The Legend of Zelda/Archive 6

{{tan}}

Revision 374721850

Ryulong, you really are starting to take the project to a hurtful limit. This is the English Wikipedia and there is no reason to include Japanese katakana versions for mere descriptive words in English – the word "series" is not part of the article's subject. And, as I have mentioned to you before, there is still no consensus about providing romanizations of such terms. Stop enforcing your personal opinion while blatantly disregarding current guidelines and help the discussion come to a satisfactory end for everyone involved there. Prime Blue19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my edits to any pages. I am following the guidelines of the Japanese manual of style, which should have overridden the insular VG manual of style. This is what the series of video games is called in Japan, and that is what "'all"' of the video games are called in Japan. There is nothing wrong with adding romaji.—Ryulong Ryūlóng 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. The Japanese MOS isn't for that scope. It simply covers their proper usage *when they are used*, it does not govern whether or not they should be used. The VG manual of style does however govern this, and is not "insular" in any shape or form. It *is* a content guideline as clearly stated, carrying significant weight because it is a guideline, and representing the consensus of the many editors of WikiProject Video games. Going against consensus by forceful editing is not the proper response and can in fact backfire on you by getting you blocked or banned. The proper recourse is to try and change consensus and therefore change the related guideline, which as Prime Blue pointed out is already being discussed to form a consensus. Normally there is a moratorium on related edits until such a discussion is completed, and I suggest you take a step back from your edits and help reach consensus. --Wgungfu Marty Goldberg 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

...Wgungfu Marty Goldberg summed it up before I had the chance to.

As to the topic at hand: The series is called "Zelda no Densetsu" in Japan, not "Zelda no Densetsu Series". Analogously, the series is called "The Legend of Zelda" in Western countries, and not "The Legend of Zelda Series". That considered, your current revision is not using proper English. If you think the article's subject is the "The Legend of Zelda series", request a potentially controversial move and edit the article if the proposal succeeded, but don't change the article so it does not comply with LEAD, BOLDTITLE in particular. Prime Blue22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese MOS has a wider scope than just VG/GL. There should be no reason to exclude the word "series" in any of its incarnations in the subject portion of the article. There is no consensus to go against currently, but it will certainly be easy to fix things should the consensus go either way currently. None of my edits are harmful to the project, all are made in good faith, and all intend to improve the articles on which they are made. Saying I should be banned for doing such an act would be deleterious to the project as a whole.

And on the use of "series" in the first line, I suggest you take a look here.—Ryulong Ryūlóng 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You are editing a video game article, and as such, it falls under the guidelines employed by the WikiProject Video games. I have linked to the respective discussions several times in the past days, and you should actively participate there if you feel the guidelines on Wikipedia should be changed.

As you linked to the Japanese Wikipedia: Note how their article on the series is called "ゼルダの伝説シリーズ" while the title of the first game's article is simply "ゼルダの伝説". On the English Wikipedia, this is currently the opposite. I already explained how your revision does not comply with BOLDTITLE and how the article should be moved before this edit is made. Prime Blue22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am also editing an article on Japanese media, and as such it falls under MOS-JA. Perhaps I will suggest that this page be moved to The Legend of Zelda (series) and The Legend of Zelda (video game) be moved to The Legend of Zelda.—Ryulong Ryūlóng 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, VG/GL: "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name "'if"' the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

In any case, I can only advise you again to abide by the rules established by community consensus, or to constructively participate in discussions at the project to establish new guidelines. Just enforcing your personal opinion is considered disruptive editing and will result in you being reported. Prime Blue13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys do a good job to inform us thanks. —Preceding 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Chronology is a mess!

