Talk:The Legend of Zelda/Archive 3

message: An offshoot not mentioned here or found on the web was a pc version released on 5 1/4" floppy disk - does anybody remember the name of this version (It could play in black and white or colour it was that old) and add it to the list (originally posted by 195.93.21.105)
:Never heard of it.  Any more information would be hot.  Sraan 01:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Other incarnations 

message: Made a couple of revert/edits.  Calatia, I believe, is where Link is hanging out when he is recruited by Impa before the original LoZ.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but no game is "set" there.  Also, the SpaceWorld demo was never announced as a game.  I added a little extra info to the Wind Waker section to explain it.  "Tetra's Tracker's" was released in Japan, but nowhere else.  The Four Swords Adventures section covers this already. Sraan 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calatia and unreleased games 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: The article says that it was first released on Februrary 21, 1492.  This is ridiculous, but I do not know the correct date.  I just thought this should be mentioned.
68.38.233.184 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Release 

message: Why does "Rabbit Joint" redirect to "The Legend of Zelda series", yet Rabbit Joint is not mentioned at all in the article?
:I guess it's because Rabbit Joint is only notable for making a Zelda parody song and since that isn't notable for its own wikipedia article, it just redirects here. It probably should be deleted so as not to be misleading though. Axem Titanium 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled upon this as well.  Perhaps it can get a tiny mention at the bottom of the article under "Cultural Influence"? CallidoraBlack (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbit Joint 

message: If you look at the history for this article, a claim that the player could choose Zelda in the N64 version appeared and was reverted at least twice that I recall.  The last time it was reverted, a comment was made that the player could choose Zelda for the GCN version, but not on the N64.  
To prevent this cycle, I originally added the edit comment as a footnote, which was then reverted.  I have put the note back as an HTML comment instead.  My hope is that this will eliminate this cycle.  (BTW references can be used as footnotes, such as is done on this article, so such comments are fine.)  If somebody adds the edit again, I will probably go back to the footnote. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get it.  Sorry for being so snarky when I reverted it. Sraan 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Smash Brothers character choices 

message: I made an edit earlier in the Chronology section referring to a narrative theory of the Zelda series (that many of them are not meant to be sequels or prequels, rather, retellings of the same story with similar elements in each version).  This was not an original theory, nor do I feel that I placed it inappropriately within the article.  Why was it tagged as vandalism and removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roscius (talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 November 2006.
:I think the comment "rv vandalism" was a bit harsh, however, it did sound like original research.  If you have a source for such a belief, then you should cite that reference.  You might have heard such a belief expressed, but unless you can cite a reference, it will probably get challenged.
:BTW - it is a good habit to always edit when you are logged in.  Edits by anons are often suspect, but if it is by a user with a decent edit history, it will be taken more seriously.  You would be surprised how many people get their jollies by adding subtle errors into articles.  I've been guilty myself of jumping to conclusions about an honest edit. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'll be more careful about logging in.  Time to go reference-hunting. Roscius (talk contribs), 14:48, 10 November 2006.
This came out a while back but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXN1BF65WjI this has a pretty good theory and its from gametrailers so its a pretty reputable source, maybe it could be added to the chronology at the bottom as one theory, but whatever The Ravager 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology Theory 

message: I have a big personal debate. Some of my friends say that the Zelda series is one of the highest-grossing video games series of all time, if not THE highest. Others say it's not. I won't reveal my standpoint, but what is it's confirmed ranking? Totema1 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, that list should help you out. JackSparrow Ninja 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking among high-grossing series 

message: In the second paragraph of the overview section, Guerdo Valley should actually be Gerudo Valley, unless there is another valley that appears in the series I am unaware of...?  Zer0dmb 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of that altogether, since Gerudo (Yeah, Guerdo is just a typo) Valley is only in two games. Panserbjørn 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling Error in the Overview

message: In the chronology section, where the dates are listed after the names of the games. The dates are taken from  and so are the North American launch dates. I've replaced them with the first release dates globally (the Japanese launch dates technically, since they always (with the exception of Twilight Princess) launch there first. The new dates are taken from the games' articles and I think are mentioned elsewhere in this article. I've also removed the link to zelda.com from the top of the list. It's a fairly minor thing but I thought I might not have the space to justify it in the edit summary. Corbo 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in the Chronology section 

message: Which of these games were developed by Capcom or Flagship? These tend to have a different feel to them from the Nintendo-created games, so it would be nice to note the developer. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Oracle games, Minish and Four Swords. You'll have to check me on that though. Axem Titanium 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capcom /Flagship 

message: I've never done any editing on Wikipedia, have no idea what you're supposed to do about this kind of thing, so sorry if this is in the wrong place. But I saw that someone has been fiddling with the section which i believe is titled "Critical Reception"....Part of it now says something like "the series is utter pish" (whatever that means!). Could someone fix it? 
Oh, I see it already got fixed! You guys are good! Cool.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.238.128 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wanted to point out a bit of vandalism... 

