Talk:The Legend of Zelda/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Should so-called "Unholy Triforce" be included in this article?

I think that The Wand of Gamelon, Zelda's Adventure and Link: The Faces of Evil for the Cd-i SHOULD be included in this article. Even if they are not canon, they are considered Zelda games. The "Unholy Triforce" should not be ignored.

Discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.236.154 (talk • contribs)

First, SIGN YOUR COMMENTS WITH FOUR TILDES (~~~~).

Nintendo doesn't consider them official. Jaxad0127 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do. They are just reluctant to admit it. -- 67.184.171.198 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

...isn't that the same thing as not considering them official? Axem Titanium 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a quote from Nintendo saying they are, we'll add them. Jaxad0127 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a quote from Nintendo saying that the Zelda cartoon is official, then we can let it stay. Otherwise, by this reasoning, we have to take it out.

Also, as for the quote that you're looking for, on the back of both Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil (and, I'd bet, Zelda's Adventure) says in bold, black letters "Licensed by Nintendo". There's you a quote. 71.244.181.205 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a scan handy? The cartoons are official, check their articles. Those games don't even have "The Legend of Zelda" in their titles (granted neither does Zelda 2 (Adventure of Link), but it's story is referenced by the other games). Their not listed in the games list on the official site. Jaxad0127 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, every Nintendo game has a seal the says "Licensed by Nintendo" but does that make them part of Zelda canon? No. Axem Titanium 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Only those with Legend of Zelda in the title (plus Zelda II) are generally considered to be cannon. I wouldn't be against a section for the CD-i games (with a disclaimer about them not considered cannon). Jaxad0127 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no scan (no scanner). You'll just have to take my word for it (unless someone else comes along who has one or more of these games). We seem to be discussing two different things here... "The cartoons are official" and "[...] not considered canon". While I agree that the CD-i games aren't generally considered canon (and neither is the cartoon), the CD-i games are just as official as the cartoon. The lack of "The Legend of Zelda" in the title is a silly arguement (as y'all pointed out, Zelda II doesn't have it in the title).

Axem, you're right... Ever Nintendo game says "Licensed by Nintendo". That doesn't make them part of the Zelda "canon", no. But it does make them "Official", which is what we were discussing here. 71.244.181.205 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Every game on all of Nintendo's consoles has "Licensed by Nintendo" on it. Many (most?) were made without any involvement from Nintendo. Do those three words mean they're all official Nintendo games? No. Jaxad0127 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Officially made by Nintendo"? No. "Officially Licensed by Nintendo"? Yes. Again, the CD-i Games are just as "official" as the cartoon series was. 71.244.181.205 02:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't happen to be very official. lol. Axem Titanium 02:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Captain N(intendo) show was created by Nintendo.

So wait, Axem... you're saying that a game (well, three games, actually) created with lisence and permission from the company who owns the franchise aren't "official"? 71.244.181.205 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be in the minority here, considering that you're the only one actively arguing this case, and that your only four edits are on this subject. Unless consensus dictates that they should be included as a legitimate, informative contribution to the article, then they will stay out. Personally, I think that having it there would only invite vandalism. Axem Titanium 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My only four edits from this IP are on this subject. If power hadn't went out yesterday or I bothed to log-in, there'd be other edits. Either way, that seems like a pretty darn ignorant way to justify anything.

So, does Wiki go by consensus or by fact? 71.244.181.205 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the theory of wikiality, fact follows consensus, lol. So what would you rather do? Have a really poorly written section of the article sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle somewhere? Besides, it doesn't seem to be important enough to the series as a whole to be included in the main article. After all, the Game and Watch Zelda games aren't mentioned either. Axem Titanium 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to be poorly written? As far as it not being important enough... probably not. But these three games seem to be the dark horse of the series that few know about (not just the names of them and that they're bad, but have actually played them) and many seem to ask about... It seems like someone (not me, I make minor edits) could write a well written paragraph or two on them.

As far as the "official" status, I was talking with a friend (who agrees with y'all) and came to the solid viewpoint of my stance - To me, the games are official simply because Nintendo gave legal permission to Phillips Interactive Media to create and sell the games (even if they regretted that permission later). The status of "Unofficial" should be reserved for Fanmade and Homebrew games like Zelda Classic or OoT 2D - games made without the legal permission of Nintendo. 71.244.181.205 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This has to be flamebait. No Zelda fan on the planet considers the CD-i games canon. They weren't produced by Nintendo, and very few people have even played them. To include their details woven into the main text as though they were canon would violate the majority viewpoint - at best, such details should be discussed in a separate section. And I agree that the cartoon series is also not widely accepted as canon, and so any facts used from it should be qualified as such. Deco 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a small interjection here, both Oracle games, Four Swords and Minish Cap were developed (produced) by Flagship, not Nintendo. Jaxad0127 23:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read this section again. We've clarified that no one really considers the CD-i titles canon. We're not discussing that. We're discussing if the games are official or not - a completly different concept. Besides from that, I don't think the number of people who have played a game could dictate *anything* about the status of that game in relation to other games (except sales and popularity, of course) - such an arguement doesn't belong.