The Chronology section is very confusing. It's not placed in any order. Can someone make it less confusing? Thanks! (You better not sign, SineBot!) —Preceding 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular you would like to have cleared up? I read it again and it seemed fine to me. Prime Blue21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do the original games fit in relation to newer games like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? It's made clear that "Skyward Sword" and the "Four Swords" saga preceed all the other games, and that "Ocarina of Time" preceeds the original "Legend of Zelda". However, with the continuity split at "Ocarina of Time", the article doesn't make it clear whether the original games fit between "Ocarina of Time" and "Twilight Princess" or after "Twilight Princess". It's made clear enough that they don't fit between "Ocarina of Time" and "Wind Waker" in the latter's introduction, so it's just that one bit of confusion that remains in the Timeline. 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be explicitly explained yet because there have been no official statements about how the older games relate to the post-"OoT" ones. We do however mention this: "There have been no statements about the placement of the Oracle titles, or about which timeline branch some of the earlier installments are meant to be set in." Prime Blue19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The four swords saga can't come before OoT. The timeline splits after oot, and the master sword is destroyed (my understanding is that the picori blade and the master sword are the same) and reforged as the four sword, and the master sword appears in oot. --Phantokachao Chaos of Air, ONLINE 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. While the Picori Blade does indeed become the Four Sword, it is not the Master Sword, and the Master Sword is not destroyed, as it is still present in both "Wind Waker" and "Twilight Princess", both of which take place centuries after "Ocarina of Time". 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis problems?

In spite of being chock full of citations, I feel as though there is some OR/Synthesis on in the chronology section. I had an edit reverted earlier on the grounds that the supporting citation is elsewhere in the paragraph. I'm not really willing to go through the headache of disputing the particular revert, but, concretely, the entire section is written with the presumption of the popular fan theory of "split timelines", with one handwavey response from miyamoto from one interview backing the assumption up. While this isn't exactly a high crime, it does come accross to me as pet-theory injection. I think it would do a better job of informing the reader if it focused more on known direct sequels and major statements about the chronology as made by the authors(including mentioning the multiple timeline thing once).

that came out as a jumble of disconnected thoughts, but the point is I think the tone of the section could be a lot better. Ikanreed i kan reed 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the tone could be a little better, in so far as it is such a mash-up of quick sentences that it seems rushed, but the facts are there. I wouldn't call this OR/Synthesis at all. Vyselink01:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It may not be popular with some, but as Vyselink said, the two different endings of "Ocarina of Time" leading into different games is a confirmed fact, as supported by the two references in the article. Prime Blue06:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On Skyward Sword

Please remember that Skyward Sword is not intended to be the first Zelda of all Zeldas: the entire idea is that "certain games come before or after others" so that Nintendo can keep building on the whole thing. Aonuma specifically mentioned this in the same paragraph he mentioned SS being a prequel to Ocarina of Time (the Official Nintendo Magazine entry, which is currently source 37); here's a scan of that page. Despatche07:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. While I do believe that Skyward Sword does current fall at the beginning of the series (currently), it is true that it is not the be-all, end-all beginning of the series. Nevertheless, please see my comment below about rewriting the entire chronology. MAGZine06:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

I do think that the chrono needs a rewrite, perhaps split in two: part a being 'direct sequels' and part b being 'split timeline theory'. The chronology as it stands right now, while it makes sense, does not answer the question of "what is the chronology?" fluently. Instead, it's a mish-mash of edits and changes that does not read well at all. While there is some debate, I do think that the chronology could be based on this timeline (URL although it is necessary to mention that nobody is entirely sure where Oracles fit in. Obviously the rewriting is a large task -- is there anyone who wants to take it on? MAGZine06:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How the chronology is written

I think that the problem with the fictional chronology section (which still looks pretty confusing to me) is that the chronology is explained by stating when the games came out and then mentioning their place in the timeline. A better way to explain it would be to explain it in the order of the timeline, starting with Skyward Sword down to Ocarina of Time, followed by explaining the three split timelines. I'll do it if there's no problem with that change. User: Smear-Gel 2:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

&quot;__ is the #th installment in The Legend of Zelda series.&quot;

What exactly defines "The Legend of Zelda series"? The current numbering system is somewhat confusing, and isn't explained, or sourced. I removed it from the ) 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless it has been stated somewhat directly by the developers (like in the Mortal Kombat developer interviews about the numbering and titling of the recent games), it most certainly is OR. It is much worse with the Legend of Zelda series as we only really know one of the titles as being for a fact in a numbered position (the first one). It's really free game if Wiki editors want to go completely OR and ignore all rules or begin a mass removal. Or the third, more work option, looking for references to numberings. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)0

