The Legend of Zelda/Archive 2

{{talkarchivenav}}

Another article title nitpick

I think this needs to go to Legend of Zelda series. In speech/writing, it's not typical to include or capitalize the definite article when refering to a series in a sentence, even if the proper name of the series's eponymous element includes it, i.e., even though it's "Do you prefer 'Harry Potter' or 'The Berenstain Bears'?", it's "Do you prefer the 'Harry Potter' series or the 'Berenstain Bears' books?", because "Berenstain Bears" becomes descriptive of "books", but the definite article "also" describes books and can't be dropped. Referring to it as The Legend of Zelda series instead of the Legend of Zelda series is akin to having an article about The internal combustion engine instead of the internal combustion engine. To avoid redundancy, we don't say "the "The Legend of Zelda" series". I'm moving it, if you have a major objection you can always change it back. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: this article was originally located at Legend of Zelda series, and was moved to The Legend of Zelda series at 23:40 UTC on 2 November, 2004 by x ERW1980 with apparently ""'no discussion whatsoever""'. Since there was no justification given for the original move, and I've laid out my reason(s) for the move back, I feel confident in "'being bold"' about the change. If you have reason to disagree, please discuss it in a civilized manner. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no, you aren't. There's being bold, and then there's just ignoring the community. Are you going to change the titles of the Zelda games? - A Link to the Past00:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be stupid, those are the proper titles of the games. But English-language convention does not include the definite article in the title of a series. If you look at journalistic resources, including official publications like "Nintendo Power", you will find references to "the 'Legend of Zelda' series" and "the new 'Legend of Zelda' game", with few if any instances of "the 'The Legend of Zelda' series" or "the new 'The Legend of Zelda' game". -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So, the series is The Legend of Zelda then, but we shouldn't call it The Legend of Zelda, right? - A Link to the Past02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, wrong, that's exactly my point, the series "isn't" actually ""The Legend of Zelda"", the( first) game is ""The Legend of Zelda""( and the other games are ""The Legend of Zelda: rest of title goes here"").

The series is "the '"Legend of Zelda"' series". I don't think moving it to a name with quotes is appropriate, since that goes against wikintuition and naming conventions, but the "Legend of Zelda series" is a more appropriate name for the entity than an unwieldy reference to the "The Legend of Zelda series". -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, we could never type it as The Legend of Zelda franchise.

...Wait, what? I just did! Wow. - A Link to the Past02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course we "could", but that wouldn't make it "correct". If you want me to take you seriously regarding your points( which you haven't really presented in this case), you should rein in the attitude, particularly since it's one you've shown in response to my comments on multiple talk pages, and I've not been nasty, sarcastic, or otherwise demeaning to you. Did you randomly decide you dislike me, or is this some sort of elitism because you've been an editor longer than I have? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What in the Hell? Since when is someone's opinion less relevant because they have an attitude? It's not being bold when there's obviously going to be people opposing it, and when you KNOW someone is oppising it. - A Link to the Past18:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say your opinion was irrelevant, just that you should drop the attitude if you want "me" to regard you as seriously looking to the interests of the encyclopedia. Civility "'is"' in fact Wikipedia policy, and your disrespectful sarcasm and continued hostility is in gross violation thereof. You( the only person to oppose it so far) haven't actually explained your reasons for opposing the move; combined with your attitude, that leaves me inclined to believe it has more to do with my proposing/implementing it than anything else. If this is not the case, then "please" explain yourself. As I said above, this is in fact a move "back" to the original, more sensible title, from which the article was arbitrarily moved with no discussion last year. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that because I'm being uncivil towards you, my opinion is not of matter and that you can just move it without discussion? So what if it was moved without discussion originally? "Two wrongs don't make a right." - A Link to the Past19:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you're being uncivil toward me( at least you admit it) "instead" of engaging in actual discussion on the topic at hand. Since the article was moved without discussion, it should be moved back to its original location unless/until a concensus is reached regarding the "first" move. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we really ought to make a move with obvious objections surrounding it. - A Link to the Past20:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What "obvious objections"? You are the only editor to voice dissent so far, and you haven't given any particular reason. Your sarcastic tone isn't helping. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, so, it's not obvious that I am objecting to this because the series is called "The Legend of Zelda." I don't see hundreds of people backing you up, either. - A Link to the Past21:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it was not obvious, and you are mistaken. The "game" is called The Legend of Zelda, the series, in typical English usage, is called the Legend of Zelda series. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So, what, it is not obvious that I am objecting to this? It's a deadlock, so don't try to claim that you have more say in this. - A Link to the Past21:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have more authority, certainly, no Wikipedian does( except the subject of a biographical article or the creator of an art piece/invention), but I backed up my position as consistent with English-language convention. You haven't provided any grounds for your position beyond personal opinion. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Being sarcastic is not uncivil. - A Link to the Past21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a mocking tone which denotes disrespect, causes conflict and stress, and is not considered polite. We have a thread of conversation here, we shouldn't hijack Prosfilaes's. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that actually beed resolved or not, but looking at the boxes and title screens answers the question. The proper title of the games uses the article, (as in "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" and "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time." This makes me think that the current naming convention of "The Legend of Zelda series" is correct. 1 November 2005