As I said, the debate is centered around if these games are Official or not - which is what should determine if and how they are to be included in the article. As you said yourself, the cartoon is not canon, but has about the same "official" status as the CD-i games - and it has two+ paragraphs devoted to it in the main article. 71.244.181.205 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were debating their inclusion in the article. Their canonicity or officiality doesn't really factor into their inclusion, especially considering they're held to the same level as the Game and Watch Zeldas which have their own separate article but are only mentioned in the form of a link on the series template. If you insist on their inclusion, why not just include the G&W games on the main article too? Axem Titanium 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Point, Axem. I was just going from the arguement "Should the games be included?/No, they're not Official." But yeah, that's what we should be discussing. I actually wouldn't be against a small section discussing/linking to the CD-i titles, the two LCD titles and the Board Game - IF it were well written. 71.244.181.205 01:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not against it either. As long as we make it clear that their not considered cannon by most fans. Jaxad0127 03:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So, why don't we take all the "non-canonical" but "official" media, including the cartoon, CD-I games, LCD games, and comics, and group them all into one section called "Other releases" or "Other incarnations" or something like that. Give them lip service and links to their respective articles. We don't really need as much information as we have on the cartoon and manga on this page anyway, IMO. Take a look at the Expanded Universe part of the Star Wars article. There are dozens upon dozens of Star Wars novels, but they give you a link and a few sentences. We've got like four paragraphs on Zelda Manga. It should be saved for the dedicated article. Sraan 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me... Fieari 03:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jaxad0127 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AmenJackSparrow Ninja 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a shot. Tell me what you think. While I was working on it, I started to wonder if it would be better to have one article about all three "Unholy" titles instead of three separate ones. The articles seem to have so much similar content anyway. Something like "Philips CD-i games based on the Legend of Zelda series". Then we could link this section to a single article. Sraan 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! 71.244.181.205 04:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I went ahead and made a parent article for the Unholy Triforce and linked it in. I called it "based on" LoZ so it wouldn't be confused with being "from" the series. A minor difference perhaps. Sraan 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Great solution JackSparrow Ninja 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes me wonder what all the debate was about.--A gx7 06:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Other incarnations

An offshoot not mentioned here or found on the web was a pc version released on 5 1/4" floppy disk - does anybody remember the name of this version (It could play in black and white or colour it was that old) and add it to the list (originally posted by 195.93.21.105)

Never heard of it. Any more information would be hot. Sraan 01:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Games and History

We have a section called "Games" that only has a link to another article. Then a section called "History" that goes on to basically talks about all the games, one by one. Shouldn't we merge them? Sraan 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The timeline bar at the right hand side tells when the games first came out, but it does not state what countries they came out in, for example "The Legend Of Zelda" game did not come out in 1986 in the UK or USA. If I click on Wikipedia in English, i expect to see english results, as i live in England.. Paulasaurus 19:42, 29 October 2007

They are in order of first release, I believe. You can see release dates for separate regions in the individual game articles. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Squigglebomb 09:00 09 January 2008

So first original release of 'The Legend Of Zelda' was in 1986 but in the first paragraph of this article it says "The Legend of Zelda series has sold over 52 million copies since the release of the first game, The Legend of Zelda, in 1987" which is false. and in wikipedia's other article for the original The Legend of Zelda game on NES it also says 1986. as i am a huge fan of zelda myself i know that many sources have told me it was first released in 1986. that statement must be referring to a release in another country other than it's original country. so that statement, anything to do with that statment and it's link/referrence needs to be removed

Calatia and unreleased games

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

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

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

About the Chronology section...