A bit wrong. We know 2. The second one has as part of its title Zelda II. Also this one has some issues with not even mentioning the ones for cd-i anywehere in the games section. You'd have to add those to any numbering scheme somehow. 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The games listed on their official website perhaps? URL Or the Wikipedia template already separates the main games in the series from the spin-offs. Why not just use that? Dream Focus "'Dream Focus"' 09:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

*I would have accepted that, but right now, it counts at least two games that aren't main series games, and I was trying to figure out whether it was side series games or ports. The numbering system isn't sourced or explained. "') 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The more games are released, the more problematic the numbering gets. No one would dispute that "The Legend of Zelda" or "Zelda II" are first and second, and sources exist up to "Majora's Mask" as the sixth game. The "Oracle" titles still seem to show signs of numbering in their product codes, but that's where the problem starts. After that, it is almost impossible to determine which game is which installment. Dropping the numbering from the lead after "MM" seems like the best solution. Prime Blue14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't even counting Seasons and Ages to be different games in the number count. Which is weird cause I mainly edit Pokemon articles, which are released as duos. "') 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well they are different games; the Pokemon games are very similar to each other when released, but those games aren't. Just because there in one article doesn't mean we count them as one. Anyway, I think going by any numbering scheme that isn't backed up by RSes is not a good idea. 20:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since no one outside wikipedia "numbers" them, I don't believe it should be refered that way in the articles either. Someone tried doing that to the "Sonic the Hedgehog" game articles, but not only does it confusing at times (like that Sonic 4 would be like the 16th installment or something crazy like that.), but ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It's not like anyone ever calls Ocarina of Time "Legend of Zelda 5" or anything, so the distinction doesn't really need to be made. Sergecross7320:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fire Emblem, unfortunately, has caught this idiotic bug. Despatche07:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing the numbering. People aren't stupid; they can count on their own, if they want to. Jonathan Hardin39; Jonathan Hardin39; 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Legend movie

It's like widely known that Zelda is based off the movie Legend, so why ain't it in here? It has to be included since it was based off that movie!!!-- 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Likely because reliable sources have not been found to support that statement. Without them this can't be added. Thought if it is that widely know good quality sources should be quite easy to find.-- 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Video game series vs. Franchise

Wouldn't Legend of Zelda be considered a franchise, now that it has entered many other areas of media rather than video gaming? — Preceding 04:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by "now that". Most of the non-game entries in the series were made a relatively long time ago and only the comic adaptations are still being produced. It's certainly not on the level of, say, Pokemon and also certainly heading in the direction away from multimedia franchise, rather than towards it, IMO. Axem Titanium14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wii U?

I haven't heard of a Zelda game being released for the Wii U, which is itself not being released until 2012 (I would assume holiday season) last I heard. So should "Wii U" really be included in the Platforms section of the infobox yet? Vyselink19:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Miso Ghostpatrol Zelda Melbourne.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

|

|-

| 100px

| An image used in this article, File:Miso Ghostpatrol Zelda Melbourne.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: "Copyright violations"

;What should I do?

"Don't panic"; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)

If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

"This notification is provided by a Bot" --CommonsNotificationBot19:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

|

.

Wow, does this need to be rewritten

I'd do it, but I'm not sure of the facts involved.

'In addition, Nintendo plans to celebrate the 25th anniversary of The Legend of Zelda game by releasing a Zelda game for all its current consoles in 2011: Link's Awakening in the 3DS's Virtual Console on June 7, Ocarina of Time 3D for the 3DS on mid-June, Four Swords Anniversary Edition79 on September 28 as a free DSiWare download (later become the paid download starting February 20 and Skyward Sword for the Wii, which confirmed by Nintendo and be released on November 18, 2011 in Europe and November 20, 2011 in the United States." — Preceding ) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems questionable to me. I have little doubt about the free four swords game (especially since anniversary is part of the title) but the other games seem more doubious. Have any sources said that the releases of the other games was connected to the anniversary or is there any evidence at all that these games would not have been released this year if it was not the 25th anniversary? In my view just because the games in question were released in the same year of anniversary is not in itself evidence that the anniversary was the cause of the games being released it should not be mentioned unless reliable sources have made the connection.-- 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I call for the re-writing of the 'Zelda in other series' section of the article. It feels messy and some of the information is questionable. for instance the statement 'In the Metroid series, the Goron's ruby appears in some rooms and the Gyorg enemy appears frozen and eaten by the space pirates.', as a huge metroid fan it surprised me that I didn't know about this but upon searching using terms like 'Goron Ruby Metroid' or 'Gyorg in Metroid' no result relating to the subject were found. In fact this article was the only one to combine the two together. — Preceding 04:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ura Zelda

