File talk:ToonLinkHWL.png

The point of the images is first and foremost to illustrate visual design, not to illustrate personality. TL is shown making serious faces while swinging a sword in Smash; he is not shown jumping and cheering. It's not any more complicated than that. Miles (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Your the one who wants to use an image that was different than the one that was originally uploaded. changing the image because you "dont like the awkward" facial expression is a very stupid and petty reason to change it. he is not shown jumping and cheering have you seen his victory animations, or his taunts? Said animations are meant to highlight his goofy and carefree nature. hes an innocent boy of ten years thrust into battle because of 'Destiny', his personality isnt going to suddenly change because of that.
Ixbran (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2016 (EST)

He doesn't jump or cheer in his taunts and victory animations. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:03, 29 January 2016 (EST)

I never said he did, I simply said it fits with the personality of the character. Not only that, its better than having another "fierce swordsman flailing his sword" render.
Ixbran (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (EST)

It's not about personality, as I said. As Ethan points out, his victory poses and taunts don't include the jumping animation from Wind Waker that the one piece of HWL art is based on, while the other is a better match for things he actually does in Smash. This or the Wind Waker HD art are fine; why is this supposed to be better? Miles (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2016 (EST)

I just think its incredibly stupid that you think you can just change things on as simple a whim as "i don't like how his face looks", when the render that was there before was just fine. Going in and changing things simply because you personally don't like something is stupid and petty, and makes me question weather or not someone like you should be an admin on a wiki. Admins are meant to monitor and supervise, and do things that are best for a wiki over all. Not "oh I'm changing this because I personally don't like it".

If you can provide a better reason for using the sword-wielding render other than "i don't like the face" over his cheering one, then I'll drop this. Because as of right now, your simply coming off as someone abusing his power as admin to get something your way, and its really pissing me off.
Ixbran (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (EST)

In my opinion, that artwork doesn't suit Wind Waker or Smash Bros. I don't ever remember him looking like that in WW, Phantom Hourglass or Spirit tracks. Also, his Smash trophy says he is 12. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:15, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Oh hes 12? My bad, though wait. in TWW it says when boys come of the same age as the hero of legend in OoT they don the green tunic. Link is 10 in OoT, so why does his trophy say hes 12? It could be a mistake, like how they say re-deads are clay monsters, when in OoT/MM they are flat out said to be the living dead.
Ixbran (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (EST)

okay um this is completely stupid? like, it features Toon Link and isn't a weird style of him that's completely off. Doesn't matter at all what pose he's in or face he's making. There have been some stupid arguments about images before but I think facial expressions takes the cake. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:20, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Also, Ixbran is right - the one with the sword is pretty bad quality. If it absolutely must show him scowling, you should find him scowling in better quality. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:21, 29 January 2016 (EST)

It is stupid, but for what ever reason Miles seems to have a thing against little boys who smile.
Ixbran (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Personally, I'm with Miles here. Personality does not matter with these pictures, and it's not like TL is always grinning whenever he attacks, no. He has a serious face like the one that Miles and I think looks better. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Okay, seriously, facial expression doesn't make a difference.

What I would say is worth noting is that this image also features the origin of the sword and shield he uses in Smash. So there's that. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:24, 29 January 2016 (EST)

How about the following compromise: ditch the HWL art completely, and put the Wind Waker HD art back in the infobox instead? Miles (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (EST)

HWL shows him in 3D, like Smash and his source game, and has him wield the sword.

Wind Waker HD shows him in 2D and has him wield the baton he only uses in one taunt.

Yeahhhh no. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:28, 29 January 2016 (EST)

That's anything but 2D. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 16:28, 29 January 2016 (EST)

(edit conflict) No, it's 2D. Shaded 2D, but 2D.

Also, it has the weird sparkliness, and that kind of thing was a problem with Pokken and Paper Jam, soooo ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:30, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Here's him scowling in Smash. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:29, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Here's him smiling in Smash. So whats your point?
Ixbran (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Aidan said he doesn't scowl in Smash. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:33, 29 January 2016 (EST)

I did say that. And I accept the fact that I was wrong. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 16:34, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Okay, so can we just leave it as sourcing not only Toon Link but also his weapon and stop talking? Facial expression is really just a dumb argument, and he both scowls and smiles in Smash as we just proved. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:35, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Alright, we COULD go back to the Wind Waker art, but that runs the risk of someone coming along and uploading the HWL art, which would spark this debate again. I personally like the one with his sword out more. It looks more like quite a few of the poses he makes in Smash, you never see him cheering or smiling with a smile that big in Smash, and you get a clear view of his sword and shield. I say there's enough here to keep that specific art. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2016 (EST)

I don't think he ever smiles with his mouth open, though. -- Ethan(Discussion) 16:38, 29 January 2016 (EST)

You know what, if Miles wants to have his frowny face Toon Link, then be my guest. This thing has gone way out of hand all because his vendetta against smiling little boys, and personally I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable regarding this topic. Y'all keep debating if you want, I don't care anymore.
Ixbran (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2016 (EST)

It's a shame this even happened. KirbysCrazyAppetite (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Protection

Again, protecting it for a single edit war that's long over seems like an overreaction. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:26, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Um no. This was an image edit war between multiple people, which is completely unacceptable, no matter the timespan between the war and protection. Serpent King 20:31, 30 January 2016 (EST)

...That doesn't make any sense? If any form of conflict has been resolved, there's no reason to keep it from being edited usefully. I don't think articles should be protected if there isn't any active problem (this has never been vandalized, and the only edit war was resolved). ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:46, 30 January 2016 (EST)

I wouldn't exactly call it resolved...who's to say it won't just continue the next day? Serpent King 20:48, 30 January 2016 (EST)

And if it does, couldn't you protect it then? Right now it's been untouched for over 24 hours, and as per SW:AGF we should have no reason to believe anyone will go and revive it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:51, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Then or now, who cares? The point is that there was a completely unnecessary edit war waged by multiple parties, spawning one of the stupidest arguments I have seen in my time here, so to prevent further hassle, I protected it and I feel I am perfectly within my limits. As an added point, this is a file which means that the only reasons for editing this anyway would be to a) continue the edit war, b) swap over the licensing template (which I already did), or c) add categories, which can easily be done via suggestion on talk page. Serpent King 20:57, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Or an easy replacement of it when a more recent and/or better image becomes available, or adding a deletion template if said better image is uploaded separately and this becomes unused, or any other number of things that could happen to an image. If that's your reason for keeping the protection, why aren't all images protected?

Then or now matters because now, there's no reason to and it would keep users who want to edit for a good reason from doing so.

I really do think this is a violation of AGF if not of the protection policy, since your only reason besides "because why not" seems to be that you think a user might start it back up. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:10, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Please do not suggest that I take administrative action "because why not". I don't. Also, I have enough restrictions on my actions without having to comply with fabricated ones like this as well. I'll shorten the protection span, but that is as far as I am going to bend on this one. Serpent King 21:16, 30 January 2016 (EST)