There's no need to revert a move just because it was made without discussion, especially one cemented by almost a year. I don't see any reason to move it, and wish the flaming will stop. That's a weak plurality for the status quo.--Prosfilaes21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for at least making your comment in a civilized manner, even though we disagree. Two out of three is actually a fairly strong majority for your side, unless you meant that your opposition to the move was a half-hearted but firm decision. I question whether the status quo is sufficient reason to block a change though? My reasoning for the move "is" partially due to the arbitrary nature of the original, but "also" cites a convention in the English language, which the English-language Wikipedia ought to reflect. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Being sarcastic is not uncivil. - A Link to the Past21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a mocking tone which denotes disrespect, causes conflict and stress, and is not considered polite. But we have a thread of conversation above, we shouldn't hijack Prosfilaes's. Copying this up to there. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In my view (ignoring everything above mostly) the "the" in "The Legend of Zelda series" is reundent. While I realise on all/almost all official releases there was a the, for all practicle purposes such as a link to this page the article without the the works better. It is more likely for people to type "Legen of Zelda" than "the Legend of zelda". --Cool Cat22:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So that's two for, and two against. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the analysis; anyone saying "Legend of Zelda" without a "the" is outright wrong, whether it be the Legend of Zelda series or The Legend of Zelda series. I don't see anything wrong with "Do you prefer the 'Harry Potter' series or 'The Berenstain Bears' books?", either.--Prosfilaes22:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You "do" need a definite article when refering to the series, but it's "not" part of the proper name. Referring to it as "The Legend of Zelda" series instead of the "Legend of Zelda" series is akin to having an article about The atomic bomb instead of the atomic bomb, or The internal combustion engine instead of the internal combustion engine. As for the example I gave, nevermind that; on re-examining it, I find it weak because of the phrasing, one could easily substitute another series with no definite article in the second spot( i.e., "Do you prefer the 'Harry Potter' series or the 'Redwall' books?", " or "Do you prefer the 'Harry Potter' series or 'Redwall' books?"), which is not what I intended. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, most people would refer to the new "Legend of Zelda" game, not the new "The Legend of Zelda" game, and the classic "Legend of Zelda" series, not the classic "The Legend of Zelda" series. As you said, the definite article( "the") is grammatically necessary; but it's not necessarily part of the title and can become redundant when included as such. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's called a redirect. This is the accurate title, as every game has used "The Legend of Zelda". Comparing this article to "The atomic bomb" is silly. Its name is never the atomic bomb. - A Link to the Past23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. (I could also cite the LCD, CD-i, and "BS Zelda" games, though they are a weaker case, not being canon. Still, all but the CD-i are official.) -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But it is part of the title in this case, and I "would" refer to the classic The Legend of Zelda series. I recognize that others wouldn't, but I would never refer to the classic Legend of Zelda series; I might refer to the classic Zelda series, but I would be deliberately abbreviating. How would you talk about the "A Game of Thrones" book? --Prosfilaes23:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)--x Prosfilaes 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You would say "the "The Legend of Zelda" series"? Hmm. Well, all I can say to that is that the redundant use of the definite article is not conventional English. I will definitely be looking closely at press releases and magazines and I think they will bear me out on this point. Going back to my original example and attempting to fix the flaw, let's examine the correct sentence "Do you prefer the 'Super Mario' games or the 'Final Fantasy' series?" No one disputes that the definite article referring to the Final Fantasy series is "not" part of the title. But suppose we don't want to ask about "FF", we want to ask about "Zelda". If we take it to be the "Legend of Zelda" series, there's no problem, the sentence reads "Do you prefer the 'Super Mario' games or the "Legend of Zelda" series?", but if we are using "The Legend of Zelda" series, as you suggest, the sentence becomes "Do you prefer the 'Super Mario' games or the "The Legend of Zelda" series?", with a redundant "the The". Because the first "the" is needed to refer to "series", English convention drops the "The" from the description of the series, and "the "The Legend of Zelda" series" becomes "the "Legend of Zelda" series".

As for "A Game of Thrones", I wouldn't refer to "the "A Game of Thrones" book", I would simply say ""A Game of Thrones"" or "the book "A Game of Thrones""( e.g., ""In the book "A Game of Thrones" by George R. R. Martin...""). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. I did not say that I would say "the "The Legend of Zelda" series", because I wouldn't. I would say "The Legend of Zelda" series, dropping the "the" out of the quotes. I would also say the classic "The Legend of Zelda" series. What about the A Game of Thrones series? If you insist on parallelism, you must either drop one of the articles, neither of which would be entirely correct to drop, or speak of the A Game of Thrones. --Prosfilaes01:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When I talk about the series I refer to it as the "The Legend of Zelda" series. It may sound awkward, but the name of the games is "The Legend of Zelda: xxxx" (save Zelda II, of cource). This is consistent with the "Harry Potter" series, the "His Dark Materials" series, and the "The Matrix" trilogy. You might say, "I watched 'The Matrix' last night," and it would stand the reason that a dependent clause could be "the first film in the 'The Matrix' trilogy."

I prefer the original title without the "the", personally, but I don't think it really hurts anyone to have it one way or the other (certainly not enough to justify this giant talk page section). I believe in-text references should refrain from using redundant or capitalised "the"s, however, as this is simply not the accepted English style. Deco04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A agree with dropping one "the." I like "The Lord of the Rings" as a work, and I like the "Lord of the Rings" books individually. Lifeboat14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

The normal article size is 32KB maximum. Is there anyway we can split the article up a little.--User:Jedi6

Maybe split the History or Chronology sections into their own pages? JQF14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It all has to do with eachother. Legend of Zelda is one of the biggest gameseries in existence. That's how it is, that should be respected. Hyrule15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't, but the article is getting to the size limit, and taking a section and turning it into it's own page is one of the ways to remidy that. That doesn't mean there won't be something here, but it will just be a blurb with a "Main Article: Whatever" above it, like on other pages. JQF19:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Various Revisions

Alright...

The Chronology Section - You all are missing the point. We do not need to give any theories. In fact, this article's "discussion" proves the point I am about to make - the timeline is simply one of the crucial pieces of the Zelda series which adds to its mystique. That is the fact we should focus on.