message: The reasons I agree with this statement in a recent edit are that in two of the CD-i games, Zelda was the star. Yes, I know those games were not devolped by Nintendo, but they still happened. In addition, Link is most often, but not always a boy. In Twilight Princess he would be described as a young man, and he alternates between a boy and a 17 year old in Ocarina of Time. It is for these reasons that I am reverting to my previous edit. JONJONAUG 02:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that may be true, this article (or at least that sentence) talks about the series as a whole and is not partial to the few exceptions. It's the same reason why the Link (The Legend of Zelda) page says Link is left-handed, rather than saying he is usually left-handed. It just makes things more complicated and wordy. A generalization that Zelda games feature a boy suffices for that sentence and the nuances of it can be explained in the individual game articles. Axem Titanium 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that page states that Link is left handed, then lists exclusions to that rule later in the article. However, there are few times that Link has been displayed without being left handed that were not the result of sprite issues. The issue that I have with that sentence is that there are two games in which that Link did not star, and a couple games where Link is not a boy that I have already named. I can see where you are coming from, but it is my belief that the version of the sentence that is currently in the article is more factual. JONJONAUG 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But doesn't it sound really wordy and awkward to you? I think maybe adding a "most" at the beginning of the sentence and keeping it at "boy" would be more concise while at the same time preserving the non-absoluteness of the statement. Axem Titanium 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm...all right, that sounds good. JONJONAUG 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that in only a few games does Link stay the same guy, for example the Link in Wind Waker is different than the one in The legend of Zelda (number 1). So saying Link is anything is a blanket statement of several people. So saying that Link is left handed in one game but right handed in another is pretty worthless as they are different people. Dagorlad 3 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chiefly featuring a male" 

message: I'd say there's quite a difference between references in other games and media, and simple trivia. This article hasn't even got a trivia section. If it's a lot, that's one thing, but you can't blame the series for being refernced so much. Either keep it here or make a seperate article of it.
What do you think? JackSparrow Ninja 08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would really rather not have a separate article. In fact, I would rather have the cultural influence section be converted into prose so as to discourage anon editors from adding trivial mentions of the series. Not every single appearance of Link or a Link-like character is notable. A section devoted to significant references and general cultural prominence would be much more appropriate in this case. Axem Titanium 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  One of the problems I've noticed on video game articles is that eventually every possible detail is inserted into the article if you aren't careful.  IMHO, these articles should be comprehensive, but not exhaustive. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Prose is almost always better than a list, and you're right: prose makes it harder for nerds to add throw-away gags from Simpsons and Family Guy. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in other games - trivia? 

message: There are several [citation needed] in the History section that imideately precede or follow a reference within the text for the factual claim being made.  Do I not understand the proper use of this request? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Eagan (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this, somewhat.  I agree that these need citations of reference, but I'm not exactly sure how we would reference the latter of the two; more specifically, the note about him saying "Come on!"  Firstly, I don't actually believe this to be true, can someone please tell me when and where Link in Wind Waker is ever heard saying anything about the likes of "Come on?" AnujSuper9 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eee, I definitely remember hearing it, not too sure when though. It could be the bit where you have to telepathically guide the statues... wait, no that doesn't make sense. Anyone feel like playing it through? I'm 100% sure it is said, and I'm not the one who put it in the article.86.142.97.93 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 86.142.97.93 is right, in the Tower of the Gods, the Earth Temple and the Wind Temple you can call your companion (statues, Medli, or Makar respectively) to you by pressing either R or A (I forget which) and Link will yell "Come on!" when you do so.  I will attempt to find a video. — Ian Moody (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  You don't need to find a video, but if you do, I still wouldn't mind seeing it.  But anyways, I do believe it, despite that it makes me somewhat sad.  I wish he hadn't spoken even those words.  Though, it is notable because of that, haha. AnujSuper9 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a video. I do not remember this at all. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it!  Finally.  He says it repeatedly in this video, starting at 0:07.  Make sure to turn your sound way down first though, I don't know what they did wrong but it's really loud and in places horribly distorted.  — Ian Moody (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that'd be it.  Thanks. :) AnujSuper9 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: Isn't it stated in Wind Waker that this Link is not related to the original? The King of Red Lions says this to Jabun. It's possible that he doesn't know what he's talking about, as he is only a character and not an omniscient, but neither do I remember it ever directly stating that Link was definately related either. -74.37.85.37 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind Waker Link 