Shouldn't we list the games in order of plot progression rather than release date? That would be so much easier to manage and read. --Captain538 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That would mean that an "official" plot progression exists. Since one doesn't (or hasn't been published in a reliable source), any organization here except by release date would be original research. Axem Titanium 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted an extremely good guide on GameFAQs that explains the chronology of LoZ extremely well. http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=920769&topic=24434804 --Captain538 01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats not official. Jaxad0127 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many, MANY different interpretations of the Legend of Zelda timeline. While Shigero Miyamoto has said in the past that a master document exists, no one has ever seen it. Bosque 15:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that something should be said about the speculated chronology. It can be updated later, but Wikipedia has posted a great deal of speculation. David 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong on Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify that? We have speculation in many areas. Reasonably researched and well-documented speculation exists on everything from upcoming movies and video games to upcoming years, centuries, millennia...is there a WP policy on speculation that I don't know about? If so, can you post the link? David 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We can document that there is speculation if we have a reliable source, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't use original research, so any uncited speculation does not belong here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Read up, please. There is a link given above which features a suggested chronology. There is also a list of speculation on chronology given in the TP Walkthrough ([1], near the end of the document). I'm sure a small sampling of other LoZ sites would render more, possibly even a consensus of some sort. This would not be OR, but information gathering from pre-existing sources. David 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are, unfortunately, not reliable sources. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me what a reliable source might be, then? Official? No, we're not writing this page for Nintendo, we're writing it for general information. Who decides what sources are reliable? According to WP:NOT, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The articles listed in links above are all sourced with specific instances within the LoZ francise, making them verifiable. Subject matter would definitely merit an article if the event had already occurred- in fact, it would probably be updated within minutes. David 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i suggest we do not place any information about the plot as it is not offical and we cannot supply incorrect information. Many fans have thought up their own ideas and posted them on the internet but nothing says they are correct. Nintendo has left it's fan confused by the twisted plot, something like that is all we can say about the plot timeline, otherwise leave it as it isSquigglebomb 09:13 09 January 2008

Well, fan-made walkthroughs are expressly forbidden by wikipedia policy, so....I think we can say that that FAQ is unreliable. Also, WP:NOT is not the overriding decider - it is a type of indication that info follows the actual guidelines - verifiability, reliability, and no original research. Read those pages, and you'll quickly see why that document is unacceptable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we could have both the release date, as well as the chronological order. Remember the split timelines, see [2].

I thought it would be cool to add a bit with the new features introduced to each specific game (e.g. The Legend of Zelda introduced heart pieces, rupees, different colored armor, A Link to the Past introduced bottles, the Hookshot, the ocarina, Ocarina of time introduced the 3d environment and z targeting, as well the zoras and the gorons. Especially the aspects that precedented changes in later titles and improved overall gameplay/ playability. I've got a bit written up, if anyone likes the idea I'll paste it to the discussion board. I might even suggest listing the release dates only and setting a chronology section aside seperate and specifically for the debate of which title goes where chronoligically and the facts and ingame story pieces that support it. Perhaps even a graphic or table could be constructed as a timline pieceQuick silver20 05:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The chronology section should make mention known chronological orders more clearly. A sub-heading perhaps. The following IS known OoT precedes MM precedes WW Oot precedes aLttP precedes LoZ precedes ZII:AoL OoT precedes TP Where these interconnect is the debateable part.

Sidebar

There's been a little bit of a revert war going on about whether the sidebar should list the CD-i games or not. I wanted to know what everyone thought. I personally think we should leave the CD-i games (and, for that matter, the BS games) off the sidebar. Otherwise I think we would be obligated to list all the other related games like the LCD games and SSB, etc. I realize that the CD-i games were officially liscenced at the time, but I think it would be acceptable to list just the main games, as defined by the article and the Zelda games template. Sraan 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the infobox at all. It's an abuse of the Template:Infobox VG because this is a series and not a single game, as that infobox was made for. Maybe it's a WP:CVG issue but I don't think that template should be used for series. Maybe one specifically for series could be made? Axem Titanium 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been browsing other video game series articles and I have yet to find one that uses an infobox. Maybe we should nix it and just keep the logo as a picture for now. The template at the bottom works just as well. Sraan 00:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made that change, for the following reasons:

• I could find no other video game series that uses a similar infobox
• The infobox leads to too much controversy as to which games should be listed
• The infobox is not formatted for a series of games (i.e. there are many developers, including Flagship, etc, several multiplayer games - all the info would be too voluminous to list in the infobox)
• The template at the bottom serves as well or better in directing readers to the games, and is much better organized
• No one has argued doing otherwise in this discussion

Please discuss - it's easy enough to change back if we want, but please don't revert without stating reasons. Sraan 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but the article has been made part of the "Cuisine series" which it is obliviously not. Im not sure how to fix this, so someone else should.74.121.140.97 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of Release

The article says that it was first released on Februrary 21, 1492. This is ridiculous, but I do not know the correct date. I just thought this should be mentioned.

68.38.233.184 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Ok, it's been changed.

Rabbit Joint

Why does "Rabbit Joint" redirect to "The Legend of Zelda series", yet Rabbit Joint is not mentioned at all in the article?