If you'd like some facts, the timeline has gone through several changes, NOA made up their own versions earlier on, and it's just a mystery in general to all, but it is a staple of the Zelda series. Eiji Aonuma is working on making the timeline clear, and in January I get to reveal it (unless Nintendo does before hand) as it is now. But honestly...the timeline should only be noted, until it is set in stone, as a sellling point amongst fans.

Additionally, all that information by each game needs to go. For starters, who said Link is 16 in The Adventure of Link? You must fail exams where you need to read directions carefully. It says Link is NEARING his 16th birthday, making him...15. Either way, it's just a rediculous amount of info, and a re-direct to a google search on Zelda Timeline or to Zelda Fan sites is suitable enough. It shouldn't hog this article.

I think the roman numeral system for the game listing needs to be removed, and Japanese titles included since this game is native to Japan originally. I think more work needs to be brought to light on version differences and development history. I think the history section should focus more on what I just said in the previous section.

That's all for now.

--TSA23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I made all these revisions. I hope adding in some information requested helps (like the NP issues). --TSA07:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Triforce Saga]]

So The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga ended up on AfD today, and I cleaned up the article somewhat, adding info about the alleged prototype cart that was found and thrown up on eBay a couple weeks ago. I was hoping to maybe get some help from people who pay attention to Zelda stuff to better clean up that article. Thanks in advance --Badlydrawnjeff badlydrawnjeff 16:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need.....

Do we really need Pop Culture..??

A good encyclopedia documents not only the various things that exist, but the impact they have on their surroundings. Yes, the section that describes how the series has affected society does belong here. I will concede that some of the references do not need as much detail as they have been given, as long as the links to the sources are sufficient.--Darksasami17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A good encyclopedia may document the impact things have had on their surroundings, but that doesn't mean that every item needs mentioning, or frankly even any item needs mentioning. A good encyclopedia isn't a collection of facts; it supplies important synthesis on those facts.--Prosfilaes02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That such things as were listed in the Pop Culture section exist gives insight into the level of integration of the concepts and symbols from the games into the collective unconscious. I rather felt that, with some cleanup (e.g., just stating that merchandising from the original game was reintroduced many years later, rather than plugging specific shirts from Hot Topic), such examples could give a nicely NPOV insight into how the series continues to affect certain cultures. Is that so wrong? --Darksasami17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why was The Minish Cap removed as a series game?

Whoever put the titles of the games in that spreadsheet format (good job btw, it's much easier to read) removed The Minish Cap and put it in the section of games not belonging to the main series. It fulfills all the requirements of a full Zelda game (and not a spinoff): It is single player, it is on a self-contained cartridge (unlike Four Swords or FSA that has 2 games on one disc), and was published by Nintendo on a Nintendo system (Capcom developed it, but they also developed the Oracle games and those are considered part of the series).

If someone knows how to edit the links at the very bottom of the page, please move the link for The Minish Cap up with the lists of the other games. Dbblsanta15:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

For the same reasons as Template talk:Zelda series. Mainly because it is obviously a part of the "FSA" series storywise, even if it doesn't have multiplayer. It takes place in Hyrule yet doesn't feature Ganon, the Triforce or the Master Sword and instead has Vaati, the Light Force, and the Picori/Four Sword. - Ian Moody19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I find this argument convincing. Several Zelda games took place outside of Hyrule and did not have Ganon, the Triforce, or the Master Sword. Plot elements are not as essential to a "true" Zelda game as gameplay elements. Four Swords may be separated out because of its focus on multiplayer, but this wouldn't transfer to Minish Cap through plot elements alone. That said, I haven't played Minish Cap. Deco19:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I went to that discussion, and it seems like the people in favor of having The Minish Cap as a full game has a stronger arguement. This is the first time I've edited anything on Wiki, so what happens when two or more users are in disagreement over something? How does that get settled? Otherwise, we'd just be editing the page back and forth forever. Also, what do you have against numbering the games? I think it makes it easier to figure out what order the games were released. Dbblsanta21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I had nothing against the numbering, I just couldn't be bothered to put it back in after reverting the moving of "TMC" and the removal of the Popular Culture section. - Ian Moody22:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the reason those game don't have Ganon, the Triforce and the Master Sword is because they take place outside Hyrule, whereas "TMC" is IN Hyrule and Vaati, the Light Force and the Four Sword are INSTEAD, otherwise surely I'd be campaining for "MM" and "LA" to be moved out of the main listing as well. - Ian Moody22:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LA? MM? LA and MM are directly connected to main Zeldas. MM is a sidestory to OoT, and LA is a sidestory to LttP. TMC is a part of the Four Swords plot line. - A Link to the Past01:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You, like Deco, appear to have misunderstood my point. - Ian Moody11:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You guys need to get one thing clear, though. CAPCOM did not just develop the Zelda games with Miyamoto's supervision. EAD worked with Flagship, a division of CAPCOM. Four Swords is basically a null game, I will give you that, but it is still a real game. Zelda IX is actually Four Swords, Zelda X is The Wind Waker, Zelda XI is Four Swords Adventures and Zelda XII is The Minish Cap. I mean, Four Swords Adventures was made by Nintendo without any aid from CAPCOM. The Minish Cap was made with serious co-intervention from Nintendo. Four Swords does have SOME story, and is mentioned in the backstory of Four Swords Adventures. Eiji Aonuma even spoke of Four Swords in the context of the entire series when he said it was the "oldest tale". I seriously am against how the current game table is set up; it is inaccurate and misrepresentative. If TMC/FS and FSA do not count, ORACLES does not count. All or nothing. My opinion, as an authority on this subject, is to include all the games with CAPCOM's help because Nintendo helped develop them, unlike Soul Calibur II and the CD-i games.--TSA07:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For one, OoS/A involved Ganon, the Triforce and Zelda, while TMC involved the Triforce and Zelda, FSA involved Zelda and Ganon, and FS involved Zelda.

