Talk:The Legend of Zelda/Archive 1

In the Chronology section...

(NOTE: This interview has since been revealed to have been mistranslated. Nintendo of America, Inc no longer endorses the quote and Shigeru Miyamoto says it is not the timeline nor was this the timeline he meant to convey)

Does anyone have a source for this? I sent it in to the www.zeldalegends.com mailbag and got two responses that pretty much anything can be on Wikipedia. I figured that if TSA watches this page he wouldn't leave anything false here, and I'd love to know that this is true because it fits ever so well into a logical Zelda timeline (>_<).

I've heard this and seen the source; I think it was... GameSpot? I can't remember offhand where I read it. However, supposedly several independent people have re-translated it and supposedly supported the initial translation. I'd love to to confirm or deny it, but... I'd be no good in doing so. The Missing Link 01:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the original text, but basically, the japenese language has no plural form of words. Thus, "hundreds" and "one-hundred" is said exactly the same way. Thus, I can certainly see them no longer supporting the "one-hundred" quote, as "hundreds" is obviously the accurate translation. The japanese statement wouldn't change though.

Again, I haven't seen the original text, and this is mere speculation. Fieari 01:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC) Forget me, I thought you were talking about something else. Blargh. Silly me. Fieari 01:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it was actually the webmaster of the current Zelda.com, Andy Hartpence, who told me the storyline stuff was incorrect that was posted in Nintendo Power and on Zelda.com. Also, from speaking with Eiji Aonuma last week, that quote no longer applies to the timeline, so it shouldn't even be cited anymore. TSA 3:50pm PDT September 28th, 2005 (UTC)

The mention of but one timeline is trully biased, even if it's said that said timeline is not official... I haven't found the timeline I made (it's not the one called "zithyan" in here, I know that because that guy proposes a different version to the one I, as a Zelda fan, suggest)... I know that with no official timeline mine isn't neccesarrily right but based upon the words I chose, it's plausible and, the only and final judge is Miyamoto himself... Instead of erasing alternate timelines they must be allowed, after all, the more timelimes shown the better the reader's understanding of a lack of consensus gets... As an extra-official timeline my offer might be thought of as irrational, capricious our mistaken, but the other timeline has no better standing whatsoever yet it's displayed... Let the reader and Miyamoto choose...

What I don't understand is why such a huge amount of the Chronology section has become opinion or assumptions, which don't belong in this article. So much stuff in there can even be disproven, or something different has been stated by someone from Nintendo (I believe Aonuma said that the Four Swords series is part of the same universe as the other games, and TSA can confirm this). I would add comments saying that much, but once again, no such thing belongs in this article. Does anyone mind if some chunks of that are taken out? --Impossible 10:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence to support the suggestion that Link's Awakening's place in the timeline may have been retconned? If the ending of the Oracle games is the only basis for this, I think it's pretty flimsy and needs to be removed. 66.126.191.98 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 4 January, 2006

Yes, there is. Official Japanese LA DX Website.--TSA 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nature of the Protagonist

We already went through this with the chronology section. While we must agree to disagree, this is no place for fan theories. We all know there are multiple Links, until proven which is the right explanation, we don't care about people's theories here at Wiki. I removed those theories because it is confusing and it has no place here - go to a Zelda Forum on a site.

The only thing in this section should be info on Link's nature, like his characteristics, why he doesn't speak, and why Miyamoto named him Link - which is what I did in the edit.

I also fixed up some of history stuff, it was a little rigid and some stuf was outdated (We don't need to know Twilight Princess was unveiled at E3 2004 anymore...what is important is it comes out in November and it has a title and what we know so far about the gameplay and the development.

I added a bit about Hot Topic in the pop culture, since the SoaD thing is a bit off the radar.

I also added a holder for the Comics/Manga/Doujinshi. I don't have time now to write it all up, but it should be mentioned on this page, not its own (it has its own page now). ~ TSA, July 1, 2005

It may be worth noting that "Link" is a Germanic name meaning 'Left-Handed' and that Link is always portrayed as a left-handed hero... (though many action-heroes are left-handed these days) - Anon, 13 Oct 2005

Shigeru Miyamoto at E3 2006 revealed that Link is lefty because he (Miyamoto) is a lefty. I have it on tape. --TSA 01:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Gannon-Banned info

Dude, it's totally ridiculous. It's only a private joke, as said here. I've been a Zelda fan for years and never ever heard about this thing. I'm not removing it again since I know someone's gonna rv it, but someone's gotta do something on that. A private joke doesn't add any info at all, and I can't see how that could ever be useful in an encyclopedia. There are so many facts about the game, what's with this Gannon-Banned guy who wants to promote his own site/forum/whatever? -Imperator 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who you are or what your problem is with the G-B secion, but YOU MAY NOT talk like this to another Wikipedian!!! You have spammed up several pages (this one, TSA's Talk, etc.) with this samey complaint. If you actually take the time to read the messages below that you re-flowed with a new header, you will see that TSA didn't add it, others did, and he merely rewrote it to be accurate.

Continue complaining and smack-talking him and some steps will have to be taken. I cannot say what those steps may be, or whom they will be taken by, but they WILL be taken. I have spoken. Master Thief Garrett 02:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, so we have a censorer here. I made that post only with the intention of improving this place, ok? If you feel yourself the owner of this thing, I'm sorry telling you're not. And none's going to take any step on me, first: because they do not punish anyone here (mainly w/ good intentions as me), second: because I didn't do anything wrong, I'm just questionning the use of a JOKE inside an article, I don't care who did put it there, I'm just saying it's totally unnecessary for a game like that. And you are none to give orders to me, either and any discussion, or make any threats, ok? Just keep doing your work and I'll do mine, I might come back here to discuss at any time with anyone because this place is free to talk, if you can't stand different points of view (I did read the whole thing before post the first time, and there are people here that agree that this G-B is just too unnecessary to deserve a whole section about) you should go to anywhere, but here. You're not the owner of the article, nor the owner of the encyclopedia. Clear enough, I think. -Imperator 06:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing some of the context, but there must be some misunderstanding here. I didn't read Luis's comments as a personal attack on anyone; he's simply saying that the Gannon-Banned award is non-notable, which is true. It's known by much fewer people Zelda games themselves. I support removal of this section. The spelling controversy gets enough coverage in Ganon. It's also typically considered rude to edit others' comments on talk pages — if you feel there is a need, ask the author to do so. Deco 07:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, the only other context thing is on User:TSA where he made a similar comment. I'm sure none of the three were meant to be an attack, but they somewhat sounded like one. And we don't want anyone to take any undue offense due to indicental miswording.

