12 replies to this topic

[Crimson Lego]

Which do you think is more reliable in terms of the content presented? I've mostly used Zeldapedia but found they're lacking in some spots or are wording it rather badly.

[Fin]

I think you meant which is worse. They're both terrible resources.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I generally use Zelda Wiki, but I haven't used either enough to say which is more (or less) reliable.

[joeymartin64]

I've seen much more of Zelda Wiki, and I like what I've seen, but, as with all fan wikis, you've got to use something of a filter, and take its content with some salt. I've only seen a little bit of Zeldapedia, and it smacked like a motherfucker of the "14-year-olds-trying-to-phrase-things-informatively-and-professionally" writing style that pervades the lower tier of fan wikis, so I gave up on it pretty fast.

[Fin]

"14-year-olds-trying-to-phrase-things-informatively-and-professionally" writing style that pervades the lower tier of fan wikis

My favourite quirk of that writing style in how videogame wikis always refer to the player character as "you" as if writing a walkthrough. It's so adorable!

[JRPomazon]

Whenever I forget something small in a Zelda game, a random item or character name, I go to the wiki if means all the same.

[Kwicky Koala]

Anything on Wikia is hindered by their appalling formatting and all the ads. I see fan wikis as a tv tropes style thing where you end up spending a lot of time on them, so you would want fast loading times and something that's easy on the eyes and wikia doesn't provide that at all.

I like Zelda Wiki however. Looks nice and has lots of high quality images. It uses footnotes and is fairly complete. I have no idea what the community is like but as a encyclopedia I'd say its pretty good.

[Hero of Slime]

I don't read either. If I want to learn somthing about the Zelda series, I come here.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Aren't you guys being a little harsh? I mean these wikis are made by amateurs in their own free time. If you think you can do better maybe you should make a wiki yourself. No, neither of them is an excellent resource but who would expect them to be? When I just want to find something simple or get general knowledge about something, it's nice to have them there.

I usually find Zelda Wiki to be a bit more comprehensive that Zeldapedia, but I will use either, and, if it's a topic I'm interested in, I'll look at them both just to get a more rounded viewpoint.

[Snow]

Zeldapedia seems to make a point out of not citing any sources (and even when they do they just pull a quote without linking to the original source) and way too many of their pages contain fan fiction, speculations and/or downright inaccuracies. Zelda Wiki is definitely the better site out of the two, even though it's far from faultless.

[Ikiosho]

I don't like one better than the other, solely because whenever I think, "MAN, I NEED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ZELDA" (which happens more than you'd think), the word "Zeldapedia" is just the first that hits my head.

[Crimson Lego]

...Jake the Dog? What?


Anyways, I checked out more of Zelda Wiki and it does seem to be more well-phrased so I'll just to stick using that from now on. It'd be nice if they developed a mobile version of the site, though. Then I could browse Zelda facts on the go.

[Sroa Link]

The're both badly organized.
What I mean is the navigation on both of the wikis is horrible, its sometimes hard to find what you're looking for.
I think zelda wiki has much better navigation, specaily on the homepage.
This is not the fault of the writers of the wikis, its the wiki system itself, its hard to find stuff on it, even though it has a lot of information.