Wind temple for several reasons: It's tedious, it's boring, what to do next isn't always as obivous as it should be, which thus means it's poorly designed.
I got stuck for hours because I didn't expect the two switches at the top (behind the net) opened the path to the boss lair, and I didn't care to check it for mainly one major reason: When you have a door at one side of an enormous room, you should never put the trigger to open it on the complete opposite side of the room without leaving at least some kind of indicator (anyhow discreete it may be). A simple chest with some rupees within the room with the switches would have been enough, but that's unfortunately not the case in the wind temple. I had gotten all the treassure chests at that floor, so I felt no need to revisit it.
What I'm saying is that there should be a balance where the puzzle elements should be some degree of obivous, not too obivous, not too little obivous. If puzzles are too obivous, then they becomes boring, but if they are too little obivous, then it becomes tedious and frustrating. These indicators should be so discreete that most people don't realize that they are there, but apparent enough so our subconscious can pick them up and use them to figure out the puzzle.
Some games - like Portal by Valve - has an extreemely well use of discreete hints and indicators (example; checkerboard-tiled floors and use of light), while I feel that the sequel - Portal 2 - is an exemple of a game with just a bit too signifficant indicators (more contrast when light is used as an indicator). Another example of such an indicator is the very opening of the original Super Mario Bros, where any new player is almost guaranteed to either pick up the mushroom or be killed by a goomba (this way they learn that goombas are bad but mushrooms are good, despite the face that goombas and mushrooms look very similar).