As for the editing, no I wouldn't normally do that... but it was a swear word, and I was under the impression that swearing was banned on Wikipedia(?), but, again, you may be right.

But back to the point at hand, which was supposed to be the validity of G-B being here. I myself voted for its deletion, but the vote was virtually 40-60 (with a lot of people saying Merge rather than Delete) but things have gone completely out of anyone's control. But anyway, on to the summary...

First, the points in favour of it remaining...:

• it's gotten bigger than most and even Nintendo addressed it at Camp Hyrule 2004. Therefore no (potential) article about Camp Hyrule 2004 would be complete without G-B, so where do they link? Back here.
• "All your base are belong to us" already has an article and is now probably of no smaller cult status importance; it is similarly an inside joke, as only those who've played/know of the joke will recognise this line.
• people keep re-adding the content each time it gets deleted, so it might as well stay to avoid an edit war by loyal but misguided G-B fans

And now the "die thread die!" reasons...:

• Yes it is a private joke
• Fairly obscure at that
• Most current-generation Zelda fans are unaware of the origin of the joke
• There should probably be another reason(s) here

So while I too believe it should probably go, it will likely lead edit wars. Perhaps someone should set up a "QuickPoll" about it? Darn, I had a link to that a minute ago, oh well... Well, anyway, that would be a good way of seeing the community's opinion on the matter. Since the Delete thing didn't really resolve anything. Master Thief Garrett 08:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about someone writes an article about Camp Hyrule 2004 and moves it there? It's more work but has a better chance of making everyone happy. There's a bit of info at Camp Hyrule. Oh, and also, there isn't any ban on swearing (even in article text where appropriate, see fuck), although one might reason that this talk page is one click away from an article of interest to children. Deco 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's another good possibility, although I'd sooner have Camp Hyrule cover ALL years. I don't know that there's really enough happening in each year to have something for each, without it crossing over into fancruft rambling. But see the opinion at the very very bottom of this page for another webmaster's view on its relevance.

That's interesting about the swearing... yes, a child could potentially stumble on here expecting people to be talking about how cool Zelda games are etc. But if the rules don't ban it, I guess it's a grey area. hmmm... Master Thief Garrett 23:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm, cool seeing the discussion is in normal temperature now =D Well, I think they could create a Topic for this G-B thing and just link it at the SEE ALSO section, heh? Everyone should be happy, and I think they could shorten their pride a little and watch the thing from a neutral point of view. The joke isn't even funny btw :P - Imperator 23:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giving G-B it's own topic is, like it or not, a non-option! A page for it was made, VfD'd, made again, locked, etc. So I severely doubt there is a way to re-open it.

Personally, I'd sooner see it occupy a space here rather than on its own page, as it will never be anything other than a very minor page, whereas here a small section is fine. There has to be a limit of how minor/small something is to deserve its own page--that's what 60% of VfD issues are about, things that branched out when they maybe shouldn't have. But that's just my POV.

As for the joke being "funny", it's a matter of opinion as with any comedic thing. It's not at all supposed to be a joke on its own (although the Letters and List section are fairly funny!), but more a way of laughing at someone (in a not unkind way) if they get something Zelda-oriented horribly wrong. Master Thief Garrett 00:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In TSA's defense, I can name a number of other sections here that you might as well as delete if it is decided that his G-B article be deleted. The online comic articles come to mind. What use do they have? User:ElvenRaptor 25 Apr 2005

Impersonations

It's pretty obvious when the person doesn't sign with a digital signature that it's not the person they claim to be. I personally do not care if G-B stays on the Zelda entry. I thought it should have its own small page and not cramp the Zelda page. I also, personally, think the majority of the Chronology section is point less. Having quotes and stuff is going to confuse more people, just simplify it to there is a timeline, we don't know what it is, stay tuned, though some fans still live in denial and believe they control the timeline themselves (people who say no timeline exists).

As for most of the pages, I spent about 20 hours on Wiki 3 weeks ago fixing up a lot of stuff, and I used the Japanese games/manuals to correct everything. I actually personally ran some stuff by some NOAs to make sure it was acceptable, and it got the nod. Zelda.com's Encyclopedia should also be updated SOMETIME as I totally redid all the entries for them to be accurate.

Anyway, back to G-B, I thought it was funny somebody made an article for me, but now its getting me in trouble, so I'd rather it just end. Leave it or delete it...but let it be final. I don't need GANNON-BANNED to be my legacy or something, when all it was, to me, was a short fad and now just a historical piece for those who cared about it. I don't even use it anymore. I only care about being known as a fan who tried to further truth in the community, as well as tried to promote the Legend of Zelda name to expand its popularity, through my site, speed runs and other stuff.

Anyway, if I ever find out who really tried to post as me, I'll deal with them.

--TSA 20:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General Discussion

Ura Zelda has indeed been released - it is the Zelda Master Quest available on the Wind Waker bonus disc. - Kwekubo

NO it has NOT. Ura Zelda translates as "another Zelda" and it was to have completely different dungeons ADDED ONTO the existing game in completely different locations to the old ones (much like BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban did), rather than the current released version with its remixed dungeons and removal of the old ones. It would be more like the original Zelda's Second Quest, in that the locations of the dungeons would be enormously changed. (Garrett, 19:02, 12 Apr 2005, GMT)

---

Would a plot description/chronology be useful? Zarggg

That would be a good idea, but there is a problem with that: Even Nintendo doesn't know how the :games are connected. I have sen at least 5 different interpretation of the connection of the games. :There was a lot of talk about this on alt.games.nintendo.zelda... RealLink

Why not use an unofficial timeline then? There are some good ones found just by Googling: ::[1], ::[2], ::[3], [4], ::[5] (four pages long), ::[6] (eight pages long), and ::[7]. Some are pretty bad, but there are a few jewels in there. Zarggg

I hope my edits concerning the chronology (fans disagree, no dogma from Nintendo, here's a suggested order) are helpful. At the least, they are truthful; at the most, a bit wordy. Does anyone have a reference for the statement (which I didn't write), "The Zelda that was initially believed to be in [development for the GameCube using] realistic computer graphics will be another Zelda game?"

