Template talk:Zelda games

message: ...there's already at least one more FS game on the horizon, so I think when that is released the FS games should have their own entire subline, separate from the BS and CD-i Zeldas. Master Thief Garrett 23:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end I decided to make a new subseries line. Do others agree with this? I think with the release of Four Swords DS (and the rumour of future games featuring Vaati and the Four Sword) that there may well be a whole new subseries. And after all, I'd say four games constitute a subseries. But what are your thoughts on this? Master Thief Garrett 03:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Swords spinoffs now have own subsection

message: Do you think this needs to be moved? After all Master Quest is just a remix of OOT. It's not really a separate game, and is often classed alongside the original, much like Link's Awakening DX is. Does anyone else agree, and if now what are your thoughts on this? Master Thief Garrett 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Master Quest+Ura Zelda in parentheses beside OOT?

message: I hate to cause trouble or anything, but I can't for the life of me understand some of the changes that have gone on recently here.  I had barely come to tolerate the notion of slagging 'The Minish Cap' off as a separate entity, when the subsection gets re-named "spinoff titles".  How in the world can you justify calling TMC a "spinoff"?  It is a valid Zelda game, not like the proposed "Tingle" title, which is a proper spinoff.  This nonsensical attitude towards TMC has to stop.  It was one thing when it was being grouped in with the 'Four Swords' titles on purely stylistic grounds, but calling it a "spinoff" is, frankly, an insult to the title.Rhindle The Red 13:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do think TMC should definitely be in the same section as the other FS games, I agree with you on this, and have moved Tingle RPG down into its own section. This makes the template slightly bigger, but there are larger ones out there, and unless someone can think of a better solution I don't see what else to do. - Ian Moody 19:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see why TMC would be part of the Four Swords-series. Yes, the game was drawn in the same style..but does that justify a move to the section of the FS-titles? If we're gonna keep TMC in there, we might as well make a "Ocarina of Time"-subseries paragraph and move Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask there, since they're also in the same style. -- SoothingR(pour) 14:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old argument that I don't feel like fighting right now.  We'll see how closely 'Twilight Princess' adheres to the classic Zelda story.  If it strays significantly, I'm going to once again fight for putting 'Minish Cap' into the main listing.  I've always advocated separating out the 'Four Swords' titles because their multiplayer aspect is the thing that distinguishes them from the other titles.  TMC is closer to the other Zelda games than, say, 'Majora's Mask'.  I'm just not in the mood to go on too much about it right now.Rhindle The Red 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  These recent changes 

message: During the be-bold edit I also removed the italics from each games title-- this was an effort to keep this series box consistent with most other series boxes I've come across. Is there a particular reason we should keep it italicized? Thanks! --Locke Cole 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Manual of Style says so. I see your good intentions, but in this case, you should really just keep 'em. --Shadow Hog 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style is, of course, only a guideline, not policy. I've taken the discussion there however, so we shall see. In the meantime, it'd be nice to see some opinions as to which looks better so I can tell if I'm wasting my time or not. :P --Locke Cole 16:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: The nbsp (non-breaking space) keep the titles from wrapping in mid-name (and also keep dashes from starting a line). Please don't remove them. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 10:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to reinstate the non-breaking spaces if you like, however, please do not remove the italics and other formatting. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I be tasked with reinstating something you removed? —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 11:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because YOU should not have removed the italics in the first place. Now I have italicised all the titles again, left the  s and  replaced "–" with "–". Problem over. Ian Moody 12:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who died and made you God? —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What made you so hostile? The fact is YOU came along and removed formatting with your first edit. Others reverted your changes to restore the formatting. What you then should have done is realised that the italicised formatting for the titles is wanted in this template and then added all the  s again without removing the formatting. What you instead did was start a rv. war, and then had the gall to warn CyberSkull about the 3RR in your edit summary. Now I have had to spend my time adding all the formatting back, while keeping the  , because your idea and logic were good, and also because I don't want to see this template ruined by petty bickering. Ian Moody 12:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: nbsp

message: I think the centered version was much better. Is everyone really attached to this format? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I preferred it centered as well, but I'm still not in the mood to fight anyone over it.Rhindle The Red 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the centered templates myself. --Pagrashtak 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleh 

