Talk:The Legend of Zelda/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Left Handed Link

The article mentions that Link is left handed in every game except the Wii version of Twilight Princess... However, in the original Legend of Zelda for the NES, and Zelda 2, he was ambidextrous (he always keeps his shield pointed at Death Mountain). He was also right handed in the cartoon (which isn't exactly canon, but it was endorsed by Nintendo).

Also, in the booklet for the original NES Zelda, there was artwork of Link being right handed - Example here.

So it looks like Link was righty in the very first Legend of Zelda, but then became a lefty thereafter.

He also, apparently, used to have brown hair, instead of blonde (not counting his off-day in Link to the Past where he had pink hair).

Don't know if that's worth changing in the article, but something to think about. --BlueHyuu (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the original Zelda, if Link is facing north, south, or west, the sword is in his left hand, and the shield is in his right hand. If he is facing east, the sword is in his right hand with the shield in his right, but only because the east facing sprite is a mirror image of the west due to the technical limitations of the NES. Similary, his hair color is the same as his brown clothing because of the limited color palette. Technical limiations are the same reason why Mario has a hat, moustache, and overalls. Except Mario kept these distinguishing features while Link's changed as the technology advanced. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Link is ambidextrous, if anything, in the first game... both in game and in the manual, he wields his sword and shield in either hand. In every game following, however, Link is explicitly left-handed (barring TP being reversed), either by the game's manual description or in-game visuals. DajoKatti (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why he is depicted as right-handed at all in the manual. Do they show it more than once? --Russoc4 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been right-handed in 3 manuals that I've seen, I think. (Legend of Zelda, Adventure of Link, and Link's Awakening). Those times, he also had brown hair. This might play into the theory that there are simply several Links throughout the timeline, and there were a couple of Links that were right-handed, and possibly even with brown hair. Also, in an old Nintendo comic book, based on Link to the Past, Link switched hands a couple of times (whether artist error or not, I don't know). It could be likely overall that Link is primarily ambidextrous, but simply prefers to use his left hand for swinging his sword (For example: I, personally, am ambidextrous, but I still prefer writing and throwing with my right hand, while I bat lefty style). It's probably all just the quirks of the inconsistency of time, but still interesting nevertheless. Also, if I recall, in Ocarina of Time, he holds the Biggoron's sword with a righty style (right hand lower than left hand, using the right for power, left for guidance). Could just be an oversight there, though, since he is obviously left-handed otherwise in that game. --BlueHyuu (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He's most definetely left-handed in the Link's Adventure manual. It even contains the line "Then with a magical sword in his left hand and a magical shield in his right" to indicate he's left-handed. DajoKatti (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BlueHyuu, you said "right hand lower than left hand, using the right for power, left for guidance". I believe that is a left handed stance. I bat right handed, which uses the opposite technique: right on top of left. Indeed, batting uses your off-hand to provide power and guitar playing uses your off-hand to provide accurate fretting. Go figure.

But back to the article, maybe we can say "Link is most often portrayed as a left-handed swordsman, however, a key exception is in Twilight Princesss....and so on" Something along those lines. Any thoughts? --Russoc4 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone has realized this but in Twilight Princess on gamecube he is left handed, on the wii version the entire game was mirrored to make him right handed for right handed players since the wii mote users are mostly right handers--RemusLupo (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Nintendo got it into their heads that this would be a problem? I'm left-handed and I've never had a problem playing Twilight Princess (or any other Wii games) so I find it very odd that they felt it nessesary (and having decided it would be a problem didn't offer any solution for left-handed players). Danikat (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Link's right-handed in Skyward Sword as well, although seeing as it's a Wii game... 207.216.208.68 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Instruments article merger here