Also, further correction, Flagship is not a Capcom division, it's kind of like GDS (the guys who made Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles) - Capcom, Nintendo and Sega fund them to work on stuff. However, Flagship has a large record of Capcom games, where they were involved with the script for several of their games, namely Resident Evil 2. - A Link to the Past09:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Four Swords games definately shouldn't be in the main series. Each game is broken up into levels and is not one continous quest, which goes against the format of all the other Zelda games. I think everyone was happy having them as a subseries of games. We have to agree on some criteria for what makes a Zelda game. Here are mine:

-- Single player, with Link being the playable character. (Excludes Tingle DS and FS)

-- Is an original game. (Excludes all remakes and Master Quest)

-- Is published on a Nintendo system and supervised by Nintendo. (exlcudes CD-i games)

-- Has its own cartridge/disc, unshared with other games. (Excludes FS again)

-- Is one, continuous quest with RPG/adventure elements and other elements common to the Zelda series (POH (except LoZ and AoL), Heart Containers, swords, arrows, sheilds, bombs, fairys, magic power (except LoZ) -- even AoL has most of these). (exludes FSA, which can be played with one person, but it is not one continous quest).

The Minish Cap fulfills all these requirements. I think format (not story) should be the determining factor, as not all main Zelda games (LA, MM) have regular storylines. Dbblsanta13:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid, IMO. Just acknowledge all twelve (thirteen with Twilight Princess) canon Zelda games in one list. Is that so hard? They all count just as much. --Impossible05:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Impossible. It's a lot easier to have one list than waste effort deciding which belongs in which. Just describe them and let the readers judge which are "really" part of the series. That said, the CDi games are certainly not part of the series - you have to draw the line somewhere. Deco08:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous.

Every time I try and clean up the Chronology section, somebody ruins it again and adds all the garbage I removed. Both LA and the Oracles have purely theory-based information, and only explore one possibility (one which has been disproven many times over). Wikipedia is a place for facts, and suggesting that something "may" have been retconned or that the ending of the Oracles "may suggest" that they lead into LA (despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, which we can see isn't found in the article), isn't necessary. Similarly, I don't see any point in mentioning the Palace of the Four Sword's possible timeline relevance, or any cases of trying to peddle a specific interpretation of the timeline. And what the hell is the point in this sentence? "There is also sufficient circumstantial evidence to counter the statements from Eiji Aonuma." That's a load of garbage, honestly. Would it hurt to try and fix that section one more time? --Impossible12:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to start an edit war (on this issue), but I think that important in-game evidence and key points, like whether or not there's a split in the timeline, belong in a factual description of the tangled chronology. The theory of a connection between "LA" and the "Oracle" Series, while I am skeptical about it myself, is much more strongly suppored by in-game scenes than most of the various timeline theories. As for the Palace, I think it merits mention because if one considers the existence of the Four Sword as canon in "ALttP", that places the so-called sub-series firmly within the same fictional universe as the other games. As for the sentence? No clue. Would love to see the evidence elaborated on this talk page. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I never disputed the timeline split being mentioned, definitely. The theory of the connection between LA and the Oracles is not supported by in-game evidence any more than any other random theory, it's just an idea people have gotten a hold of because they think it sounds right. There is enough in-game evidence against it for it to be a topic of debate and opinion, and there is no reason to focus on something like than any more than any other theory. And Aonuma has already confirmed that the Four Sword series is in the same timeline as the other games; implying it in an old interview and clearly saying it in his more recent interview with TSA. The Palace of the Four Sword really has no relevance. And besides those, there are nevertheless opinionated points that need to be left out. --Impossible12:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the in-game evidence against the connection? I've never been comfortable with the idea, so I would like to hear what you're thinking of.

Because so many people think the "Four Swords" series is in a seperate timeline, it would also be good to mention and link to that interview.

What else do you propose removing? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Separate article

Forgive me if this suggestion is old-hat, but would it be more suitable to create a separate article concerning the chronology of the games entitled "Chronology of the Legend of Zelda series"? Tell me what you think, and please don't bite my head off. Toiletduck The Trashman 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's been addressed before. No real consensus, but not really much support for moving it. The article created would just be a battleground, anyway, and filled with tons of pure speculation. Having it as a section of this article is a good excuse to keep it small and include only the information that's supported by the games in some way. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A single section gives enough room to briefly state the small amount of official information that we know and to summarize some of the most popular fan timelines. For the details, there are some excellent external websites that we can direct visitors to. Deco08:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Although, external site are cleared away as "linkspam" quite often. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with non-italicized &quot;The&quot;

In case the matter becomes contentious, I just wanted to say that I agree with "not" italicizing the first word of the article, "The". To do otherwise is simply ungrammatical mdash; how much sense would it make to say "Metroid series is a series of video games"? Some might go for "The ""'The Legend of Zelda" series"'", but well, that's just funny-sounding. Deco05:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes... Which is why I proposed/tried moving the article a few months ago. Fighting with a little know-it-all 'til I was so stresed out that my Wiki usage dropped way off. Deco, Pagrash, where were you then? :-/ Anyway, I don't think the italicization should be too much of an issue. The original change was by an anon with only one prior edit. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was around. I didn't support that move. I don't oppose referring to it as "The Legend of Zelda series", I only oppose referring to it as such in a position within the text where it doesn't make sense or sounds bad. Deco07:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to call other editors "little know-it-all"s, nor is it appropriate to completely dismiss anonymous editors.