message: I believe the main characters should stay in the template since they are an important part of the series, which the template is part of. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It adds to the size of the template, and the content would lead to Goombas, Lakitus, Moblins, Heart Containers, etc. being elligible. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why we would only add the major characters. For example, the Zelda template would have Link, Ganon and Zelda only. As for controversy happening, well, controversy happens everywhere in Wikipedia there is no avoiding it. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave them out, then. Just like how a hot dog vendor doesn't, say, give a free hot dog, so as to avoid people asking for free hot dogs. People will argue that this or that character is deserving of being on. Vaati? Majora? Impa? Tingle? Epona? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Link, Zelda and Ganon are important parts of the Zelda franchise for almost everygame. There should be a link to them from the template. As for people trying to expand it just put a note on the page saying us the talk page before adding anything then stop them there. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why are you the one who gets to decide that Tingle, Impa, Navi, Epona, Twinrova, etc. don't warrant mention? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not its just some characters deserve to be in because people are looking for them and they are fundemental parts of the series. I was using Link, Ganon and Zelda as examples. What ever goes in the character sections would be determined by consensus on the talk page. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And people would defy consensus to get what they want. Impa, Tingle, Epona, Twinrova, etc. all play a part in multiple Zeldas, and someone would argue that it's unfair to count only some main characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure characters like Link and Zelda really need to be in the templates: they're linked to prominently from pretty much every Zelda page anyway. jacoplane 07:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people have no idea who Link is, they have no idea who stars in the games, so they'd have no idea that Link existed if they didn't happen to find the link within a page. Scepia 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: It's a hoax, not a real game.  If somebody finds concrete information on "Zelda III" for NES, a new article may be added to this template.  Please leave it off as the article is about a fan-hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSA (talk • contribs) 
:You can't say for sure that it's a fan hoax, though. It should be mentioned though, somewhere in the template, since the TS article is worthwhile. Scepia 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triforce Saga Removed 

message: Okay, I like how that huge section was split into "remakes" and "unreleased" sections, but where should the Zelda Collector's Edition bit go?  There's only been one collection - I don't think it merits its own "Collections" section.  I propose that the "spinoffs" section be renamed "other" and to put the Zelda Collector's Edition with that section. Hbdragon88 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't remakes be a better place for it to go? — Ian Moody (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not a remake...it's a straight out port.  A crappy, straight, direct one, it seems, judging by what I have read - how OoT and MM have sound and graphic problems. Hbdragon88 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed.  Everything is run under emulation as far as I am aware.  Unfortunately the emulators are incomplete/buggy, which is what leads to the sound problems (which I have experienced myself, particularly in MM) as well as the crashing (which a friend experienced with MM, to his considerable annoyance, on account of the save system). — Ian Moody (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current template division 

message: OK. To combine the last two topics (the first of which I started), I say we rename "Spinoffs" to "Other," place it at the bottom (or maybe right above "Unreleased"), move the Collecter's Edition to it, remove the "Collections" section, and add The Hero of Time movie and the cartoon series to the same "Other" section. True, they may not all fit together, but that's what an "Other" section is designed to have. Also -- the existing "Spinoffs" aren't really spinoffs in a traditional sense, in my opinion. How do you like that idea? -Platypus Man | Talk 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" section 

message: Why are these used in the template? Jaxad0127 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: En spaces provide the small margins on the left and right of the category titles like "Main Series" and "Collections." Their size is relative to the font size, so it scales easily, and they are easy to maintain. It makes the cells on the left look better. --Tryforceful 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they don't work in all browsers. If you're goinf for a centered look, CSS is a much better way to do it. Jaxad0127 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally intended them to work in conjunction with the line breaks and lack of width definition that User:Ian Moody has since discussed and removed. Now they don't seem to function as they did then, so feel free to remove or alter them with CSS as you see fit; what I was going for was to expand the cell width to a point where each title is on a single line (non-broken) and that the longest-width'd phrase has a small margin on its left and right. I tried to use CSS before with "left-margin" or something of that sort, and it did not work in all browsers as well. --Tryforceful 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried padding instead? — Ian Moody (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: &amp;ensp;

message: I removed the "Unofficial" part in the table of the CD-i games.  First, it makes the table look awkward and second, like 'em or hate 'em, they are lisenced by Nintendo and thus official - even if Nintendo doesn't acknowledge them. 71.244.180.131 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the CD-i Games 