Resolved

The article can mostly be deleted, but it has a few excellent references that deal with music and audio within the Zelda series that can fill a needed audio section for this article. Helps get rid of a very weak article, and boosts this one for FA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, articles are not meant to be all inclusive video game guides. There might be too many details on the instruments to be included in this article. If perhaps they are made more general and brought into the scope of the Zelda series. Nothing more than a paragraph. Notice that we don't have here any discussion on specific items, places, characters, etc featured in the games. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding information on the music and audio of the game is not gameguide material. And as I said in my last comment, most of it will have to be cut. And by the way, the things you mentioned should probably have a mention in the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe the general stuff should be merged here, but game-specific, such as what instruments were used in the original LoZ, either is discarded or merged with articles specific to that game. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged all relevant content; that article didn't have much content, so we will definitely need more for FA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for more discussion, as I wasn't sure that a consensus had been reached. However, now makes as much sense as any, and I'll get to work finishing the entry here. - Bilby (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles I wouldn't mind seeing at a minimum of GA, for the FTC...

• Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (pretty high priority, too bad it's been overlooked in the GAfest)
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (huge oversight - arguably the third most important Zelda article to feature, not taking into account the series and character article)
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords (low priority, but still priority)
• The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (definitely top priority)
• Link's Crossbow Training (lowest priority, since it's practically a tech demo - I could support an FTC w/o it, but it couldn't do anything but help)
• Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland (some could argue it's not really a Zelda game, but it's still pretty notable as the first official Zelda-series game to feature a different playable character than Link for more than a minor role)
• Tingle's Balloon Fight DS (actually, much lower priority than Link's Crossbow Training - again, if you have spare time, wouldn't hurt to at least take this article up from Stub)
• The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition
• The CD-i games - I'm sure not many people are interested, but it's important Zelda history, quality aside.

I'll help out here and there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATES:

• Zelda II: The Adventure of Link -
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
• The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords Merged to Link to the Past, which is GA
• Tingle's Balloon Fight DS merged to Tingle because of almost no notability
• Link's Crossbow Training B class, could be made GA
• Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland B class, could be made GA
• The CD-i games - Merged and totally rewritten B-class, with another small push could be GA.
• The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition - Should be merged to the series article under compilations.
• LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series - Added a reference, may need to be merged to the series article if can't find more
• BS Zelda no Densetsu - Version of the original Zelda, need to see if can be GA on its own, otherwise merge to original Zelda
• BS Zelda no Densetsu Kodai no Sekiban Version of the link to the past, need to see if can be GA, otherwise merge to LTTP

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Hyrule, Master Sword, Triforce

Resolved

My reasoning is this; this article should cover these things as they are crucial recurring objects and places from the game series. The articles by themselves are unreferenced, and do not have enough notability on their own to need a whole article, whereas they can be treated in full here, so we have one featured article and not have 3 permanent stubs. It is similar to what was done with Mana (series), where as you can see, Flammie, the Mana Tree and Sword, and the Rabites are all covered fully and didn't need their own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do Master Sword, you should also do the Four Sword and possibly Phantom Sword. It would probably best work to have it as a "Sacred Weapons" or some such section, since as that, at least, it has appeared in every game. Or just "Sacred Items", and include some of the instruments that were removed from the music article - not all of them, just the plot-important ones like the Ocarina and Waker, and Harp of Ages.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyrule is far, far, far more significant than Flammie, the Mana Tree, Sword, and Rabites combined. It's been the location of nine different games, and is mentioned in every Zelda game ever made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

....and yet it has sparse referencing at best since it was created. Like I said, I want to merge it not delete it, as there is no evidence it could stand on its own in terms of reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does this mean you'd support a merger of the other two? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge the Master Sword and the Triforce since they only offer plot and in-universe mythology. I am neutral (leaning to don't-merge) on Hyrule because even when trimmed, it would still seem pretty long I guess. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge any. The articles are long enough to cause the main LoZ article to exceed WP:SUMMARY limits. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The information that would be included would be greatly trimmed down, and the this article itself could do with a good amount of copyediting and trimming, so that wouldn't be a problem. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found it to be quite detailed. The summary can be made in another page, but that does not require cropping the subpages. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)}