I guess it's because Rabbit Joint is only notable for making a Zelda parody song and since that isn't notable for its own wikipedia article, it just redirects here. It probably should be deleted so as not to be misleading though. Axem Titanium 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this as well. Perhaps it can get a tiny mention at the bottom of the article under "Cultural Influence"? CallidoraBlack (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu series score

I'm removing the "Citation Needed" for the bit about "The Zelda series is the only with multiple perfect scores" because there are only six such scores, and all the games are completely unrelated but the Zelda ones.

Super Smash Brothers character choices

If you look at the history for this article, a claim that the player could choose Zelda in the N64 version appeared and was reverted at least twice that I recall. The last time it was reverted, a comment was made that the player could choose Zelda for the GCN version, but not on the N64.

To prevent this cycle, I originally added the edit comment as a footnote, which was then reverted. I have put the note back as an HTML comment instead. My hope is that this will eliminate this cycle. (BTW references can be used as footnotes, such as is done on this article, so such comments are fine.) If somebody adds the edit again, I will probably go back to the footnote. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I get it. Sorry for being so snarky when I reverted it. Sraan 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronology Theory

I made an edit earlier in the Chronology section referring to a narrative theory of the Zelda series (that many of them are not meant to be sequels or prequels, rather, retellings of the same story with similar elements in each version). This was not an original theory, nor do I feel that I placed it inappropriately within the article. Why was it tagged as vandalism and removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roscius (talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 November 2006.

I think the comment "rv vandalism" was a bit harsh, however, it did sound like original research. If you have a source for such a belief, then you should cite that reference. You might have heard such a belief expressed, but unless you can cite a reference, it will probably get challenged.

BTW - it is a good habit to always edit when you are logged in. Edits by anons are often suspect, but if it is by a user with a decent edit history, it will be taken more seriously. You would be surprised how many people get their jollies by adding subtle errors into articles. I've been guilty myself of jumping to conclusions about an honest edit. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll be more careful about logging in. Time to go reference-hunting. Roscius (talk contribs), 14:48, 10 November 2006.

This came out a while back but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXN1BF65WjI this has a pretty good theory and its from gametrailers so its a pretty reputable source, maybe it could be added to the chronology at the bottom as one theory, but whatever The Ravager 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ranking among high-grossing series

I have a big personal debate. Some of my friends say that the Zelda series is one of the highest-grossing video games series of all time, if not THE highest. Others say it's not. I won't reveal my standpoint, but what is it's confirmed ranking? Totema1 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, that list should help you out. JackSparrow Ninja 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Link's age

It should be noted that the age of link shouldn't be a factor in one's interpretation of the overall Zelda chronology; as each story is represented by the "Hero of Time," not necessarily the same Link in each story. The legend of Link has been inherited by other characters throughout the timeline as revealed in "Twilight Princess"; in which Link is told by the Ordon Spirit that he has inherited the power of the ancient hero; Link.

Why would this have to be added?
It is really just stating the overly obvious. JackSparrow Ninja 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it several times. If it hasn't been removed again yet, I'll do it now. Axem Titanium 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the line "Link is usually a boy of roughly 10 or 12 years..." to the more neutral, "Link is portrayed as being anywhere between 10 and 17 years old depending on the game." It specifically states that he's 16 in AoL, 17 in the latter part of OoT and 17 in TP, a although ti doesn't specifiy an age the artwork seems to show he's a teen in ALttP and LA as well. Overall the original phrasing just seemed misrepresentative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Luke (talk • contribs) 23:53, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup in Nature of the Protagonist

That section is very confusing and almost unreadable in parts, not to mention contains fan theories and inaccuracies. I'm tagging it. Furthermore, where was it said that Princess Zelda in Zelda II was a different Zelda from the original? 199.126.137.209 12:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A large part of the plot of Zelda II surrounded an ancient Princess Zelda, for whom all the others were supposedly named, who was cursed by a sleeping spell, which only Link could break. The ancient Zelda being put under a curse is said to be the original "Legend" of Zelda.

Other than that, I agree with you about the need for a cleanup. There are several parts which are distinctly POV or confusing, such as that bit where it talks about a supposed misquote about each game having a different protagonist. There's also a few too many citations missing and the language needs some work. To be quite honest, I'm tempted just to scrap what's there and rewrite the whole section. Corbo 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I perused the official Zelda site, looking for citations to back up the claims made about Nintendo's official stance on whether all the games contain a single protagonist (vs independent protagonists all named Link). I found no reason to believe that Nintendo makes a strong claim either way. With this in mind, I'm deleting the speculationand the suggestion that there needs to be speculation (as such a suggestion is inherently difficult to justify or substantiate). Kierah 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Error in the Overview

In the second paragraph of the overview section, Guerdo Valley should actually be Gerudo Valley, unless there is another valley that appears in the series I am unaware of...? Zer0dmb 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of that altogether, since Gerudo (Yeah, Guerdo is just a typo) Valley is only in two games. Panserbjørn 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates in the Chronology section