message: NPD Sales Charts officially state The Legend of Zelda series has sold 47 million copies.  Land of the Legend is "assuming" that it has sold 50 million by adding the sales figures posted by sites on Twilight Princess.  Land of the Legend is not an authority on video game sales globally, so I do not think their citation was appropriate.  By their own admission in their press page of the Corporate section of NOA's site, The Legend of Zelda series has sold 47 million.  This number will be updated sometime this year, so until then, the # should be 47 million unless an official source comes forth with new numbers. --TSA 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop ignoring this and reverting my edits back to Land of the Legend.  The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has sold 2.35 million copies on Wii worldwide as of this week.  At the time of Land of the Legends report, Twilight Princess has only sold 1,030,750 copies on Wii in North America and 565,250 copies on GCN. That's 1.6 million, roughly. Twilight Princess in Japan at that time only sold 292,750 copies.  That's just over 2 million now.  Europe sold 500,000 copies at the time of the report.  That comes out to close to 2.6 million copies around the time of the report.  However, that last source - that data was not made available until after Land of the Legend made the claim.  As of now, I would believe Twilight Princess has sold over 3 million copies, but it's still not backed by public data yet.  2.6 million, as of now, is the best you could get.  2.3 million was the best you could have found out at the time of their "report".  So since before TP sales are factored in, the Zelda series sold 47 million, it should say 49 million.  However, you can state 50 million, but you can't use Land of the Legend's report becuase it was inaccurate at the time and in the context that it was made then, it is inaccurate.  If anything, my work right here should be the source - and I'll publish it on my site in a moment, you can use that. --TSA 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only numbers that should be used are official Nintendo numbers or sites sourcing NPD. VGcharts and Land of the Legend should not be used even if they are or are not correct. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: VG Charts uses NPD date for North America sales, Media Crate for Japanese sales, and the EU's sales organization for video games (which the name eludes me at this time).  I've also seen the sales data reports myself and the numbers on VG charts, though sometimes rounded up a bit, are the most accurate representation of actual sales data worldwide. --TSA 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability, VGcharts reliability and authority is to dubious, as you say the numbers are off but we can't prove that without official numbers which we can't get. Plus the site owner himself "claims" that he makes it up with his own research. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is true for the site, however, the Twilight Princess sales data, which is in question for the 50 million mark, has a paper trail made public on several sites other than VG Charts, such as Game Industry.biz, IGN, 1Up.com, GameStop and major tech areas of sites like CNN and MSNBC, for starter.  These sales are verified through NPD, Media Crate and other official sources that report on this data.  With official numbers, Twilight Princess has sold 2.91 million copies, the data lacking is November-January Japanese GCN sales, January North America GCN sales, and December-January European GCN sales for Twilight Princess.  The VG Charts Twilight Princess entry only has one area rounded up - the Japanese Wii sales of Twilight Princess are rounded up in the Worldwide Sales page from 386,000 to 400,000 becuase the sales data is only through January 28th, 2007.  The game sold like 12,500 copies in that time, and has been selling around 12,000 a week for the past month.  They took that data and added the week + 3 days since then, which would put the sales over 400,000.  That's where they put there "guess work" in.  However, for my report, now used as the citation on this site, I used the Media Crate sales of of January 28th, 2007 for the Japanese Wii TP Sales.  So my numbers, based on the official reports, is not rounded. I ommitt a few spaces after the decimal becuase of standard deviation.--TSA 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VGCharts, ugh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales Figures 

message: In the chronolgy section, it states that FSA takes place about 100 years after FS....it states it got this info from vol. 211 of Nintendo Power, but I checked that issue, and I didn't see it. I will delete it until clearly proven. --Superbub 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ho? 

message: I've merged in the content from Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series) per the VFD discussion. Voretus 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a member of this project, and probably not as well versed in the standards of Wikipedia as you guys, but I was a little disconcerted by the presence of the whole Rupee article in the Zelda series article.  The Rupee article was condemned to be merged because it had pointless information like the denominations of Rupees in various games, which not even fans of the series care to read about in Wikipedia.  However, since it's been done, it should probably be marked for cleanup, and the source article be turned into a redirect now.  I would do this, but I don't know how.  Thank you for your time.  Bucky 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what he just did. 76.178.95.219 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rupee