(Such belief was no doubt spawned by (1) the fact that the GameCube permitted it, (2) the Nintendo 64 Zelda games were as realistic as the platform could render, (3) developers' trends (other games were seeking a realistic look), and finally (4) Nintendo released a mesmerizing screenshot of realistic, 3D rendered models of Link and Ganon locked in combat.)

I ask because, as much as I hoped for such a game, the first three reasons proved flawed (though I was foremost among the lobbyists for realism), and perhaps those models have already been put to use in Super Smash Bros. Melee. Indeed, that screenshot may have been part of SSBM while it was in development. Thanks! Interdigital

Um, how do you have A Link to the Past after all those other titles? The characters in A Link to the Past are the ancestors of those in Zelda for the NES - this is said by Nintendo in various A Link to the Past promotional materials, box art, Nintendo Power Magazine, etc, as well as the pun in the title itself. Please give some info. Andrevan

As the article noted, Miyamoto has stated that LttP takes place after the two NEs games. I know that it makes little sense, but that's his take on the subject. Admittedly, Miyamoto seems a little disconnected from the storylines of his games - he seems to be much more focused on concept and gameplay, and probably considers details of the plot to be of lesser importance.

Khanartist

Okay, I finally tracked down the source of the chronology confusion, ie that LttP takes place after the first game. It comes from an interview he did with the Swedish magazine Superplay, in whch he stated that LttP was the true sequel to LoZ. Taken out of context, it muddies the timeline waters, but he's actually saying this in reference to how different Zelda 2 was from the rest of the series. He was disappointed in Zelda 2, and ensured that LttP would feature LoZ's gameplay. It's not a chronological sequel, but a conceptual sequel.Khanartist

That makes sense. Will you change the article to reflect your research? Theanthrope 20:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense now. I was sure that LttP took place before the NES Zeldas, and clearly it does. Andrevan

I'm not so sure the Chronology section is that necessary in this section, as it is purely imaginary. Fan theory websites are more suited for that kind of thing.--Illitariat 23:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Has anyone noticed how in most of the paired Zelda games on the same console (excluding the Oracle titles, which are directly connected), the second title is radically different in either story, placing or gameplay? Setokaiba 22:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a well-known trend in Zelda games. In the first game they "explore" the technology of the new console and what it can or can't do, and in the second they expand upon that and look at the storyline and such more, and have a much more fantastical game. While Link's Awakening might seem to break from this trend, there is some evidence that LA was originally an "LTTP2" and then redeveloped for the Game Boy format. Look at the picture in the linked discussion, and note the undeniable similarities between its overworld map and that of LTTP. NO Zelda game ever has its overworld that similar to a previous entry, unless it was a direct sequel. That is my theory, that originally LA was a sort of "LTTP2" and then was edited. After all, in 1992 they probably were already considering planning for the end of the SNES's lifespan, and so chose the Game Boy, perhaps already knowing even back then that at some point they would make a new and compatible Game Boy unit to give the game a longer lifespan (as it is, you can play it on the GBA, so it's lifespan has been long indeed). Or, at least, that is my theory, and there's some pretty significant evidence towards it... (Garrett, 19:02, 12 Apr 2005, GMT)

---

Are you sure Tolkienian legend was the inspiration for LoZ?(Could you then say that for any medieval fantasy story?) I saw in a Discovery channel interview that Shigeru Miyamoto was heavily inspired by his explorations as a boy in the forests surrounding his childhood home in Kyoto, he even mentions one of his inspirations, a beautiful lake he suddenly found in the middle of the woods, and which according to him, in one way or another is always present in the Zelda games. Kreachure 20:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Glad you're interested. As I see no opposition or more reliable sources than Miyamoto himself, I'll go ahead and make the changes I mentioned. Also, I noticed it's under Plot, which is a little bit awkward, as well as those japanese culture references, which are mainly unfounded, so for clarity's sake, I will remove them until somebody has enough interest to insert it properly again. Kreachure 23:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TSA's most recent edits

Too much information was stripped in these edits - there is a chronology that can be assembled from the Zelda developers' quotes and such. Andre (talk) 01:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I noticed his cuts. You're probably right, but most come from vague off-hand references in interviews on 20+ different websites. So it's hard to keep on top of what's fact and what's just fan invention. So ideally there'd be a reference link for each of these contentious points so people can click through and read it for themselves. Master Thief Garrett 03:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's also clear evidence for part of the fan chronology based on manuals, boxes, and that sort of thing. Official quotes directly contradict this evidence. I guess it's a matter of what you take as canon. Deco 04:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, put another way, which is more official, some words on the back of a box written by some writeup guy or other, often supsceptible to translation discrepancies, or a statement out of the mouth of Miyamoto/Aunoma, the guys who actually created the game? I'd say that if Miyamoto says something with a sense of finality, then his word is law. Whereas for some parts of the chronology he says that he himself doesn't really know, so for those cases other sources could be easily accepted as well. Master Thief Garrett 05:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this is the first time I'm using a talk page on wikipedia, and I like to join in on the chronology discussion. I personally think chronology is pretty unimportant for an article about the Zelda games because there seems to be a lack of it. To me, it seems more of a discussion that ultimately doesn't affect future games. I'm suggesting that "Chronology" be removed from the main page and into a seperate article. Another option would be moving chronology to a later part of the article. I consider the history of the Zelda series more important than possible chronologies. - Reyontoyeny

---

Considering, without hesistation, I would say I know the most about Zelda than any other person on earth, I removed stuff that was unfounded and based in questionable materials.

The purpose of Wiki is to give out fact, not fiction. We do not need ANY timeline theories here, the only point we should get across is:

1) There is some form of a timeline 2) It is a source of controversy 3) There are issues over what counts as canon

Getting into the details will just confused the average person. We simply need to focus on Miyamoto's quote that there is a master document for the timeline, Eiji Aonuma saying he will make the timeline "fixed", the argument of fans over what the timeline is, and whether or not there is only one, and finally, what sources should fans use when constructing the timeline.