In the chronology section, where the dates are listed after the names of the games. The dates are taken from [3] and so are the North American launch dates. I've replaced them with the first release dates globally (the Japanese launch dates technically, since they always (with the exception of Twilight Princess) launch there first. The new dates are taken from the games' articles and I think are mentioned elsewhere in this article. I've also removed the link to zelda.com from the top of the list. It's a fairly minor thing but I thought I might not have the space to justify it in the edit summary. Corbo 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Logos In the Chronological Section

I started by putting a few, I think they make the page look classy and clean. If anyone can help continue this because I couldn't find the Gameboy ones I would thank you :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemaster Justin (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 December 2006

Capcom /Flagship

Which of these games were developed by Capcom or Flagship? These tend to have a different feel to them from the Nintendo-created games, so it would be nice to note the developer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Oracle games, Minish and Four Swords. You'll have to check me on that though. Axem Titanium 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out a bit of vandalism...

I've never done any editing on Wikipedia, have no idea what you're supposed to do about this kind of thing, so sorry if this is in the wrong place. But I saw that someone has been fiddling with the section which i believe is titled "Critical Reception"....Part of it now says something like "the series is utter pish" (whatever that means!). Could someone fix it?

Oh, I see it already got fixed! You guys are good! Cool.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.238.128 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

"Chiefly featuring a male"

The reasons I agree with this statement in a recent edit are that in two of the CD-i games, Zelda was the star. Yes, I know those games were not devolped by Nintendo, but they still happened. In addition, Link is most often, but not always a boy. In Twilight Princess he would be described as a young man, and he alternates between a boy and a 17 year old in Ocarina of Time. It is for these reasons that I am reverting to my previous edit. JONJONAUG 02:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While that may be true, this article (or at least that sentence) talks about the series as a whole and is not partial to the few exceptions. It's the same reason why the Link (The Legend of Zelda) page says Link is left-handed, rather than saying he is usually left-handed. It just makes things more complicated and wordy. A generalization that Zelda games feature a boy suffices for that sentence and the nuances of it can be explained in the individual game articles. Axem Titanium 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that page states that Link is left handed, then lists exclusions to that rule later in the article. However, there are few times that Link has been displayed without being left handed that were not the result of sprite issues. The issue that I have with that sentence is that there are two games in which that Link did not star, and a couple games where Link is not a boy that I have already named. I can see where you are coming from, but it is my belief that the version of the sentence that is currently in the article is more factual. JONJONAUG 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't it sound really wordy and awkward to you? I think maybe adding a "most" at the beginning of the sentence and keeping it at "boy" would be more concise while at the same time preserving the non-absoluteness of the statement. Axem Titanium 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm...all right, that sounds good. JONJONAUG 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that in only a few games does Link stay the same guy, for example the Link in Wind Waker is different than the one in The legend of Zelda (number 1). So saying Link is anything is a blanket statement of several people. So saying that Link is left handed in one game but right handed in another is pretty worthless as they are different people. Dagorlad 3 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

References in other games - trivia?

I'd say there's quite a difference between references in other games and media, and simple trivia. This article hasn't even got a trivia section. If it's a lot, that's one thing, but you can't blame the series for being refernced so much. Either keep it here or make a seperate article of it.

What do you think? JackSparrow Ninja 08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would really rather not have a separate article. In fact, I would rather have the cultural influence section be converted into prose so as to discourage anon editors from adding trivial mentions of the series. Not every single appearance of Link or a Link-like character is notable. A section devoted to significant references and general cultural prominence would be much more appropriate in this case. Axem Titanium 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One of the problems I've noticed on video game articles is that eventually every possible detail is inserted into the article if you aren't careful. IMHO, these articles should be comprehensive, but not exhaustive. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Citation Needed

There are several [citation needed] in the History section that imideately precede or follow a reference within the text for the factual claim being made. Do I not understand the proper use of this request? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Eagan (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I second this, somewhat. I agree that these need citations of reference, but I'm not exactly sure how we would reference the latter of the two; more specifically, the note about him saying "Come on!" Firstly, I don't actually believe this to be true, can someone please tell me when and where Link in Wind Waker is ever heard saying anything about the likes of "Come on?" AnujSuper9 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Eee, I definitely remember hearing it, not too sure when though. It could be the bit where you have to telepathically guide the statues... wait, no that doesn't make sense. Anyone feel like playing it through? I'm 100% sure it is said, and I'm not the one who put it in the article.86.142.97.93 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