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that a huge rupee appears anywhere in Twilight Princess. 69.118.109.122 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is in there, I'm fairly certain that it would be a violation of a Wikipedia policy to include that information in the article.  I remember seeing somewhere that information taken directly fromm a game counts as original research, which is not allowed. I'll give it a few days to get a proper source on it. If someone gives it a source, could you let me know here, please?  Thank you. Bucky 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Things should be verifiable, and the game is there for people to verify the information. Otherwise it would be like saying that there needs to be source to say that the moon is round. JackSparrow Ninja 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the article on the No Original Research rule.  I couldn't find any reference to video games themselves either counting as original research or not.  I've seen articles in Wikipedia that seem to get their information directly from the games with no other source, so if anyone knows for certain what the Wikipedia policy is on video games as a source, I'm really curious now.  By the way, the clock is still ticking on the huge rupee.  Is there a source outside the game? Bucky 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry we got off track, this is about the huge rupee, isn't it?  I don't know if it's in there.  I have yet to see it, and others have yet to tell me where it is.  I'm giving it probably 'till Friday, then I'll delete it if it still has no source. Bucky 01:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 50 or 100?  That's wussy!  What's the point of getting them?!  Sorry, got off track again.  If it's in there, someone should be able to get a screen shot of it.  A screenshot would probably be enough of a source to put that threat against it to rest. Bucky 06:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Huge Rupee

message: Director Hideki Kamiya has admitted that he has been influenced by the Zelda-games in making Ōkami, while almost everyone that plays it, something commented on in many reviews, sees the similarities with Zelda. I tried to give it some shape in the The Legend of Zelda (series)#References in other games-section, but anyone that knows of a better way to word it, feel free to improve it. JackSparrow Ninja 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe its just me but why hasn't anybody notice or pointed out the similarities of the movie Legend with Tom cruise and Legend of Zelda. Both are about a forest kid, who must bring back light to the world of darkness and rescue a princess. He's also accompanied by a fairy. He must also collect a sword and mirror shield to reflect light to lord of darkness to defeat him. Legend was released a year before the game. I know the game is based on myamotos childhood imagination, the movie and game are very similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manuscript Replica (talk • contribs). -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With just a year's difference, it's hardly capable to influence eachother's. Most important however, is that that is unconfirmed speculation. The Okami part is officially admitted. JackSparrow Ninja 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Legend and the Legend of Zelda started production in 1983, about a month or two apart. Not nearly enough time to base themselves off of one another. Morte42 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zelda influencing Okami 

message: I was just reading through the article on the CD-i Zelda games("Unholy Triforce") and the individual articles on the CD-i games themselves.  It seemed like the only information that wasn't copied into the main article was the brief plot summaries of the games.  Does anyone else think that it would be a good idea to just merge those articles into the main CD-i Zelda article?  It would place all the information into one respectable sized article, and it would make the information that much easier to access. Bucky 00:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD-i games 

message: Somebody misspelled "with." The page is protected for some stupid reason (which is supposedly discussed on this talk page, but isn't), and bugmenot.com blocks this site (and I can't be bothered to get an account), so I can't correct it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.23.105.12 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the link doesn't go to the talk page, but to another one.  That might be why you couldn't find it here. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Whith?" 

message: It said that there were some zelda toys never released but I had two of these never released figures, shiek and phantom ganon. they were in fact released and that article should be changed. --168.212.252.30 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  never released toys... 

message: I cannot see how this is GA... it's missing citations, the chronology is mostly a regurgitation of the games' plots more than their placement in the series, and after the OoT entry in that section and before the TP entry, there are NO sources or even citation needed tags. The only way I could see this being a GA in the future is not if I'm proven wrong, because I'm verifiably correct in saying that it's missing a lot of sources (both for things that have been marked as such and haven't been), but by my points null by someone fixing the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started adding references. Pagrashtak 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA removal 

message: I feel this section at the bottom of the main page should be kept the way it was prior to this change; in release order. There doesn't seem to be much of a reason to classify the Zelda games based on their portability or lack thereof. Could you give me some insight to the reasoning of this change?
Thanks.
149.159.22.207 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the reason behind the "console" and "handheld" additions in the video game section? 

message: I didn't suggest the merge or anything, but I think it'd be better to merge that article into a more in-universe article such as Hyrule or Hylian the race. 217.198.150.144 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that second one. You Can't See Me! 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hylian merge 

message: If we are including non-game related media, shouldn't we mention LoZ fan fic?
:I don't think so. Fan Fiction is not usally considered to be notiable. --67.71.76.228 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: I remember something about a project of a game called Tetra Trackers. What happened to it???  Mr. Mario 192  14:50, 9 August 2007   (UTC)
:See The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures#Navi Trackers. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tetra Trackers