As for the other stuff I edited - I fixed up dates and official credits to certain titles. I also went through the character entries and fixed some inaccuracies and wording. For example, Ganon is just the nickname of Ganondorf according to Miyamoto, the two names can be interchangeable.

The OoT entry had this crap about some Race War. That does not need to be in that entry. I changed it to be "The Fierce War", as called by the in-game text, and simply said it took place before OoT and the King unified the country, that's all.

There are others, but I'm not done yet. Some morons made a GANNON-BANNED entry, then it was merged with this, then they tried to make another one and the entry got locked...so I just made sure the one put here was accurate...but whatever, it's not important.

If you have any questions about edits or things that may need editing, IM me at SolidTSASnake. Whoever did the new Zelda and The Minish Cap entry, great job. I didn't find one thing wrong with them (when I checked).

Also, to that Ura Zelda question: The original Zeruda no Densetsu: The Hyrule Fantasy Famicom Disk has two sides, and ther 2nd side is called "Ura-Zelda". It's just the generic name for "Another Zelda". There were two 64 DD Zelda titles - Ura-Zelda which we got as Master Quest, and another one that never came out that had totally new dungeons, new overworld, etc. Some of it can still be access with the GameShark Beta codes for Ocarina of Time, such as the demolished Hyrule Field after a Tornado hits. - TSA) 04:46, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Holy Hyrule, I just realised, you're TSA himself!!! Well, that's certainly proof enough that you know your Zelda! You're certainly right about keeping it to a minimum. If people want more, Google will be happy to provide a heap of theories. I think that ALL timeline content should be in this topic ONLY. I'm fairly sure it is, but I think there was at least one other bit flying around (was it on the OOT page?) ...so what you've done is fine!

That's interesting about Ura Zelda. I was under the impression that the bits touted as "Beta Zelda" were of the *original* OOT, and that OOT's release hugely predated the creation of the Ura Zeldas, but you could be right. As for the disk flipping, does that mean you don't need to finish the first quest and/or enter "ZELDA" as your name like in the cart versions? Interesting...

As for the GANNON-BANNED info, well, I'm sure you're flattered an' all, but I certainly couldn't see how much value it had. It's a private joke, many Zelda sites don't even know about the Rules, and thus its demotion to a subsection here I suppose is the best that can be done for it. Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why is TSA famous? I think I've seen him as a sage on the Nintendo.com forums, but that doesn't really mean anything. Andre (talk) 21:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

TSA is famous for systematically going through all the Zelda games and claiming the world record for speedrunning them. He's probably best known for his 5hr 4min run of Ocarina of Time, and due to new tricks recently learned, is going back to get a sub 5 hour run made. He's also got a Zelda 1 record, a WindWaker record, some 4 swords records, the Minish Cap record... he's stated that his goal is to hold the record for every single Zelda game made (except the cdi ones). He's also quite involved in the fan community, excessively detailed when it comes to analysing story and game information, thoroughly knowledgeable-- the list goes on. It's my estimation that aside from Miyamoto and Aonuma, he knows more about the games and series than anyone. I wonder if TSA deserves an article of his own around here... he is getting a name for himself... Fieari 13:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - Some guy made the article, then he made the sub-section. I had to register this name cuz somebody was posing as me, so now this is me, no questions. Anyway, I found it odd, too, you could just turn over the famicom disk and play the 2nd Quest. It actually says "SIDE A" and "SIDE B" in English. The manual refers to SIDE B as "Ura Zelda".

As for Beta OoT...it would be awesome go get development notes from Late 1997-summer 1998 for Ocarina of Time. A lot of things could be revealed if such a resource were made avaiable.

--TSA 07:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to look into more about how FDS data works. If there was really enough data on a single side for one entire game, why weren't games of the time very long, to conform with the cartridge version limits?

Unlesss someone pulls a StarFox2 on us, this won't happen. Certainly, if nothing else, it appears that at least 35% of the game was completely redesigned/removed in the course of its creation, not to mention the "Alpha Quest" that's only in screenshots! The other noteworthy major redesign would be that of the Oracles, from three down to two, and that was done when Seasons was officially at 70% completion! It's sad to think of all that must have been thrown away in that cut... Master Thief Garrett 08:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About GANNON-BANNED

I don't get why so many people think it is obscure. It is a common use at Zelda Universe, Zelda Legends, Ganon's Tower, Nintendo.com' Nsider Forums, GameFAQs, my own forum, and numerous other sites.

Some sites abhor it. Some fans abhor it. But it doesn't make it irrelevant. At the very least, it's a term used by NOA folks to talk about Zelda mistakes now. So I don't get how that is obscure. Go to IGN forums - some dude just made a new GANNON-BANNED thread. Seriously, more people know about it than don't. The only people who want it gone are 1) People I offended with it or 2) People who are jealous.

If you think it should go cuz you're "elitist" or something, ha. You don't get much more elitist in Zelda than me, so take a seat. And yes, I meant to be rude to the person who edited out my stuff. Vote all you want, NOA will send an e-mail to Wiki admins to perma-keep the article if you keep erasing it.

Thanks

Yes, thanks indeed! It shows it is out there. I suggested it be deleted as I didn't really know how used it was (not used at any of the Zelda forums I frequent), but if Zelda Universe and Nsider use it that's darned good enough for me!!! Those two are the big ones!

Maybe there should be a "QuickPoll" thing on the matter, so others don't think that it remains entirely due to an oligarchy of all you big biased webmasters throwing your weight around. This way, democracy deems its fate!

And as for being a Zelda elietist, I'd say TSA wins that award. Come on, he argues about the use of "the" in names! Not that I care, I think it's a good thing to uphold! Master Thief Garrett 23:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dude, it's not about being elitist. It's about how useful that info is. Please, take it from a neutral point of view. First, you are not the owner of the Topic, as you should know. Therefore, you must not take any other's opinnion to the trash and keep yours as the right one. Second: Nintendo of America has no power over Wikipedia, neither over me. So I should say that if you have nice contacts there (what's not that ethical to use this kind of influence in a place like this) just keep them for yourself. And also, you do not have any right to call me a "moron" in the first place, I think you should just be a little polite, mainly at my Talk Page. I've trying to improve his place, as I know it's your intention, but I see there are more people here intersted in it to be removed, of xourse if there be a poll you'll use your army of zelda-fans friends to vote it NOT TO. Well. I'm just using common-sense and a neutral point of view, wich you are not! -Imperator 00:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, an anonymous IP wrote this, not TSA. It was TSA who called you a moron. Just a thought...