86.142.97.93 is right, in the Tower of the Gods, the Earth Temple and the Wind Temple you can call your companion (statues, Medli, or Makar respectively) to you by pressing either R or A (I forget which) and Link will yell "Come on!" when you do so. I will attempt to find a video. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You don't need to find a video, but if you do, I still wouldn't mind seeing it. But anyways, I do believe it, despite that it makes me somewhat sad. I wish he hadn't spoken even those words. Though, it is notable because of that, haha. AnujSuper9 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a video. I do not remember this at all. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it! Finally. He says it repeatedly in this video, starting at 0:07. Make sure to turn your sound way down first though, I don't know what they did wrong but it's really loud and in places horribly distorted. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that'd be it. Thanks. :) AnujSuper9 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wind Waker Link

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

He's technicly not related to link but more of a reincarnation. Link is never related to a link from another game, except in Oot and MM, and LoZ and AoL where he's the same person. Link gets reincarnated in every game as a difernent person. At least thats to my understanding. -zabbethx January, 23 2007

He was first thought to be the hero of time come to restore peace to hyrule again but insted is the hero of winds. I've personaly read this in the game. 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that it was sort of coiensidence that a hero named Link rose up to smite evil. That it wasn't a direct incarnation but more of a chance of fate. I mean yeah it makes more sense the other way but if Link was reiencarnated then he would be aware of the plight of Hyrule or wherever else, but especially in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess he's just an average person? Make Sense?Kou Nurasaka 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sales Figures

NPD Sales Charts officially state The Legend of Zelda series has sold 47 million copies. Land of the Legend is "assuming" that it has sold 50 million by adding the sales figures posted by sites on Twilight Princess. Land of the Legend is not an authority on video game sales globally, so I do not think their citation was appropriate. By their own admission in their press page of the Corporate section of NOA's site, The Legend of Zelda series has sold 47 million. This number will be updated sometime this year, so until then, the # should be 47 million unless an official source comes forth with new numbers. --TSA 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring this and reverting my edits back to Land of the Legend. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has sold 2.35 million copies on Wii worldwide as of this week. At the time of Land of the Legends report, Twilight Princess has only sold 1,030,750 copies on Wii in North America and 565,250 copies on GCN. That's 1.6 million, roughly. Twilight Princess in Japan at that time only sold 292,750 copies. That's just over 2 million now. Europe sold 500,000 copies at the time of the report. That comes out to close to 2.6 million copies around the time of the report. However, that last source - that data was not made available until after Land of the Legend made the claim. As of now, I would believe Twilight Princess has sold over 3 million copies, but it's still not backed by public data yet. 2.6 million, as of now, is the best you could get. 2.3 million was the best you could have found out at the time of their "report". So since before TP sales are factored in, the Zelda series sold 47 million, it should say 49 million. However, you can state 50 million, but you can't use Land of the Legend's report becuase it was inaccurate at the time and in the context that it was made then, it is inaccurate. If anything, my work right here should be the source - and I'll publish it on my site in a moment, you can use that. --TSA 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The only numbers that should be used are official Nintendo numbers or sites sourcing NPD. VGcharts and Land of the Legend should not be used even if they are or are not correct. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VG Charts uses NPD date for North America sales, Media Crate for Japanese sales, and the EU's sales organization for video games (which the name eludes me at this time). I've also seen the sales data reports myself and the numbers on VG charts, though sometimes rounded up a bit, are the most accurate representation of actual sales data worldwide. --TSA 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, VGcharts reliability and authority is to dubious, as you say the numbers are off but we can't prove that without official numbers which we can't get. Plus the site owner himself "claims" that he makes it up with his own research. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

VGCharts, ugh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the world really only excist of Europe, Japan and North America? I know that Australia also sells the TP game, they must have been good for a few copies sold also now dont they? - Henk1987

Zelda Movie

A live-action movie of Legend of Zelda entitled Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time is being released this autumn. I've just seen the trailer on YouTube. This should be mentioned in the article I think. More information on the film coming up.

~~Anon~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.155 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 January 2007.

It's a fan-project. That's not really appropiate for Wikipedia. JackSparrow Ninja 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, are you sure? It looked convincing.

~~Anon~~

"Please note that this is not an official Legend of Zelda movie and is not endorsed by Nintendo."

JackSparrow Ninja 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I figured out that it wasn't an official film last night after viewing the trailer again and noticing how amateurish it all looked. The Tri-force was drawn on the back of Link and Zelda's hands in felt-tip for Pete's sake! Still, you've got to give them points for effort.

Anon—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.194 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 January 2007.