To italicize the "The" is perfectly grammatical; when there are redundant "The"'s, it's entirely grammatical to elide one. Half of grammer is avoiding what is funny-sounding. --Prosfilaes09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing anonymous editors, and I never do. I'm saying I don't expect an edit war to result from a something like that froman unknown and probably new-to-wiki editor. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The name of the first game in the series is "The Legend of Zelda". Every game in the series apart from The Adventure of Link starts with the title "The Legend of Zelda". Not "Legend of Zelda"; "The" is part of the title. --Impossible12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you are suggesting that we write 'The "The Legend of Zelda" series...'? --Pagrashtak03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this isn't actually what anyone does, I can't imagine why that would be the case. It's "The Legend of Zelda" series, leave it as it is. In a case where the name of the series begins with an article, it's perfectly appropriate. --Impossible10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if the series begins with an article, you drop the article: the "Legend of Zelda" series. --Pagrashtak00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Miyamoto and his &quot;Master Document&quot;

About: "and Shigeru Miyamoto publicly stated there is a master document containing the timeline."

Has anyone ever seen proof that this mysterious Master Document that Miyamoto says exists? Or will it eventually just be yet another Myiamoto "misquote". Remember, if it can't be proved as fact, it shouldn't be stated as a fact.

Also, about: " Information from Zelda.com (and its Zelda Encyclopedia) is generally taken with a grain of salt, as the original web designer of the site's current layout was not knowledgeable regarding Zelda, and Miyamoto reportedly forced him to take down a timeline that had been uploaded there."

Is there any proof to such a bold statement? 70.106.199.13205:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the document exists, only that Miyamoto says so.

As for the other statement, I don't know... wasn't there someone on one of these talk pages who claimed to know the webmaster? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the ZHQ guy. I know for a fact that Zelda.com contains several statements in direct contradiction with other published statements about the timeline in game text, game manuals, and on game boxes. This motivated many fans to consider it non-canonical. I prefer to say that both are canonical and Nintendo just likes to contradict itself regarding the timeline. Deco09:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, unless someone comes forth with proof/citation for the Zelda.com statement, can we agree that it needs to be edited/removed? Wiki is for facts, not gossip, I'd say just about every Zelda source contains several statements in direct contradiction with other published statements about the timeline...

Here's a citation for the Zelda.com thing: http://zhq2.com/lost_in_translation.shtml. You have to scroll down a bit to find the relevant bit though.

"I've also spoken with the current webmaster of Zelda.com, and he admits some of the "content" that has gone up on official site has not been approved, in the past, by Shigeru Miyamoto, and Mr. Miyamoto has actually requested the content be removed for inaccuracies. From what I've seen from Mr. Owsen's remarks, it appears not just the web team was limited to "open interpretation", as I like to put it. It seems that throughout much of the 1980s until the late 1990s, Nintendo staff inserted "content" that was not officially endorsed by the NCL staff."

I have no doubts that TSA is telling the truth here. Fieari03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet, that quote, however true or untrue it may be, says absolutly nothing about the Zelda.com timeline being removed from the website at the request of (or by "force" from) Myamoto. 71.124.16.9305:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the first part, I think it needs to be noted that while Miyamoto-san claims the document exists, there is no proof that it does. 71.244.171.12316:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit disrespectful, but not unreasonable for this article... BTW, the article Japanese titles says that "-san" implies personal familiarity, so I've taken to using "-shi"( non-familiar title) or "-sensei"( for an accomplished artist by his/her fanbase). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat... never knew that about the -san/-shi. Learn something new everyday! ;)

I mean no disrespect to Miyamoto in any way, however, history has show than Miyamoto has a way of... well, not always matching well with statments attributed to him. It's just too unreasonable (IMHO) to put a lot of credit behind a Miyamoto-quote from some interview he did years ago mentioning a "document" that he's never mentioned again. 71.244.171.12321:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the current webmaster of Zelda.com, as he informed me last year, the timeline that was on Zelda.com (the flash site which had the map Link could walk across and had the trivia that was incorrect) was created as a "fan-theory" by a staff member, and upon learning of this, Shigeru Miyamoto relayed to Nintendo of America, Inc., that he did not approve of the timeline on the Zelda.com site. Also, the Executives at NOA did not approve of the release of high resolution .pdf files of merchandise still being sold in their Online Shop (Zelda Players Guides). The site was pulled down and not re-launched until 2002, when the site became a teaser site for The Wind Waker with the Live Action Trailer. It should also be noted Zelda.com's Encyclopedia will be undergoing a revision around the time of the launch of Twilight Princess this fall.--TSA20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess the decision that has to be made here is does this count as hear-say or is it reputable enough to count as something that can be included in this article? 71.124.16.9305:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want this article to be accurate, then by all means keep it. I don't want to give up the exact person's name at Nintendo who gave this info - and who made the flawed timeline. I value keeping their reputation in tact over getting fame from revealing a big secret people have wanted to know for a long time. However, I will ask him if he is okay with me giving out his name, but it is usually against their policy to give statements to be posted in public without the approval of a supervisor. --TSA18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He probably said it to shut people up and to stop them asking him questions. Rdunn17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deku Sticks

There was an orphan mergefrom suggestion located at Deku Sticks. I have placed the mergeto banner on the main article. I do not have enough expertise to know whether this is an appropriate merge, but I wanted to increase the suggestion's visibility. If this is not an appropriate merge, please feel free to remove the tags from both articles. Lbbzman14:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it to the Link article, under the section for weapons.

Actually, no, I think I'll probably just delete it. They're not weapons, they're just items - like Deku Nuts - and hardly seem worth mentoining at all.

...This is assuming I remember how to delete pages, which seems unlikely... SonOfNothing

DP has the deletion policy and links to list an article for deletion in 3 steps. Let me know if you need help. Lbbzman16:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind the deletion.

