Talk:Woods

Merge with "Forest"
I can't think of a good reason why "woods" and "forest" need to have separate pages just because we have two terms in English with overlapping definitions that refer to them. There's no consistent difference between the locations with "woods" in the name and those with "forest" in the name, and it would just make more sense and be more convenient to have a single page listing all such locations in this series, with one or the other term as a redirect. (I'd lean toward "forest" as the page name and "woods" as the redirect.) --Osteoderm Jacket 06:16, 8 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Sounds like a good plan to me. 08:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I should probably know this by now, but how much approval/consensus should I look for before going ahead and merging pages? --Osteoderm Jacket 21:52, 17 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree with this merge. Merging these two pages would just be common sense, as they share very similar information. Noble Wrot 14:58, 23 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree as well, is there even a difference between the two, or is that something I haven't learned yet. XXSuperXXNintendoXx 22:06, 23 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Why not? 22:18, 23 July 2012 (EDT)


 * "Woods" is generally supposed to mean a smaller area than "forest", although in everyday English there isn't a well-defined cutoff between them and they're frequently used as synonyms. They certainly don't refer to distinct entities in the Zelda series; there's no pattern of areas called "woods" being smaller than areas called "forests".


 * If no one raises any objections, I'm going to go ahead and merge the pages within the next 24 hours. --Osteoderm Jacket 22:40, 23 July 2012 (EDT)