Depending on how much impact the fan film has on the LoZ community, it should in fact be included. Fan-made games are included in the Space Quest series, and that's just the first example I can think of off the top of my head. David 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That argument is the Pokémon test. I do not know enough about the Space Quest deal to argue about that, but it's just not fitting for the Zelda series. If it has a really huge impact, to the point it could deserve it's own article, we could consider it, but I'd say that's doubtful. JackSparrow Ninja 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Neh, it isn't the Pokémon test. I wasn't saying that this deserves a page just because a less "important" page exists, I was comparing the topic in question to a similar topic of similar noteworthiness. Perhaps we should look into deleting the Space Quest fangame's page, but double standards leave a bad taste in my mouth. David 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wand Of Gamelion

I have a Zelda game called the Wand Of Gamelion, why is this game totally omitted from this page? Is it maybe because it was considered one of the worst games ever and everyone has decided it should be forgotten? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.157.174.254 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Wand of Gamelon is included. Look on this page under CD-i Games or on CD-i games based on The Legend of Zelda series. Yes, they are the worst games ever- I've seen the final boss battle on YouTube. I was horrified. But that almost makes it more noteworthy on Wikipedia than if it was a good or mediocre game. David 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of discraceful to include these games? After all they were not released by Nintendo and would be better off forgotten and swapt under the rug-literally. Although it does make sense to include it to inform others i feel ashamed to include this in a game franchise as great as LoZ. Kou Nurasaka 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider it a warning. :-)

However disgraceful the CD-i games were, they (regrettably) happened. One thing's for sure, if I were making a fan page, I'd pretend they didn't exist...

=David^(talk)_(contribs) 04:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What ho?

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

Rupee

I've merged in the content from Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series) per the VFD discussion. Voretus 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, and probably not as well versed in the standards of Wikipedia as you guys, but I was a little disconcerted by the presence of the whole Rupee article in the Zelda series article. The Rupee article was condemned to be merged because it had pointless information like the denominations of Rupees in various games, which not even fans of the series care to read about in Wikipedia. However, since it's been done, it should probably be marked for cleanup, and the source article be turned into a redirect now. I would do this, but I don't know how. Thank you for your time. Bucky 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what he just did. 76.178.95.219 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Huge Rupee

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that a huge rupee appears anywhere in Twilight Princess. 69.118.109.122 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is in there, I'm fairly certain that it would be a violation of a Wikipedia policy to include that information in the article. I remember seeing somewhere that information taken directly fromm a game counts as original research, which is not allowed. I'll give it a few days to get a proper source on it. If someone gives it a source, could you let me know here, please? Thank you. Bucky 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Things should be verifiable, and the game is there for people to verify the information. Otherwise it would be like saying that there needs to be source to say that the moon is round. JackSparrow Ninja 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the article on the No Original Research rule. I couldn't find any reference to video games themselves either counting as original research or not. I've seen articles in Wikipedia that seem to get their information directly from the games with no other source, so if anyone knows for certain what the Wikipedia policy is on video games as a source, I'm really curious now. By the way, the clock is still ticking on the huge rupee. Is there a source outside the game? Bucky 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, where in the game is this rupee? I haven't seen it? Is it not in the wii version? 69.118.109.122 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

There are like two or three of them in the whole game. That I know of at least, but im pretty sure. I remember one in Kakariko Villiage where the big bell is on top of the round building and I think there is one in the Sacred realm. The rupee I don't recall if it was larger than the other rupees but it is shiny and silver.By the way to get the rupee from the bell use the clawshot. the rupee is worth lke 50 or 100 I forgot.

edit:I just checked it out the rupee is larger than other rupees.

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

That rupee is just a silver rupee, worth 200 coins. There are a variety of places in the game where you can get them. I am deleting TP from the huge rupee section. 69.118.109.122 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

LoZ: Wii

Ok, this is the third time in two years that we've been though this. Old quotes referencing "A Zelda on the Revolution" does not refer to anything other than the Zelda game that we already know exists on that generation of Nintendo. And the Magazine blurb is not sufficient or authoritative to decalre that such a game does or will ever exist.

While it is reasonable to assume that another Zelda on the Wii will exist someday, it is nothing more than speculation to claim it exists now. Until there is a formal announcement of the game and something concrete to say about it, it should not be listed here.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

--The Yar 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Two media outlets, magazine and website, have been told by Nintendo the game is already, or still, in development. If not that it exists (still) and is existing now, what does the media say? JackSparrow Ninja 07:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What magazine and website did Nintendo talk to? If you can give the issue of the magazine or the URL of the website that has this information, then the information will probably stay, at least long enough for more information on the game to be released. Bucky 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with The Yar. I'm still trying to accurately parse the latest interview with Aonuma[4] (don't want to misinterpret anything), but so far it sounds like he has ideas for a new Wii Zelda, but isn't actively working on it. That could mean any of several things. I don't think we have the information we need to say anything reliable on such a game. Dancter 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and removed the information. No reason to get people's hopes up with outdated statements and gossip column rumors. My edit was this.Dancter 06:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Game Informer, December 2006

"There is a new Legend of Zelda-game in development for the Wii. This title is built up from the ground as a Wii-game, and will feature much more advanced use of Nintendo's new console then Twilight Princess."