message: Firstly, we have a category of "Unreleased / Cancelled" - seems a little redundant since a game that is cancelled is, usually, unreleased.  A name change seems to be in order for that one.
Secondly, although the Zelda Collection disc is generally considered "ports", there has been some changes made in the files themselves - enough, I'd say, that the Zelda Collection could easily fit into the "Remakes" cagatory.  If everyone is totally against that idea, how about changing the "Remakes" category into "Remakes and Compilations", since the LttP/FS GBA game is a compilation as well?
Thirdly, I want to do something about the "Spinoffs/Other Games" category name, but I'm not quite sure... Any ideas?
Any comments/suggestions? 71.244.180.131 01:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Zelda Classic is frickin' awesome, it's still a fan game and doesn't really belong in a listing of official titles (IMHO) - any other opinions on that?  71.244.180.131 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that Zelda Classic is not an official game, it is related to the Zelda universe and therefore deserves the title "frickin' awesome", to quote. I know I can't speak for anyone else, but if there was a template such as  for navigating subarticles of the unmade article, Features of The Legend of Zelda series, like this one, you could put it under "Fan-related". However, with the way templates are formatted at the moment (such as — over one line or two?), it would be a difficult undertaking to put all universe-related articles into one navigational template. --DavidHOzAu 05:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup ideas... 

message: Am I alone in thinking that having the systems being listed in this template is not only unnecessary, but it makes the template look very cluttered?  Besides, The Legend of Zelda has been released on two other systems outside of the NES.  Same with Zelda II...  Would anyone object to taking them out?  Perhaps - if necessary - a section with "Systems with Legend of Zelda Games" with the NES, SNES, N64, GCN, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS, and CD-i.  But I don't really like that idea much either... but it's better than what's there now, IMHO... 71.244.168.172 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems... 

message: Main series:          	LoZ • AoL • ALttP • OoT • MM • WW • TP
Four Swords           	Four Swords • Adventures • The Minish Cap
Handhelds:            	Link's Awakening • Oracle of Seasons • Oracle of Ages • Minish Cap • Phantom Hourglass
Spinoffs:             	Tingle's Rupee Land • Ancient Stone Tablets • LCD
Remakes & collections:	BS Zelda • A Link to the Past|Four Swords • Master Quest • Collector's Edition
Related games         	Super Smash Bros. • Soul Calibur II • CD-i
Bly1993 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like taking out the systems.  I'm not so sure we want to divide the games into Main, Four Swords, and Handheld...  I think that's been tried and there was endless debate as to what constituted a "main game". Plus, now we've duplicated Minish Cap.  I am a little confused as to what makes BS Zelda a remake, and Stone tablets a spinoff, but I've never played the games, so what do I know. I wouldn't think that the LCD games are a spinoff, since they are based on the original two games, and not really spinoff adventures. Sraan 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I'm not a fan of using abbreviations for the game titles in the template.  It's possible that this template will be the first exposure some people will have to these games and starting them off with a bunch of unknowns probably isn't the best plan.  Not to mention, you open the entire can of worms on things like the fact that it's "The Wind Waker" and not just "Wind Waker", even though TWW or tWW looks odd.  71.244.168.172 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: there has been intense reverting over inclusion of The Legend of Zelda (Wii) in the template. considering we know that the game is under development (it was from a major games magazine and the mag got it from Nintendo directly), there is no reason people should not know. I don't care that we held off in including Twilight Princess for a while, that was in the past. there is no speculation on the template or the game's page. Scepia 06:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have a name. It doesn't have a release date. It doesn't even have a single picture. It exists in hypothetical form only. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that the game is not a tech demo like The Wind Waker 2. it is confirmed. if you think it is really so useless of a game, put the page up for deletion, but in truth it is an important game. if you're not going to include the page on a navigation template, why is there a page at all? people would certainly like to know a true Zelda Wii is being made. Scepia 08:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. The game still exists in hypothetical form only. Its article is a paragraph long. It is not an aid to navigation to add a link to that stub on this navigation template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not hypothetical if the game has been in production for a year. It's real. It is an aid to people that may not know that a Wii Zelda is in production. Shadow El 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nintendo has had games in production for extended periods without ever releasing them; Mother 3 for Nintendo 64, Mario 128, Star Fox 2, etc. Besides, information released at this time is usually speculative. They claimed Wind Waker would have voice acting and that the second GameCube game would use cel-shading. Phantom Hourglass has screenshots, playable demos, and official title, and official artwork. All the LoZ Wii game is a acknowledgement that it's in development. El Cid 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mother 3 was eventually released on GBA, I believe. And WW did have (limited) voice acting, and TP did use cel-shading in certain parts. And people should know it's in development. Shadow El 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Mother 3 was released on the GBA, but the point was it wasn't released on the initial system it was announced for and is most likely far different the original conception of the game considering the drastic differences in the hardware. As for the voice acting and cel-shading examples, that seems to be splitting hairs a bit, don't you think? We're not debating whether or not we should have a page on the game, which I think is perfectly fine, but we should probably hold off including an article that only has three sentences of information in a template that includes lengthy, exhaustive articles, some of which are featured articles. If the only information we can offer the reader is that the game is most likely going to be released, I don't think it belongs in a template that otherwise features only fully competent articles. El Cid 03:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the best benchmark for including a game on the template would be an official announcement from the company, not just a report in a gaming mag. Sraan 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't have a final name or a release date, it never, ever, ever belongs in a navbox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thus sayeth A Man In Black. That's a fairly blurry benchmark since names and release dates are subject to change.  Sraan 06:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, don't include. Andre (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we dont have information about it, putting it on the template lets people know that it exists. For a while when i wasnt on the template i was really scared it might have gotten canceled.  If its not on the Template it gives the impression that it doesnt exist, and there is no doubt about it, it was announced that it has been under development for over a year now.Widkid85 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  including the upcoming Wii game 