I've added the information to the Link article but don't actually know how to complete that whole "merger" process. Someone else (with experience) has to finish it. SonOfNothing

Thanks for your help incorporating the information. I have completed the merge. Deku Sticks now redirects to The Legend of Zelda seriesLink. Lbbzman17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fan sites

There's a little edit war going on, I see, about the inclusion of the Zelda Legends fan site, which is quite proffessional looking and provides some interesting articles. At any rate, I thought that it'd be a good idea to more formally request comments/debate on the inclusion of any fan sites, and if so, what criteria we should have. For the moment, I have no real opinion, I just want to hear your thoughts. Fieari03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I "'weak"'ly "'oppose"' the inclusion of fansites in the links, as it invites a lot of conflict over which sites are worthy of inclusion. And it's not an edit war, it's more of an edit scuffle. :-P I just don't think a site that 0 out of 10 people I asked had heard of should be included over one that got 4 out of 10 recognition.

On the other hand, the Pokémon article has a lot of links divided into sections, we could try that.-- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I "'Oppose"' the inclusion of fan site links - there should either be a Zelda Fan/Community article created with relevant info and then links to sites that are relevant to the article, or a stub for "Zelda Fan Sites" with urls that users can add manually themselves. Or this article can also have the inclusion of a fan community section, but I think that would add to this already cluttered article.--TSA20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

if we do include them becareful of these:

http://s9.invisionfree.com/LOZForums/index.php?

and

http://robinvdvoort.proboards61.com/

the head admin bans people for asking questions Rdunn17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

There has been a merge tag on Power bracelet for a long time - could anyone comment on the merger to try and resolve the request? Kcordina12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Power bracelet should be merged with the Link article, as there is all ready a section there about the items Link uses. JQF16:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, while it doesn’t belong here, the Link article is already quite long, no sense bloating it with more items. I say improve the article instead of merging it, or merge ALL the "LoZ" item articles into one. The latter has been on my to-do list for a while, but I have to finish with the 400 Pokémon articles first. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zelda Revolution

Is anyone aware of this article yet? It seems a little early to be starting one on it. ~ Hibana00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User Hyrule adds external links to Hyrule.net whenever possible. Doesn't surprise me he had created an article so early without references only to add his link. -- ReyBrujo01:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is official, thus it seems usefull to at least mention it, rather then just have people guess of it's existence. -- Hyrule05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t HAVE much of an existence. Everyone knows you love to whore your site, don’t deny it. Personally, I don’t mind as long as you keep the content accurate and useful, and don’t ever try to replace links to other sites again. I wish your spelling and grammar were better sometimes, though. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. -- Stillnotelf stillnotelf 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a small edit war going on, can anyone provide any source that confirms or even hints that there is a Zelda game in development for the Wii other than Twilight Princess? I don't see that anywhere. --The Yar18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other then the picture at the page? Here you go: http://www.landofthelegend.net/?content=news027base=language/en/newslan=en Hyrule21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Both the picture and the link are likely referring to Twilight Princess on the Wii. I've nominated the Zelda Wii article for deletion, for the same reasons it was originally deleted. --The Yar15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is referring to a game on the Wii at a point where it was not even planned on the Wii... Are you even into videogames? Hyrule00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your response or your implied attack against my credentials in this matter. But I'll try to respond. The only thing you've shown is that, a year ago, there was a hint that there would be a Zelda title on the Wii. We now know that there is one, "Twilight Princess". You have never shown any evidence that identifies a separate Zelda on Wii other than "TP". While there does seem to be a brief period of time during which the rumours indicated both "TP" on Gamecube and a Zelda on Wii, it seems pretty clear now that these projects were merged via delaying the release of TP and making two versions of it. Regardless, the only facts you have are that there were rumors of Zelda, Mario, and Metroid releases on Wii, and we now know what all three of those release are going to be. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is another Zelda, and even if there was, there is no use listing it here or as its own article until we know some verifiable facts about it.--The Yar20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on it was deleted again, so I've removed the link. Not verifiable. --The Yar19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also rearranged the paragraphs about it in the Upcoming Games section. There seemed to be some confusion. --The Yar19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet you leave a link to the article on IGN verifying it. Hyrule00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It has never been verified. The only thing verified is that, over a year ago, it was announced that there would be a Zelda on the Wii. "TP" is a Zelda on Wii. We can probably assume that someday there will be another Zelda after "TP" on Wii, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I left the citations because I am acknowledging the confusion created in some people by certain vague comments made to the press last year. --The Yar18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cup of tea (and a cookie) for WikidSmaht

Eventhough I'm not keen on your attitude and how you sometimes think that more important then making an accurate article, I think you are doing a great job on writing and keeping the articles up-to-date and correct. Hyrule08:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

thumb|right|275px|A chocolate chip cookie

Mmm chocolate chip. Even though I think you need to cool it on promoting your own fansite over major gaming journalism outlets, the site itself is quite impressive. Sorry you originally got shut down, copyright/trademark issues? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

'Promoting' I'll explain in the PH talk. It got 'shut down' because our partner webmaster, who owned the domain name, got greedy and demanded to see the money that was to be used for E3. Thank you for the compliments. —The preceding ) 2|.

Archive?

Who thinks the talk page is ready for an archive? 71.244.170.7514:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

''Upcoming games'' needs a update

There are still statements of what to expect, even though it has already been debunked by E3 2006. -- ReyBrujo16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What specifically? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When the Wii controller was unveiled at the Tokyo Game Show in 2005, many hypotheses emerged regarding how the new controller could be used. In demonstrations it acted as a virtual fishing rod and a light gun, but most suggestive was the notion from the trailer that the motion-sensitive controller could be wielded like a sword.