About the NOA threatening, well, um, yes, um, yes I doubt NOA is really going to be too concerned. It's not like it's a misrepresentation of their copyrighted creations. I think TSA and (this guy) went a little overboard there. I didn't want to be the one to say it, but now you have, yes I'll second that.

Oh! You have a VERY good point about the poll! Yes there is a possibility to fudge the voting. Hm. Um. Yes. I'd forgotten about the problem of the overly-loyal fans, as we've already seen demonstrated by the constant deletion/replacement/deletion/replacement of the G-B article to begin with. So much for my perfect argument-solving idea!

I'm still very much on the "delete it!" front, but if it's really going to cause so many issues maybe we should just both drop it and leave it be. Since it looks like neither side's going to win, and as you say a poll won't work either... and at any point this could boil over with some very nasty things being said. Master Thief Garrett 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users can't vote on VfDs or binding polls, and users with very small amounts of edits are seen as sockpuppets. Pages voted to be deleted on VfD don't need to be voted on again if they are recreated. Andre (talk) 18:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Zelda = RPG?

The Legend of Zelda doesn't fit the standard role-playing game genre. I'd consider it more of an action-adventure game. It's missing the crucial character creation aspect (in all the Zelda games I've played, at least). Thoughts? --Poiuyt Man (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, IMHO Zelda definitely can be considered a roleplaying game. Character creation, though used in many roleplaying games, is not essential to a roleplaying game. There are a lot of games out there that define the characters beginning stats, especially console games like Secret of Mana, the Final Fantasy series or of course the Zelda series, but also some PC games like e.g. Gothic. Additionally, an RPG doesn't even need to contain any visible stats at all, as it doesn't define itself by a set of rules. What (IMHO) makes an RPG an RPG is that it features a mixture of fighting, collecting, quest accomplishing, storytelling and (most importantly) dialogues with various characters. And this I'd say definitely is accomplished by the Zelda series. Genesis 12:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a more accurate term to describe what I meant would be be "character-customization" rather than "character-creation". I would agree that an RPG includes item-collecting and questing, and to a lesser extent fighting, dialogue, and storytelling (MMOGs often lack the latter two). However, a large aspect of most definite-RPGs is some sort of class- or skill- based system that has a significant impact on how the game is played. The Zelda games have a more-or-less linear character progression system, with slight variations on which item is picked up first, and how many heart containers are obtained. This is the basic formula of an action game, and is seen in just about every first-person shooter today. The dialogue and story elements do set it apart from these games, but these elements have always been found in point-and-click adventure games. Thus, I think "action-adventure" is an appropriate title. Another more recent game that would fit this genre would be the PS2 Grand Theft Auto series (although it's a bit more action-y, it does share the freedom of exploration, quest-based system, and a fairly linear character progression mostly based on weapons). --Poiuyt Man (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no general consensus in the world on this point, so we simply can't say anything one way or the other, regardless of what explanation we have to back it up. Deco 14:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Then I propose the following intro:

The Legend of Zelda (ゼルダの伝説 シリーズ Zeruda no Densetsu Shirīzu; often shortened to just Zelda) is a series of video games created by Nintendo and industry legend Shigeru Miyamoto that began in February 1986. The games are set in a fantasy world, and the gameplay generally consists of a mixture of action, adventure, and role-playing. It is considered one of the most influential video game franchises ever created.

What do you think? --Poiuyt Man (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds very good. It leaves the whole mess entirely up to the RPG page to clear up. Master Thief Garrett 04:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You may want to decide soon because of this - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/7. They're planning on deleting character articles from ALL RPGs because of vanity issues from MMORPGs. That means that Link and Princess Zelda will be gone. ~ Hibana

THe legend of zelda is not and RPG, because RPG's include level gaining. - Abhorsen123 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who believe that Zelda is an RPG obviously contest this point. Also, Zelda 2 had experience and levels, but well, it was weird. Deco 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One could go on and on about the individual RPG elements that Zelda does or does not have, but that is not how you classify art into a genre. Genre classification is a matter of subtle nuances like what previous works influenced the work in question, what its most comparable works are classified as, etc. You normally cannot include or exclude a work to a genre based on just one characteristic. There is a lot of "gray area," but the idea is that you are striving for a best-fit classification. In other words, simply "having RPG elements" does not make a game an RPG; but when RPG elements are the dominant characteristics of the game, above and beyond any other non-RPG characteristics, then it is an RPG. Since Zelda is the absolute archetype of an action/adventure game, and its action/adventure elements are the dominant characteristics of the game above and beyond any RPG elements, it seems that calling it an RPG simply because it also has some of those elements is rather misleading and defeats the point of genre classification to begin with. Nintendo's "Adventure Series" began with Zelda, IIRC, so again, trying to call it an RPG is clear case of missing the forest for the trees. Genre classification is about the overall focus or theme of gameplay mechanics, not any one specific detail. --The Yar 06:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo classifies it as an Action/Adventure. I think that pretty much all that matters. Hyrule 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Article title: "The Legend of Zelda" or "The Legend of Zelda series"?

Another suggestion: move The Legend of Zelda series to The Legend of Zelda, and move The Legend of Zelda to The Legend of Zelda (game) (edit: maybe (1986 game)). I think the series overview would be what most users expect when they type in "The Legend of Zelda". --Poiuyt Man (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right about this, but I also think the current names are more accurate. A notice at the top of The Legend of Zelda might not hurt though. I'll add this. Deco 02:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That notice looks good. I reworded it to say "the first" instead of "the original". Just because that sounds better somehow... plus people will often say "arcade original" and then all the other games are ports of it. There is no such case of that in Zelda (until now with the rereleases) so I think this wording is better. IMO of course, your opinions may vary.