"Prior to the release of The Wind Waker, a bonus disc called The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest was released, containing a port of Ocarina of Time and a GameCube-modified version of Ocarina of Time Ura."

The bonus disc was released "with" the release of The Wind Waker, not before it: it came in the same box.

Also, the "Master Quest" version of Ocarina of Time "was not" Ura Zelda - Ura Zelda was supposed to be, if you will, an "expansion" to OoT, with new dungeons, new items, new tunics, etc., whereas Master Quest was just a reconfiguration of the game's dungeons. The whole reason Ura needed to be released for the N64DD was because it needed a lot more data than a cartridge could hold, whereas Master Quest has the exact same amount of data as the original Ocarina of Time, meaning they are not the same game. I'll try and find sources to verify this, but what's written there just now is definitely false. The article actually makes the same claim again, when it says: "It includes a previously unreleased 64DD expansion known as Ura Zelda in Japan and Ocarina of Time Master Quest in North America.". — Preceding 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zelda timeline picture

I reverted the newer version of the Zelda timeline picture because the replacement contained non-free images and was wrongly placed under public domain. The older version however, seems to have been taken and translated from another website as indicated on the picture itself. Anyway to make a make more free image of the timeline? Magiciandude Erick 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

YouTube Feminist criticism

I am concerned that the criticism is not notable. It's not that the references included YouTube and Tumblr, it's that it was not written up of covered by a reliable third party. So it seems to stand on tenuous ground, and if there are not reliable sources covering the woman's beliefs and people's responses, it should be removed as not notable. Judgesurreal77722:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If there were maybe multiple criticism from women's rights group or something similar, then it'd be one thing, but it's one just one person here, and one person does not represent the feminist movement. It should be removed ASAP. Magiciandude Erick 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least it should not have its own section and should be merged into the main reception section if it is decided that the info should stay.-- 23:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? What I don't understand is what readers are supposed to get from this? One person on YouTube makes a feminist criticism, how does that help the reader understand the article at all? What is the purpose of placing it on the article? Magiciandude Erick 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed it per BRD. We can discuss it here and come to consensus before adding it back. Quoting here:

quotation|1=

Feminist Criticism

The Legend of Zelda series has recently been put under scrutiny by the somewhat controversialcite web|last=Totilo|first=Stephen|title="She's Not Hiding From The Hate She's Getting For Examining Video Games. She's Exposing It."|url=URL April 2013 feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian, in her YouTube video “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games.” The video discusses the issues of representation of women in video games, specifically in the trope of the damsel in distress. She brings up the representation of Zelda as a simple princess who needs a man to save her. Many fans agree that Sarkeeshian is downplaying Zelda and that Zelda is more relevant to the series.cite web|last=Sarkeesian|first=Anita|title="Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games."|url=URL April 2013

Fans have had mixed opinions about whether this criticism is fact or opinion. Many YouTube users have made response videos containing their own counterpoints. A notable example would be a YouTube user under the username of kite tales URL fans liked her criticism. For example, on tumblr, a fan posted a concept for a future game. It was posted by the user Aaron Diaz, known as dresdencodak, on April 11, 2013, in which Zelda is the hero who needs to save Link. The art piece has had mixed reviews by fans on tumblr. The game suggests that it would be a continuation of the series. However it appears to look not unlike a gender swap. This is assumed because Zelda is a commoner, not a princess, and Link is a prince in distress..cite web|last=Diaz|first=Aaron|title="Inspired by Anita Sarkeesian's Video Game Tropes...