This, in example. The controller can't be used as sword in the game. Also, the ordering is awful, there is a sentence about E3 2005, then one about E3 2006, and then another for E3 2005. -- ReyBrujo02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You misread. The stuff you’ve quoted was from way before the Wii functionality of "TP" was revealed, in response to Miyamoto’s comment that “Twilight Princess will be, without a doubt, the last Zelda game as you know it in its present form.”. So, essentially, it refers not to "TP", but to the next console "Zelda". As for the ordering, I’ll try to fix that. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan Works

It seems people think that fan sites and fan works belong in this article under categories pertaining to official information. It is resulting in edit wars. I would like to get a discussion going about what to do with fan works and fan sites. This is never going to end unless we make it clear about the policy regarding to fan works/sites. Thanks. --TSA05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If it has its own article, it’s worth mentioning. If one is mentioned, both should be. Besides, a “Pop culture” or “Cultural influence” section does "not" qualify as “official”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since your edit summary seems to imply that I have a personal bias, let me just clarify that I am "not" affiliated with either film or the radio program. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was never referring to you in any of my edits. Sorry if it seemd that way. --TSA03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s OK, sorry about the misunderstanding. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This still seems to be an issue for debate, as 2 editors have now removed it, so, please, let’s have a discussion. As I said above, I believe since "Hero of Time" has its own article, it’s worth mentioning, and if one is mentioned, both should be. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For example, there is apparently a huge fan-made zelda games community, and for whatever reason, starting this calendar year, there has been a vast increase in quality output.

Everything from straight-up clones to flash clones and even to 2D remakes of the 3D games. This is definitely a significant aspect of the Zelda experience. How should this be noted?

By a "See Also" link to another wikipedia article about Fan Games, in the Links section, or even a whole mini-section with a paragraph or two?

I propose the most neutral way--a whole other article addressing all fan works, with a "See Also" in the main Zelda (series) article.

Asdfff

03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

''PH'' release date

And my links to those photos were never intended as permanent references. If you must see for yourself, I can give you temp access to Nintendo's Press Site on my account there so you can verify the dates. It seems NOA is slow to change the dates on Zelda.com or their own Nintendo.com pages... --TSA03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it’s not about convincing me, that info needs a source. LotL is insufficient, so until the Q4 release date for the US is publised on a public Nintendo site or a major outlet like IGN, your screenshot is the best we have. Are you the thehylia webmaster? If you post a news story about the Q4 release date, and cite the press site "PH" page( with a link) as a source for that news story, then it could be considered a viable secondary source and we could link that news story instead of the screenshot. The same goes for LotL, if, and only if, Hyrule has an account at press.nintendo.com.( This is with the understanding that Nintendo.com or IGN, GS, etc. trumps either site as soon as the Q4 date is published there.) -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if we get our hands on Famitsu Weekly from this past week, they printed that Twilight Princess is coming out in October in Japan. Famitsu is owned by Enterbrain!, which is published by Shogakukan, which has exclusive rights to Nintendo materials in Japan and they are actually an official source of Nintendo information according to NCL's media area. Unfortunately, I don't know how many people ready Japanese. Either way, I wouldn't expect an update on NOA's site until the official date is announced, which I suspect should happen no later than Comic Con '06 (it was when Nintendo announced the Holiday release officially last year for 2005), which is July 19th-23rd, 2006. --TSA23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself about this realease date. The infobox say 2007, while the article says Q4 2006. Jaxad012702:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous strikes again

has deleted large portions of the article, presumably to lower it below 32 kb. I've reverted the edits but it does bring up the question of the article's length. Is there anything unnecessary that can be taken out or split? Axem Titanium20:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, unless you want to expand the History section into its own article. There are already 4 other sections with their own articles. Besides, that anon has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalism, so I wouldn’t assume pure intentions. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

Quick question on the "Link never speaks" theory. In "Legend of Zelda, Link to the Past," when Link takes the chest containing the third bottle to the lockpicker in the desert, he says something like, "So I hear you're a thief." If anyone can confirm this with the exact wording and post the change, that'd be great. -TestRobot

I don't know the exact words, but I don't think anyone thinks Link never has written lines in the games, but that except for the Wind Waker example he has no voice-acted words. Lifeboat00:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

archive?

can we archive this talk page coz' it's a bit long. Rdunn15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tingle RPG name change

Could anyone who knows how it all works, change the name of the article of Tingle RPG, and have Tingle RPG search redirect to Tingle's Pink-coloured Rupee Land

Or we could not because that translation is not official and unlikely to be the western name. mdash; Ian Moody18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You got a point. I'll make a not of it. Hyrule19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

LoZ: Ocarina of Time/Master Quest ported!

Where does remake come from? The bonus disc was ported using the original gamecode It's in high-resolution because it's tweaked at 800x600 verus 640x480 and the anti-analysing of Gamecube is automatically better then N64. If you played Unreal Tournament with a PC having 64 MB of RAM with a Nvidia Riva 2 it would be in low resolution. Play the same disc on a pc with 256 MB of RAM with a Geforce 256 and it'd be in high resolution. Renegadeviking renegadevking 14:06, 21 June 2006 (CST)

Takt vs. Baton

Takt is German for Baton. So what really was the Japan release title of Wind Waker? --The Yar19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese release title was "Kaze no Takuto", which translates to "Baton of the Wind". It all comes down to the same, but the correct translation is Baton. Hyrule21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Stone Tablets

I don't know who started the whole antiquity thing and for what reason, but it's widely known and accepted as Ancient Stone Tablets. (btw TSA, it was not me, I am always logged in). Unless you got some strong point, please stop reverting this. Hyrule07:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then (turns sheepish) the person was saying it was you via e-mails on my talk page...but they were unsigned, but they said they were you. But yeah, somebody needs to stop reverting that. There's a magazine scan from Famitsu for the game which calls it Ancient Stone Tablets on the pages in English. --TSA 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Further name debate

I would advise anyone interested in the naming of Zelda articles/categories to go to where the use of "The" is being debated. mdash; Ian Moody14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GANNON-BANNED '''again!'''