He's right about that game coming up first, but, there's probably no reason to go moving it without need. Plus we'd need to fix a heap of links, and any time someone name-guesses a link to the original game by merely typing it in and then previwing to make sure it isn't red, they'll end up mis-linking to the wrong page. Master Thief Garrett 04:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Also I named The Legend of Zelda series races, The Legend of Zelda series characters, etc. to deliberately match the name of the core page. If you change that one, they wouldn't match any more. Not that that matters, but just a thought... Master Thief Garrett 04:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see the merits of keeping the "series" suffix. However, if the page is indeed moved at any point in the future, I'd be more than willing to fix all the redirects and links and such. I find repetitive, menial tasks strangely relaxing. Just drop me a line on my talk page if this needs doing (or for any other article, actually). --Poiuyt Man (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

hehe... masochists are always welcome on Wikipedia... I'll keep you in mind... hehe... Master Thief Garrett 10:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This same task can be done fairly easily with the Pywikipedia bot. The solve_disambiguation.py script with the right command-line options does a lot of the work for you. Deco 20:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? That's... weird... but it makes sense I guess... I doubt I'd be able to work out how to use such a tool though... Master Thief Garrett 23:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Miyamoto childhood

Could someone provide a reference for this paragraph?

The Legend of Zelda was principally inspired by Miyamoto's explorations as a young boy in the forests surrounding his childhood home in Kyoto. Miyamoto has mentioned that several elements of his 'adventures' through those woods were taken into the Zelda games, like a lake he suddenly found one day in the middle of the forest, which at the time surprised him for being a totally new discovery for him, and which according to him, has been a recurrent element in all of the Zelda games (both the lake and the exploration and discovery factors).

I can't find anything on Google relating this particular experience of his. This biography [8] tells of his discovery of a cave, and that's all I've been able to dig up. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to give this a week or so before replacing it with the cave story. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The cave story certainly is more authoritative, yes... of course it could be that both are true. After all if he was always exploring these woods he probably made many "discoveries" (from a child's eyes of course)... Master Thief Garrett 15:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems the story was added[9] by Kreachure, who hasn't been active since December 2004. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it seems there's finally some interest in this, this discussion page is ten times longer than I last left it! Indeed, I was the one who put the lake reference, the same day I watched a Discovery channel production many months ago, which accounted the history of videogames, which included interviews with very important game creators, like Alexey Pajitnov (and his wacky adventures with the KGB), and, yes, Shigeru Miyamoto. For the sake of (your) believability, he was interviwed in what seemed a very traditional japanese house mat, while he was attempting to show some ability on playing a guitar. Not only does he talk about the "fantastic" finding of the lake in the woods, which according to him is a prime example of his inspirations of Zelda, but the documentary also shows a montage of such finding of the lake (with typical japanese orange fish and all), and then compares it to a 'scene' of what I strongly believe is the very first Zelda game, with Link battling beside a river. I am not only relying on my often regretful memory now, but also on your trust, for I have no physical proof of this documentary, but I think for once I am right on this one. So I will be expecting your response to see how we, if at all, could put this humble but honest fact back on this page. Thanks. Kreachure 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

That's really interesting. I'd love to get access to a copy of that. Based on the info you've given, you may be referring to a The Learning Channel documentary called Gameheadz:

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/393/393503p1.html

Am I right? Deco 28 June 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Right on the money, thanks! Well, now that I have some tangible proof, I guess we can put it back in along with the cave story, simply because it's info from the man himself. I think both stories are worth mentioning as inspirations.

Also, I'm putting forward some very vital info about Zelda, which I wish would be taken into consideration (check out the "Vital facts" section here). Kreachure 3 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

GANNON-BANNED move

I've moved the GANNON-BANNED section to the Camp Hyrule article. I realise this was perhaps a little too bold with the current wars over it, but I hope everyone finds it to be an acceptable compromise. --Deco 23:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the wars *were* a couple of weeks ago and things seem to have died down... except for the anon IPs that keep vandalising it... so it's probably best to leave it there. There is nothing wrong with being bold! --Master Thief Garrett 05:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this should be the best method to deal with this. I think now both parties should be satisfied, as the article still exists, but is placed where it fits. --Genesis 10:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Zelda DS not Four Swords

Altough it has been confirmed a DS Zelda Four Swords is in development, apparently it has also been confirmed that a non-Four Swords DS Zelda game is in development. Also, Nintendo have said that Capcom are not developing it like games like the Minish Cap, and it is being developed by Nintendo itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zooba (talk • contribs) 09:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

THANK GOD! Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures were virtually useless without three players. *Cough*CRYSTAL CHRONICLES!*Cough*

I've read on IGN that a DS Zelda game was in the works, but I have not seen it confirmed on either the Nintendo site or the official Zelda site. Can anyone find an *official* statement to this (i.e. on nintendo.com or zelda.com or an actual quote from someone involved in the project)? Note: I'm not bashing anyone. It seems logical that a Zelda game would be released on the DS. I'm just looking for a more official reference that I can read for myself. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[10] Zelda Universe's news article with the info Ian Moody 21:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. Zelda.com and Nintendo.com aren't the best source for news. Especially Zelda.com (which isn't even run by a Zelda fan).

1. 2. Four Swords was great, and so was Minish Cap. And Capcom NEVER developed a Zelda game. It was the unfair doings of Nintendo and Capcom that hid the developer, who was Flagship - an independent developer funded by Capcom, Nintendo and Sega to be involved in some of their games. When it comes to the Four Swords, the Oracles and Minish Cap, they did all the work. -- A Link to the Past 22:48, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Nintendo is not inclined toward making Zelda games for the Nintendo DS, because the Nintendo DS does not have enough buttons in order to use three items equipped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs) 21:46, November 25, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm... what kind of argumentation is that??? I believe that the former Gameboy's had even less buttons and I remember that I played Zelda games on them. The only thing that might NOT work would be a port of a Nintendo 64 game like OoT, as the N64 controller had quite some more buttons. (Still quite a shame, I'd love to play OoT on DS). By the way, you might want to add your signature to your comment. -- Genesis 09:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The wrong kind of argumentation. Unless he can provide a source from Nintendo stating that, I wouldn't put much weight in it. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass is the name of the new Zelda game for DS. It will be released in 2006! This info is from the GDC. --Michael Ray 19:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dethl=Vaati?

Anyone remember when you fight the Nightmares at the very end of Links Awakening? The final Nightmare, Dethl, bears a resemblence to Vaati. If this takes place after Four Swords, then it is possible that this is a shadow of Vaati or that Vaati wanders the realm of dreams, haunting Link and his descendents for all time. Of course, he would have been defeated at the end of Link's Awakening, so he wouldn't be haunting the future generation of Links. But then again...What happened to the Wind Fish after Link's Awakening?

