Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition

message: I was able to purchase this in a store a while ago.
(74.132.203.18 (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What store? Christiangamer7 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restrict discussion to the article. If there are no reliable sources documenting this, then there is no point in talking about it here, as Wikipedia does not allow original research. Pagrashtak 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ostensibly, if a store sells this, then they'd have information somewhere on the Internet that would indicate this; most brick-and-mortar stores have SOME kind of Internet arm. This would definitely count as a valid, non-OR source for this statement, and hence would be VERY valid for Wikipedia. Knowing what store that sold it means that a search could be done for this source; discussion of citable sources is definitely discussion about the article. Nottheking (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not being sold in public is false 

message: It might be worth noting that here in Scandinavia, Nintendo of Europe doesn't really exist in the same way - although the compilation was still available through the GameCube bundle, the local distributor, Bergsala, instead chose to set up a limited-time offer where people could buy it through their website(s) by depositing a small fee to cover shipping and handling. I'm not really sure how to incorporate this into the article, though... --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandinavia 

message: According to the second paragraph of Contents, it is claimed that the game ran in 320x240i on the N64 and can run in 640x480p on the GameCube. In fact, the game on the N64 would have been running at either 320x240p or 640x480i, but not 320x240i. 76.19.222.89 (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  480p and 240i 

message: I also own this collection and it came with the Gamecube + Mario Kart Bundle that I bought in Germany for €149 in late 2003. hth. -- Repetition (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was also sold wih GC and Mario Kart 

message: So with all of the above, let's get away from the theoretical and weather proper process was followed, and talk about if the article actually should be merged or not. Now as I implied above, it seems to me that there's nothing in the article that can't be summarized in a paragraph. Anything actually 'lost' would be detail that doesn't really help explain much (such at the exact resolution). I think the big thing is that there's really nothing to add beyond what's there -- so the article could never even become a good article, much less an FA, which is the supposed 'goal' for articles. And again, it's really nothing more than a standard rerelease, which doesn't normallyget its own article (hell even remakes sometimes don't). Again, just because sites and magazines talked about it, doesn't mean much. Of COURSE they will talk about it, it's what they do. I honestly think the only reason anyone is arguing this at all is because it's multiple games, but that's why it works fine in the series article (and of course mention should be made in about a line or two in each of the games' articles). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, this collection is just a bunch of lazy ports (bugs and all) so there isn't much development info. It also didn't have a wide release so most sites didn't even review it. All the sources merely say that it exists, which I don't believe qualifies for independent notability. As far as I can tell, no information was lost in the merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sources go into a bit more detail than that. They do cover it properly in depth. They aren't just trivial references. And I can see that there are several more online. The articles do cover differences between the games in the series and their progenitors (as required by "WP:Notability (video games)") but the differences all seem to be technical differences that would perhaps only be of interest to specialists. Frankly I think that there is probably enough coverage of this game to allow an article but I also think that a merge can be a completely adequate way to present the material. I think that the release must be covered by Wikipedia but that this can be well accomplished in a merge. In the end I think that the root of the problem here is that the authors of the RSes themselves are violating the spirit of WP:INHERIT. Not much we can do about that but it makes me completely satisfied to go with the merge. -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: my personal preference would be to keep the article because of the aforementioned technical differences to the originals (emulation, framerate, new translation, resolution, censorship in OoT etc). as an example, the Mega Man Anniversary Collection would be quite comparable to this one (maybe with even less differences to the originals), but the article boasts quite a bit of references, so perhaps this should also be possible for this article? but if the consensus would be to merge the articles, i could live with that if additional information would be added. Asdfsfs (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Consensus changes according to whoever is around to comment at the time.  Dream Focus 08:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Should it be merged or not