I have no idea what you just said, please explain. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The amount of prose in the Triforce, Hyrule and Master Sword pages is about right. A summary of those in the LoZ series article, in needed, does not necessarily mean that the other three pages need to be trimmed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea was that these three or these two articles don't have enough notability or references to become Good Articles or Featured Articles on their own. So, I thought, best to merge them in here where they would bolster this article and eliminate 3 stubby articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that, and I don't agree, particularly with the notability part. I still don't see how improving this article requires the other three articles to be "eliminated" - you can always write the same amount of prose, and use {{main}} or {{further}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone saying we are building and defending stubby articles that wont improve because the lack notability and thus cant improve. We are trying to build featured articles, and for articles that don't have enough notability, merger and deletion are the options, not eternal life. Eliminating stubs that won't improve is highly desirable, especially as it will help the process of Featuring the Zelda topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that the other articles can't improve? IMHO, they have great potential, they just need somebody to make the effort. Just because nobody here has the time/energy/resources doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't see how merging those articles could help this one. That is why I oppose the merge. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of trimming and rewrite at User:KrytenKoro/Universe of The Legend of Zelda series, for the Triforce bit. It still needs reffing, but I tried to trim and summarize as much as possible. I guess we've given up on having a separate universe article, then.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If, as Link to the Past pointed out, Hyrule is not mergable to the main article, perhaps these three could go into a Universe of article for the whole series; then we'd have on Universe of article and we can put some effort into that and see how it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally don't edit videogame articles, but I have Featured Topic experience with TV articles. Having said that, I don't see any GA/FA potential whatsoever in the Master Sword and Triforce articles, no matter how much effort someone (wants to) put in there. Thus merging is only alternate option to deletion if a Featured Topic is the desired goal in the long run, as should be for a quality encyclopedia. (I am still only "neutral" about the Hyrule merge here, even if this makes me a hypocrit). – sgeureka ^t•c 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's why I at one point suggested merging the two smaller onces and then then trying to improve Hyrule and seeing how notable it is later if people feel there really is a question. I still think merging Triforce and Master Sword is a good idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well how about merging in Triforce and Master Sword but leaving Hyrule on its own? That seems to have consensus. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, we should leave the articles alone and let it be like it is. If this page gets to much content, it can be hard to find what you're looking for. Eg: You search on Hyrule, and gets redirected here. All you wanted to see was "Hyrule" not The Legend of Zelda (series) and have to look trough the whole page for just that part. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I said we wont merge Hyrule but the other two, and in a very trimmed down form. Also, this article will need a lot of trimming and copyediting, so that won't be an issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to notify you, I said "For example" Hyrule. I didn't direct point out Hyrule to be not merged. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to get too active in the whole merger debate, but I just want to throw in my two cents that I think merging the Hyrule article is a very bad idea. I'm not particularly fond of merging the Master Sword either, since there are many sword based wikipedia article and the Master Sword is probably more notable (or at least better known to the general public) than the majority of them. Between the games, their manuals and player's guides, the cartoon, the Valiant comics, the AlttP graphic novel and various interviews there's clearly enough information that can be sourced to improve the quality of these articles, its merely a question fo whether someone wants to put in the effort of doing so.

S. Luke 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should suggest it, but why not merge Triforce and Master Sword to Hyrule? After all, almost every time the Master Sword or Triforce is seen, it's in Hyrule. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Triforce is a significant thing and should have an article of its own. -2008-05-02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.248.22 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging these articles would make one article that is far too long. People get overwelmed when presented with too much information at once. Merging would be a rather foolish mistake. The consensus seems to be against merging. Should the merge templates be removed? -- Mjr162006 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the information would be greatly trimmed down, but the question has become whether Master Sword and Triforce should be merged to the Hyrule article, which I support, and I wanted to know what others thought. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If it was merged to Hyrule, I think we would basically be creating the start of the "Universe of" article, so why not just get started on that now? I have the basics up for the Triforce part in my sandbox. But I don't think it either should be merged to Hyrule alone, because one is only once or twice located in Hyrule, and the other has appeared outside of it as well.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the relationship between Master sword and Triforce is never clearly stated or canonized in the series. It would be strange and confusing if we only merge master sword with triforce. It is reasonable to have an article which covers important artifacts in Zelda series, but not the one with only master sword and triforce. Also, although the current master sword article lacks enough references, the description and comparison about the sword in different Zelda games is valuable to my point of view. At least, I couldn't find other similar comparison on the web, and I believe the description can be verified. hsiao06 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

....actually, the specific purpose of the Master Sword was to be used against any evildoer who took the Triforce, but that's not what I was saying anyway. If you read what I said, I was saying that if Triforce, Hyrule, and the Master Sword are merged, the other nations need to be merged as well, because the two relics have no special link to Hyrule alone - the only real justification for the merge would be a "Universe of" article, containing all major elements of the series, like Koholint, Termina, and the Great Sea.