Interesting theory, but I think Vaati was made by Flagship. -- A Link to the Past 23:11, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Merged content from Multiple Links Theory

I justed merged content from Multiple Links Theory as a result of the VfD there. --Deathphoenix 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding External Links...

Am I correct in believing that we can all agree that the majority of the external links for this article are fansites? I would hope so. Is it fair, though, that only large, "super-sites" can get links in the external links sections? Sure, you would say that you have to put a hold on the number eventually, but I never saw the list grow too large. In my opinion, either everyone should have a chance for a link, or no one. However, you may say that the article links to the best/most helpful fansites on the Web. Suprisingly enough, the largest sites aren't always the best, and hits don't mean everything. Just some thoughts... (Ah, and one last thing. Even if the majority of the sites on the list are some of the best, "Zelda Elements" is on there, which hasn't been active in a long time! I can hardly see that site as being wonderfully useful!) ~Akira~ 12 June 2005

The important criteria to me for a site being listed is that it's a widely known and well-established, as well as having lots of useful information. A good example is Zelda Headquarters, which is old as dirt, popular, and comprehensive. Authoritativeness is most important, but there are so few official sites that we really have to back off on that. Also, it helps if a site, as well as being well-established, also provides a substantially different viewpoint or set of information from other sites on the list. Deco 05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you can determine a certain amount of authoritativeness with fansites. Zelda Legends, Zelda Universe and Ganon's Tower (that I know of, no doubt others exist) get hi-res packs of screenshots and promo art direct from the company. So if a fansite can earn that honour I'd say they make the grade all right! And as for the largest sites not always being the best... how does site become big and popular anyway? Well, by having great content. Which leads to a fanbase growing up and inspires more content. So if a site doesn't have very much unique content, I'd say it's not going to grow. Ever.

As for having different viewpoints, many of the lesser fansites have promising beginnings, but often finish up by weakly regurgitate info other sites have already stated and thought of, and sometimes even stoop so low as to summarise a theory by some GameFAQs nobody or other rather than focussing on the other angles of the story (in many cases, that the other 60% of Zelda fans don't agree with that theory). That's the problem, they appear identical to the hundreds of other obscure fansites, and have nothing much that jumps out saying, "Bookmark me! Visit me again!" unlike the larger sites. The big ones, despite reporting the very same facts or rumours, somehow end up being quite unique. Their exclusives help greatly; ZU has Behind the Rupees, ZL has its articles (I forget the name), PlanetNintendo had summaries of all the timeline (and other) theories, and so on. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as we're mentioning this "weak regurgitation", let me throw up a link to TSA's rant on Zelda fansites called "Pay Me for the Door Repair". Deco 04:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In popular culture mistake

I was reading this article, and found a mistake. The thing about the System of a Down song is that it's not by them. The song was used in a flash animation by Legendary Frog, and is apparently by The Rabbit Joint. For some reason a lot of people file share this song as a SoaD song, but you can check on Legendary Frog's website and the SoaD website, at least their message board. Just thought I'd point this out.

Thanks for the tip. I'll take care of this. Deco 05:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vital info missing!

Two tidbits:

• In many of his interviews, Miyamoto has referred to creating the Zelda games as an attempt to bring to life a "miniature garden" for players on every version of the game. [11] [12] [13]I think this fact is significant info that should be on the page.

• And speaking of vital info, there's no info on the reasons Miyamoto chose the name Zelda for the title even when she wasn't the main character. It is of course a nod to F. Scott Fitzgerald's wife, and nothing else, and because it sounded so good to him as a title, it has stuck for the entirety of the franchise. [14] [15] (It's mentioned as a secondary reason on the Princess Zelda page, but I believe as the very title of this page, it too deserves a good explanation here.)

I'll put these two by tomorrow if there are no objections.

Deletion of RPG characters.

As part of the present proposal to expand the criteria for speedy deletion, it has been suggested that all RPG characters that do not have a basis for existence in a book or other offline medium should be deleted. I suspect this was well-intentioned effort but seems unreasonably broad. Since this would seem to call for the elimination of all or nearly all articles in Legend of Zelda characters, I figure that this community needs to be made aware of the impact of this proposal. Voting is also up for this proposal.

See: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/7. --ZeWrestler 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

LoZ image at beginning of article

It's probably just me, but I think the image at the beginning of the article looks a bit... well, old. Maybe it could be the logo of the most recent Zelda game released, and each time a new one is released, the image could be updated? Link 05:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Except that the logo of each new game usually includes the subtitle as well, which would in no way be appropriate for a general article on the series. Fieari 06:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this one did as well before it was edited, if you look at its image page. I think it's a very nice-looking image, though, not significantly worse than any "modern" one. Deco 21:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Zelda.com.

This should be removed from all articles. It is factually inaccurate, and created pointless debates with its poor translations (like the Miyamoto interview) and the terrible timeline. I'm going to take the liberty of removing crap from the Zelda articles right now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

When did the chronology section become so bloated? I know there's a lot to cover, but a lot of it is speculation, and a lot of it is rehashing plot points described elsewhere. I propose that we move the bulk of the section to a new article, say, The Legend of Zelda (timeline), and provide a short summary of the issues here (there is a timeline, we don't know exactly what the timeline is although there are clues, it has been promised that the timeline will be cleared up). The new article could also present a sample timeline (the ZHQ timeline being the most well known amongst fans, if I'm not mistaken)... or two sample timelines, to show how they differ and exemplify the controversy.

I won't make such a major change without first seeing what you guys think. So, what do you think? Fieari 20:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Although I'm very much against having sample timelines because I don't think the fan community has come to the place where there is concensus on the issue. I could talk to ten different fans and get ten different timelines in return, so I don't think we should be in the business of promoting one or two or three over the many, MANY other possible timelines. I think we should stick to the facts, saying that certain games are linked or presumed to be linked, and then be done. This makes the process very quick and easy and ensures that we keep NPOV. The Missing Link 21:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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 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 Past (talk) 00:15, 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 Past (talk) 02:09, 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 Past (talk) 02:40, 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 Past (talk) 18:47, 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 Past (talk) 19:45, 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 Past (talk) 20:35, 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 Past (talk) 21:02, 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 Past (talk) 21:22, 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 Past (talk) 21:48, 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.--Prosfilaes 21:24, 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 Past (talk) 21:48, 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 Cat ^Talk 22:17, 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.--Prosfilaes 22:28, 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 Past (talk) 23:20, 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? --Prosfilaes 23:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)--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. --Prosfilaes 01:10, 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. Deco 04:06, 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. Lifeboat 14:44, 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? JQF 14:09, 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. Hyrule 15:38, 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. JQF 19:25, 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.