message: AOL is direct sequel of TLOZ. LA is direct sequel of ALTTP. MM is direct sequel of OOT. PH is direct sequel of WW. FS, FSA & MC are part of Four Sword Series.
This is my idea:
<noinclude>
::I don't know if its nessesary to group games into groups like that. It creates a lot of white space and it's customary to list games by their date of release as opposed to any sort of narrative groupings. Besides that, it's often hard to determine the order of Zelda games. I've heard LA being placed after MM, LttP, and AoL in the chronology. 
::It may be be appropriate to list the Four Swords games underneigth the rest of the games, since I would consider those games part of a sub-series, but I'd leave the template as it is for now. El Cid 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is a mess; it has tons of white space and arbitrary groupings. 151.201.48.175 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  separated games 

message: Alright, so what's the consensus on the CDi games? I'm seeing people for and against the inclusion of the games within the template. If you've got an opinion, add it on one side or another. I'm for the games being in the template, due to the fact that the games are officially licensed and the fact that there were three of them. They're an important part of the Zelda timeline as a game series, as these three games are fairly well known. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Against. They were only licensed due to a mishandled contract and are not usually considered canon. LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series would belong on this template before the CD-i games. Pagrashtak 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDi Games 

message: I've been having an argument with MrBubbles, and we can't decide whether this game should or shouldn't be on the template. I thought I'd add it for the sake of adding it. He removed it. A few heated words later, I wrote this.
I'm for adding it to the template as it doesn't seem entirely necessary to me for it to be a "full fledge retail game" for it to be there. In fact, so long as it has something to do with Zelda and a Nintendo product, I feel it belongs there.
I'll leave this up in the air for now. MrBubbles, let's have a civilised conversation please (preferably without the use of the word "troll"... >_>); I do not feel like arguing any further with you. Quite frankly, I argue with enough people on Wikipedia as it is. Hardcore gamer 48 07:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is by Nintendo, people are just going to keep adding it.  Japan only release or no, it's easy to obtain and is a legitimate title.  I see no reason not to include it.  There should also be a link to the CD-i and LCD games.  They are, again, legitimate "Zelda" titles, so should be included.  The point of templates is to aid in navigation, so I think there needs to be more, not less, included.Rhindle The Red 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to add this game in myself, after noticing that the template was on TBF's page, but the game wasn't included.  Decided to check the talk page, just to make sure it hadn't been voted on or something - Yes, the game should be added.  It's related to the Zelda universe and is an official product.  It's not hard to get at all - in fact, I went on eBay two days ago and bought one without effort for about regular retail price ($30).  Go find me a copy of Zelda's Adventure - now that's a hard game to find.  TheUncleBob 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since the current consensus is 3-1 to add the game, I'm going to BE BOLD and add it for now.  If something changes, then we can change the template at that time.  TheUncleBob 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I read that three people on this talk page and a fourth who's edited the template seem to disagree with you.  As the consensus is that this game belongs on the template, I'm adding it unless more people want to come forward otherwise *or* we have an official vote on it.  Would you like to call for a vote?  TheUncleBob 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, I've edited the Tingle's Balloon Fight article to show how it relates to the other games in the Zelda series.  Perhaps this'll address some concerns about the game "not counting" as part of the Zelda Universe. TheUncleBob 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tingle's Balloon Fight DS; yay or nay? 

message: This discussion is drawn from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series, talking about combining all three nav templates into one. Berenlazarus (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think combining them into one template is a good idea. --- RockMFR 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, consensus has existed to do so for quite a while, so good job getting it done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for the change, provided we can move the talk/edit history somehow.  The most important talk/edit history is template:Zelda games, as that was the main template.  Not sure how you would keep the other stuff but the Zelda games template history/talk definitely needs to be moved to the new location.  Also creating copy of this discussion on the Zelda games template as well.  Berenlazarus (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Navigational Templates