Also, you can find much better descriptions, as always, on the zelda wiki. There's two of them, even.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dudes i may not be the sharpest 14 year old but i say that they should merge it.

                      Boo YEAH 
                        Erik Poi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.120.253 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 

Enough of the minimalist stuff. Don't do it. --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...you do realize that without this "minimalist stuff", the articles will be outright deleted, right? And that we're not really even deleting any info, just putting it in one place? Bloody hell, I'm so incredibly tired of people who just shoot their mouth off about maintenance being "deletionism" without even listening to an of the discussion.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a no-one, but nevertheless experienced with wikis, so here're my two cents. The articles in question are way too big and cohesive to be merged. The idea behind a wiki is of expanding articles, and not to trimming them down, and there is no way those articles can be merged without severely reducing the quantity of information contained. The only viable merge would be Triforce and Master Sword, but I see no way those two different topics are related in order to put them into a single article. I say don't merge. 200.158.99.64 (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

...except that the Triforce and Master Sword have no special link besides being in the series.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea behind a wiki is of expanding articles, and not to trimming them down - the opposite seems to be the case for fiction articles here on wikipedia now, in favor of quality over quantity. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you merge the Hyrule, Master Sword and Triforce articles into one? You know how long and unnecessary that would make the main Zelda page? Hyrule is a huge article, why would you even think about merging it into another long article?GuitarWeeps (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Film

IGN relesed conformation on a Zelda fim. {http://movies.ign.com/articles/863/863492p1.html

Joystiq has stated it is an April Fools joke. [1]

It's probably best to wait until we get more confirmation on whether this is a joke or not before adding it in to the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

If it is real, it is hilariously bad. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look bad, but I would still see it if it's real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably is a joke. Why would they release the trailer on April Fools Day. The actor looks nothing like Link

Why would they take that much time to make that if it was a fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

lol yeah it looks terribleS02178 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)S02178

This trailer is older than today, however, as I've seen plenty of gifs from weeks ago. Also, there is another Zelda independent film currently(?) in production called The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time that isn't even mentioned here. 72.223.126.196 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While I can understand the enthusiasm that can surround the possibility of such a popular video game series being adapted into a movie, we can't overlook the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please provide a reliable source for any content regarding the trailer. If you do not have a source, then please do not add in content. Until then, it's best to wait a few days to see what news will spring up so accurate information can be added. In short, there is no rush to add the content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

IGN says it was an april fools joke. that movie would fail terribly both in reviews and box office if it was real. 69.113.225.164 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look more into Hero of Time and see if it's really coming out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Word is that The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time is currently in production http://www.legendofzeldaseries.com/main.php?page=fanmovie.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The April 1 movie trailer, even though it was a prank, deserves mention in the article. Tons of people got taken in by it, regardless of whether there is an indie movie in development. And, FWIW, the trailer for the real movie looks much worse than IGN's prank one. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I could this as an April Fools joke in the article.--151.201.31.145 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the film is just a complete rumor, so Zelda would have nothing to do with live-action, even though we are quite sure the the live-action Super Mario Bros. was one of those movies a lot people especially gamers didn't care for, so if they made a movie, I believe it got cancelled, which a lot of people don't believe that video game stuff would be in live-action. --PJ Pete, December 29, 2008 14:03

I was quite surprised to see that IGN's April Fool's Day trailer isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. I suggest mentioning it in the "Cultural Influence" section, possibly accompanied by a screenshot from the trailer. What does everyone else think about this? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason wikipedia doesn't mention every other half-arsed April Fools joke or youtube video. It's really, really trivial.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Zelda Manga Localized by Viz?