--TSA 23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I made all these revisions. I hope adding in some information requested helps (like the NP issues). --TSA 07:21, 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 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.--Darksasami 17:39, 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.--Prosfilaes 02:04, 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? --Darksasami 17:40, 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.

Dbblsanta 15:14, 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 Moody 19:39, 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. Deco 19:49, 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. Dbblsanta 21:18, 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 Moody 22:15, 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 Moody 22:15, 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 Past (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You, like Deco, appear to have misunderstood my point. - Ian Moody 11:59, 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.--TSA 07:19, 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 Past (talk) 09:54, 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. Dbblsanta 13:59, 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. --Impossible 05:31, 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. Deco 08:22, 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? --Impossible 12:01, 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. --Impossible 12:34, 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. 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. Deco 08:30, 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 "The"

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 — 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. Deco 05:05, 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. Deco 07:34, 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. --Prosfilaes 09:26, 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. --Impossible 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you are suggesting that we write 'The The Legend of Zelda series...'? --Pagrashtak 03:46, 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. --Impossible 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if the series begins with an article, you drop the article: the Legend of Zelda series. --Pagrashtak 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Miyamoto and his "Master Document"

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? 70.106.199.132 05:30, 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. Deco 09:51, 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: [16]. 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. Fieari 03:54, 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. 71.124.16.93 05:31, 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. 71.244.171.123 16:52, 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. 71.244.171.123 21:06, 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.--TSA 20:17, 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? 71.124.16.93 05:00, 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. --TSA 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He probably said it to shut people up and to stop them asking him questions. Rdunn 17:33, 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. Lbbzman 14:45, 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

WP:DP has the deletion policy and links to list an article for deletion in 3 steps. Let me know if you need help. Lbbzman 16:07, 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. Lbbzman 17:34, 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. Fieari 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I weakly 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.--TSA 20:25, 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 Rdunn 17:07, 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? Kcordina 12:24, 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. JQF 16:02, 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. ~ Hibana 00:57, 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. -- ReyBrujo 01:04, 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. -- Hyrule 05:15, 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 is invisible 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 Yar 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other then the picture at the page? Here you go: [17] Hyrule 21:58, 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 Yar 15:41, 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? Hyrule 00:58, 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 Yar 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on it was deleted again, so I've removed the link. Not verifiable. --The Yar 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also rearranged the paragraphs about it in the Upcoming Games section. There seemed to be some confusion. --The Yar 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet you leave a link to the article on IGN verifying it. Hyrule 00:04, 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 Yar 18:37, 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. Hyrule 08:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 unsigned comment was added by Hyrule (talk • contribs) .

Archive?

Who thinks the talk page is ready for an archive? 71.244.170.75 14:02, 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. -- ReyBrujo 16:32, 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. -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 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. --TSA 05:50, 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. --TSA 03:23, 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... --TSA 03:23, 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. --TSA 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous strikes again

64.42.226.82 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 Titanium 20:18, 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. Lifeboat 00:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

archive?

can we archive this talk page coz' it's a bit long. Rdunn 15:38, 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. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You got a point. I'll make a not of it. Hyrule 19:54, 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. 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 Yar 19:57, 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. Hyrule 21:49, 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. Hyrule 07:52, 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 User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion where the use of "The" is being debated. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GANNON-BANNED again!

TSA went and remade the Gannon-Banned page, even when he's clearly biased to make it and it has been previously been decided it shouldn't have it's own article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyn (talk • contribs) .

If you think it should be deleted, either send it to articles for deletion or prod it. -- ReyBrujo 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment on landofthelegend.net links in Zelda articles

Prior discussion:

1. User talk:Ian Moody#Landofthelegend.net
2. Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass#External links again
3. Talk:Mogitate Tingle no Barairo Rupee Land#Motion to lock this article from user Hyrule
4. Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess#Latest edits

Related prior discussion:

• Talk:The Legend of Zelda series#Zelda Revolution

22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The discussions speak for themselves, but for me it comes down to a few points.

1. As discussed, the main problem with citing one's own personal Web site is the potential for abuse. There is no reputation, no fact-checking, no editorial board, just the Web site owner citing himself. I would turn the other cheek, if it weren't for the fact that examples of such abuse have occurred with respect to LotL, specifically in the Zelda Revolution and Zelda Wii issues. Rumors were fabricated on the LotL, then listed as fact in the article with LotL as the citation. Both of those articles as well as the information in the main article had to be deleted.
2. The user adding the links has sometimes been informative and helpful, but more often has been vulgar and combative.
3. On more than one occassion it appears that the user adding the links has used sockpuppets in order to add supporting discussion or to get around 3RR violations. I can't really prove this, but the anonymous IP posts that show up supporting this user read suspiciously, and I'm not the only one catching it.

I realize the last two are more about the user than the Web site, but in practicality it is all the same issue.

The Yar 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this uncivil user is trying to link to his own website, with a few red herrings (e.g. [18], when the Nintendo site already says "2 player simultaneous"). If it is a continuing problem, consider filing a User RfC. Most of his edits seem to be related to the website, with a few speculative game mentions thrown in. A website could be an okay source if it were active, widely known and such, but this one looks like it could be just him and maybe some friends, despite the assertion that it has grown since May 2005 to be "the number one source of Zelda information around the world". —Centrx→talk • 02:08, 13 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. --TSA 05:40, 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 unsigned comment was added by 71.10.1.61 (talk • contribs) .

The point is that, as a general characteristic with few exceptions, Link does not talk. --The Yar 17:49, 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

"As some theories state"

Shouldn't the chronology section, to be totally unbiased, not mention any particular theories? Needs touching up. Zythe 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blessing of the "Similar Games" 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. --Ben414 05:26, 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 Spyke 05:30, 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 Ninja 07:03, 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. --Ben414 21:00, 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 Ninja 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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 Past (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)