TSA went and remade the ) 2|.

If you think it should be deleted, either send it to articles for deletion or prod it. -- ReyBrujo19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Seperating Manga/Cartoons/Comics - Shrink Chronology

I think perhaps the Manga/Comics and the Cartoon series should get their own pages to filter down the page. I also think a huge chunk of the Chronology (the list of games and their info) should be removed because the info is already found on the individual game pages for the respective titles, and as it stands now it is not a very helpful batch of information in the current format. --TSA05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Link Talks!

It is true that link does not talk in any counsole game. But in the begining of Links Awakening, he talks. Something like, "Zelda, is that you?" (its been a while)

And at the begining of each Oracle Game, he talks to Impa, or something like that. Please look up, and change the article. —The preceding ) 2|.

The point is that, as a general characteristic with few exceptions, Link does not talk. --The Yar17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Link must talk everytime he answers a yes or no question he has even been given a voice and has spoken in the wind waker. I don't find stating that he doesn't talk much significant, most enemies do not talk in the game. --The Conscience 21:42 20 July 2006

&quot;As some theories state&quot;

Shouldn't the chronology section, to be totally unbiased, not mention any particular theories? Needs touching up. Zythe18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blessing of the &quot;Similar Games&quot; section

I have added this section because I, for one, don't see the buying of a Nintendo system as worthwhile anymore, and feel that since they seem to be in last place in the console wars, that gettin their system solely for Zelda isn't worth it. Aside from my doubt of Nintendo's future, the popularity of the game should warrant a list of similar games for other consoles. Lemme know if this is outta line. --Ben41405:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick point, Nintendo actually makes a profit from their hardware. They also have about several hundred million dollars "reserve" money(i.e. emergency money). They are also only slightly behind Microsoft in thsi gen, so their future is not in doubt. There are also plent more better reasons to own a Wii than a PS3, but this isn't a messageboard. TJ Spyke05:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact the 'blessing' is far sought, at least come up with something better then. Tomb Raider as Ocarina of Time? Seriously... JackSparrow Ninja07:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the section has been removed. Perhaps my choices for similar games are questionable. I understand that the Zelda series is immensely popular, and thought the need existed for some type of comparable games independent of Nintendo. --Ben41421:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just, if you want to do it, and again, I'm sorry but the motivation I find a bit questionable, then come up with something good. How do you see Tomb Raider compareable to Zelda? I don't really get it. JackSparrow Ninja21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article about the "Zelda" series, not a shopping guide. "'Pagrashtak Pagra"' 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've acquired a solid spot for Minish Cap in the timeline.

For one, the Four Sword is created in this, the Pegasus Boots are created in this and Link learns many techniques passed down to various Links.

And the deal breaker - Hylian text. It can be seen on the books in the library, and because of this, it is necessary that this game be before TWW, and that FSA is before TWW, which is after TMC.

Because of these facts, I think it can be stated that there is good reason to believe that TMC is before most Zelda games, if not all of them. - A Link to the Past02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I might be a little rusty with this game (I haven't played it in a long time), but I think Ganon amd the prophecy or something is mentioned in the intro. Axem Titanium04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what is mentioned is that somebody (an earlier incarnation of Link) uses the Picori Blade to vanquish evil, and never specifies if there is anyone leading the evil. - A Link to the Past06:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=45UmmCMASWs Intro movie

Sounds presumable and good, yet I'd like to know what the others think too. JackSparrow Ninja06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thesis, but not suitable for the main article, if that is what you are asking for. -- ReyBrujo06:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I distinctly remember seeing Ganon or something that looks like Ganon in the game. Maybe when you power up the White Sword for the last time... Axem Titanium12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's a Moblin you are thinking of. Ganon is not mentioned in this. The fact that many things are created in TMC and that it cannot be after TWW because of it using the Hylian language as a standard language should be mentioned on the page. - A Link to the Past18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

CDi Games?

I don't find any mention of the wand of gamelon... maybe someone should add it?--Frenchman11315:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Legend of Zelda characters }}

note-type-WikipediaModel_ucfirst:Legend of Zelda characters

_note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Template has been deleted. —Centrx→nbsp;bull; 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology section's validity.

It seems as though the timeline presented in the "Chronology" section is entirely based on speculation, or is otherwise unverifiable or at best based on original research. Can anyone give me real, official published material that confirms this timeline? If not, I think I'll have to remove it. -- Digital Watches15:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thorough release dates on template

I added all the relase date for all the games listed. It's a thorough release date rather than just having the Japanese release dates. It looks really clunky and makes the template rather long, but to see it go here: User:Throw and tell me if it should replace the current one. Throw19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the use of fair use images is not permitted on templates per terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item 9. Thanks, --Durin11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a little... long. Tell me why we need all the release dates on the main template? Axem Titanium13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I thought series pages aren't suppose to have infoboxes.... —The preceding ) 2|.

&quot;every Nintendo console&quot;

"The Legend of Zelda's hero, Link, has appeared on every Nintendo console, except for the ill-fated Virtual Boy."

I don't like this line much. First, it seems out of place for an article about the Legend of Zelda series. Second, it opens up a whole can of worms on things like the Color TV Games, Pokémon Mini, Nintendo 64DD, and the e-Reader. While each of these "systems" status as a "console" could be debated (but heck, is the Virtual Boy a console or a portable?), it just seems better (IMHO) to leave such an odd sounding line out. Any other opinions? 70.106.204.24502:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't consider the mini to be a real console. The e-Reader is an add-on accessory, as is the 64DD, so they don't really count. The Color TV Games debuted before the NES...it was also did not feature interchangeable cartridges, so it's not really a console persey, at least compared to the NES and beyond. Still, I agree that it should probably be left out. Hbdragon8808:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)