superior to this image. This should be disqualified and other than the archive for past featured content, it should be removed from the Wiki and replaced by Steve's beautifully rendered image. Mases 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep

This image is rather small and the quality is far from impressive. It isn't nearly as nice as the other featured pictures we have now. Out with the old! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 14:47, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Disqualify

1. It's not as high res as you'd expect a featured picture to be. There are also very visible artifacts. It just doesn't have that crisp, clean look we want. — Abdullah ^{[T] [C] [S]}  15:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
2. It's too bad that we're disqualifying a picture just because of its poor quality, since that is something that can always be fixed and I have no doubt in my mind that a high quality version of this render would have a place amongst the other featured pictures. As it is, though, the quality is so bad (quite far from being "almost perfect" or "perfectly rendered") that it's pitiful compared to the other renders we have featured. Until a better quality version of this render is uploaded (at which point I don't think disqualification would even be a question), this picture is not worthy of being featured. — Hylian King ^[*] 08:06, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
3. First of all, this picture is amongst the smallest of the currently featured, and extremely pixel-y at that. It almost looks as if it was overcompressed in a photo editing program, with all of its sharp edges and "dandruff-like" white speckling. Even the transparency, though the majority is well-done, misses spots of white background by Dark Link's foot, around his arm, and shoulder - even though there's only white speckling, its still very noticable. I guarantee that a better version of this render exists somewhere - its Dark Link! Considering that this is a piece that won Featured status in 2008 (a time in which the standard of images and articles was much more relaxed then now), I believe its time to update this image or wipe it completely. — cipriano^talk 09:00, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
4. Dark link, shmark link. There are tons of those, this artwork is JUST a low-res humanoid!—★Chip²⁰⁰ 17:01, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Keep

1. I think that Dark Link should be kept. It is small, but the quality is almost perfect. Also, the background is cropped perfectly. Not an annoying picture with an unwanted background. --Masked Kafei 20:03, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Good image, but too low resolution. It's only 346 × 646 pixels in size. If there is an image with better quality floating around on the internet, that would be good! --Cuddles 07:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Disqualify

1. At the moment we have no less than four featured TP models. This one is the oldest perhaps the least striking. Sorry Midna! — Hylian King ^[*] 08:23, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
2. I have to agree. The image isn't really all that great (both in quality and in "striking"ness), and I never really liked that we have so many...uninteresting renders for featured pictures. --Dany36 13:09, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
3. I agree too. This image isn't as impressive as some of the other featured images we have, and I was even considering nominating it for disqualification myself for a while. Nothing about it seems that amazing or notable, especially in comparison to most of the other renders we have that aren't featured. Dannyboy601^Talk 04:33, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

This image is also a duplicate of File:Midna04.png without the white edges. --Cuddles 15:21, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Keep