!

Indistinguishable From Magic."|url=URL April 2013

The section adds undue weight. Once Sarkeesian's Zelda critique is mentioned by other 00:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Czar on this one. Not only does it violate the NPOV policy, specifically the undue weight part of it, I also think Sarkeesian's Zelda critique should be mentioned by other reliable, third party sources. Therefore, it's my contention that the video is not notable enough to be included in the article. Sjones23 Lord Sjones23 - Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions contributions) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I also believe this needs to be removed. It's an UNDUE problem. It'd be one thing if its a major, mainstream criticism, like about "GTA: San Andreas" and its "Hot Coffee" situation, or Manhunt (video game) and its sheer brutality, but this is such a minor viewpoint, about a series that spans decades. Sergecross7300:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The number of main games in the series

For example Skyward Sword article claims that the game is the 16th entry in the series. If I count the games I get 17 games. I guess either one of the Oracle games or Four Swords is not taken into account. That's weird since they are listed in :Template:The Legend of Zelda as main series games. --Mika1h22:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at the template and counting the entries I get Skyward sword as the 16th game with the two oracle games and both of the 4 swords games counted. Is it possible that you are accidentally counting the unreleased Link to the Past sequel when you came up with the 17 games number because when I checked I did not see 17 games before Skyward Sword nor notice any main games missing from the template?-- 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind I miscalculated. --Mika1h10:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Link's Blacklist?

Should this art collaboration URL about the Zelda Monsters and Bosses by Game-Art-HQ be mentioned here somewhere maybe? I saw that it got promoted by relative many websites like destructoid, kotaku, zeldadungeon etc.. — Preceding 08:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiplayer section

This section is far too long and detailed and contains absolutely no reliable sources. I invite PiEditor314 PiEditor314 and Smuckola Smuckola to discuss here rather than revert each other. NorthBySouthBaranof10:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranofWell literally speaking, the whole problem is that there is no discussion with him; there is the prospect of PiEditor314 getting banned for 3RR, TENDENTIOUS, and blatantly defying an admin (having been put on notice for abuse multiple times already) and all his other grotesque behavior or something along those lines. As you said, that content is completely wrong and is simply not happening. Thank you for your conscientiously diligent concern! — Smuckola (Email) 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is already massive. I believe it would just be best to discuss the multiplayer in the respective articles instead. (Which I imagine is already done on most all articles.) Sergecross7315:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Names are all wrong in the second paragraph

hey, im new to this so I dont know how to fix something i see myself, so i was hoping someone with more knowledge would be able to do it for me.

I noticed *quote* The series centers on Zelda, the main, green-clad character who carries the Master Sword. Zelda is often given the task of rescuing Princess Peach and Hyrule from K. Rool, who is the primary antagonist of the series.*endquote* was changed to this at some point last year? from what it used to say. could someone just go through the article and see if theres any more trolling? —nbsp;Preceding 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Sergecross7301:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 2.0

" 23:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fake, please don't add hoaxes to Wikipedia. Sergecross7300:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection?

To avoid unnecessary changes. — 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done

requests for page protection must be made at Requests for page protection - but we don't protect pages "in case"This page has only been edited 4 times this month, so will not be protected - Arjayay16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to plural:1|one external link|1 external links on The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add tlx|cbignore after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add tlx|nobots|denynote-type-WikipediaModel_=_noteInternetArchiveBot to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the "checked" parameter below to "'true"' to let others know.

Cheers. —Cyberbot II cyberbot II:Online 17:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to plural:1|one external link|1 external links on The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add tlx|cbignore after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add tlx|nobots|denynote-type-WikipediaModel_=_noteInternetArchiveBot to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the "checked" parameter below to "'true"' to let others know.

Cheers. —Cyberbot II cyberbot II:Online 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What about DRAWN TOGETHER in the parodies section?

Xandir from Drawn Together was an obvious parody of Legend of Zelda with slight tweaks to the characters.

(Video game character questing to save his girlfriend from a dark wizard - sound familiar?) - 04:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source discussing this? To show its a notable aspect of the series? Sergecross7305:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)