Land of the Legend

After confirmation of Twilight Princess Wii

On the GI report JackSparrow Ninja 06:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there is a new Wii Zelda game, please place it back on the article: source: http://wii.ign.com/articles/804/804241p1.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.228.85 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the article again. It's hardly a confirmation that there will be another Wii Zelda game. Dancter 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Other animal crossing zelda references.

Sometimes after entering a password for an item, you get it from "Project Hyrule". Should this also be mentioned?

Zelda influencing Okami

Director Hideki Kamiya has admitted that he has been influenced by the Zelda-games in making Ōkami, while almost everyone that plays it, something commented on in many reviews, sees the similarities with Zelda. I tried to give it some shape in the The Legend of Zelda (series)#References in other games-section, but anyone that knows of a better way to word it, feel free to improve it. JackSparrow Ninja 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe its just me but why hasn't anybody notice or pointed out the similarities of the movie Legend with Tom cruise and Legend of Zelda. Both are about a forest kid, who must bring back light to the world of darkness and rescue a princess. He's also accompanied by a fairy. He must also collect a sword and mirror shield to reflect light to lord of darkness to defeat him. Legend was released a year before the game. I know the game is based on myamotos childhood imagination, the movie and game are very similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manuscript Replica (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 March 2007. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

With just a year's difference, it's hardly capable to influence eachother's. Most important however, is that that is unconfirmed speculation. The Okami part is officially admitted. JackSparrow Ninja 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Legend and the Legend of Zelda started production in 1983, about a month or two apart. Not nearly enough time to base themselves off of one another. Morte42 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the note about both games having wolf-protaginists should be omitted. Although it is interesting it makes it seem like Okami was far more directly influenced in terms of protaginist. Okami's game play, style and hero was announce far in advance of the "Link turns into a wolf" thing. I'm going to remove that bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.24.121 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CD-i games

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

"Whith?"

Somebody misspelled "with." The page is protected for some stupid reason (which is supposedly discussed on this talk page, but isn't), and bugmenot.com blocks this site (and I can't be bothered to get an account), so I can't correct it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.23.105.12 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, it'll get fixed as soon as the page gets unblocked. Oh, and the page is locked because of the dispute over whether the reference to the Powerpuff Girls episode can be sourced or not. Kinda a waste of time, if you ask me (much of the page is unsourced, so why pick on that one part?) but hopefully it'll die down soon. DajoKatti 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the link doesn't go to the talk page, but to another one. That might be why you couldn't find it here. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

never released toys...

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

GA removal

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

I've started adding references. Pagrashtak 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason behind the "console" and "handheld" additions in the video game section?

I feel this section at the bottom of the main page should be kept the way it was prior to this change; in release order. There doesn't seem to be much of a reason to classify the Zelda games based on their portability or lack thereof. Could you give me some insight to the reasoning of this change? Thanks.

149.159.22.207 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hylian merge

I didn't suggest the merge or anything, but I think it'd be better to merge that article into a more in-universe article such as Hyrule or Hylian the race. 217.198.150.144 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that second one. You Can't See Me! 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing the genre classification?

Just curios, why would somebody want to do this? 141.84.69.20 10:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the question is how can you justify calling it high fantasy rather than fantasy. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One could call it "Sword & Whatnot" as well. I seriously doubt that anybody has made up his mind about this detail, thus there would be no source one could cite. I reckon calling it "fantasy" does the job. 141.84.69.20 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article originally read "fantasy", and then somebody changed it to "high fantasy". That is when the {{fact}} tag was added. If nobody comes up with a justification for "high fantasy", it will probably get reset to "fantasy" again. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the justification not come from the definition of the high fantasy genre itself? From the article, this is something "set in invented or parallel worlds". The Zelda series is most certainly set in an invented world, and thus it definitely applies. The tag doesn't make any sense anyway, seeing as there is hardly going to be a specific citation that qualifies it. Removed tag.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.81.235 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 June 2007.

Media

If we are including non-game related media, shouldn't we mention LoZ fan fic?

I don't think so. Fan Fiction is not usally considered to be notiable. --67.71.76.228 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor edit

To whom it may concern:

Shouldn't the contents under the headings Zelda in other video games and References in other games be combined? Is there anyone who would do this or tell me the reason they're not? Thanks. cocoapropo 17.35 19 July, 2007

Tetra Trackers

I remember something about a project of a game called Tetra Trackers. What happened to it??? Mr. Mario 192 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures#Navi Trackers. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)