Two listings on AAA Anime seem to suggest that some Zelda manga will be coming to North America. One on 10/7/2008 and the other on 12/2/2008. There appears to be few details, but that site has always been reliable in the past. I have yet to find any other sources. If I find anything else I will edit this post Ryne11 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda Film

I apologise in advance if there's already a section on this but I can't seem to find it anywhere. There's a Zelda film coming out, you can find out more and info and see the trailer here: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/863/863492p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.86.61 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of the page. People are saying it's an April Fools Joke.

It was an April Fool's Joke. It took 3 months to prepare and a few thousand dollars, though. There's more info on IGN here. Even though it was a joke (a very elaborate joke), it should be mentioned in the article. Whatever reference the article did have has been removed. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added a short paragraph on the film in Cultural Influences. As time goes on, it can be shortened to probably a sentence. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, gosh, that got reverted in a hurry! I didn't think it was half bad. For those interested, here's what I added:

On April 1 2008, the online video game resource site IGN posted a hoax film trailer for an fictional upcoming movie based on the game series. Due to its authentic look, numerous news sites and fans were taken in by the hoax. However, many news agencies, noting the date, namely, April Fools Day, saw the trailer for what it was. The next day, IGN posted an editorial by Matt Casamassina with information on the hoax. The three minute trailer was produced by Rainfall Films, directed by Sam Balcomb and "starred" J.R. Killigrew as the title character Link. The trailer took about three months to produce and Balcomb produced most of the special effects at home on an Apple Macintosh.

Writing didn't suck, it was full of references. I guess what some people think is notable is different from what others think. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because they've done Zelda hoaxes before, and nobody in the real world cared. Or that others have done "New Zelda movie!" as an April Fools hoax all the time. Maybe it's that one internet FAQ site pulling a common prank isn't really that big of news. Maybe it's that Wikipedia isn't in the habit of reporting on things that don't happen.

Look at it this way - almost nobody cared about it the day it came out - only the extremely gullible. Do you really believe this is going to become a lasting part of the series's history?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the April Fool's trailer isn't all the important to Zelda. Maybe if IGN had a April Fool's section like Google does, then we could add a link to it there, but it'll be forgotten about by the "film"'s "release".

Word is that The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time is currently in production http://www.legendofzeldaseries.com/main.php?page=fanmovie.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The film was relased and Nintendo and the filmakers made an agreement that the fil would be taken down. That should be added.--Darkness2light (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Information Incorrect/Speculation

Some of the Timeline information featured in this article is speculation, and has not been proven by Nintendo. The one source that that section of the article references says nothing about Hyrule being intentionally flooded to repel Ganon, and the back of ALttP's box says nothing about being the descendant of the protagonist in the original Legend of Zelda, only the descendant of an ancient hero.(Whom one could reason to be any of the games protagonists.)

65.101.49.27 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Anonymous

TWW says, in the intro, that Hyrule was flooded to repel Ganon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From the original ALttP box:

"The predecessors of Link and Zelda face monsters on the march when a menacing magician takes over the kingdom."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Shigeru Miyamoto say after Ocarina of Time's release that the order was Ocarina of Time -> Legend of Zelda -> Adventure of Link -> A Link to the Past? Nintendo has changed their minds about the series several times, and I'd put my trust with Miyamoto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one that directly contradicts what was said in and about A Link to the Past when it was released.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, its packaging actually contradicts a line in the game. According to A Link to the Past, Ganon has been totally destroyed. If that's so, how does he return in Legend of Zelda? Or does the packaging hold more sway than the game itself now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

...he was almost certainly resurrected, like in the Oracle games, or like they tried to do in Adventure of Link.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd think if he was going to be resurrected, they wouldn't use the words "totally destroyed." And again, I'd say I trust Miyamoto more than promotional content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1) You might think that, that doesn't mean you're right; 2) ...You do realize we're talking about the guy who said there was only one timeline, and then changed his mind, right?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article, need's rewrite

Also in 2007, in an interview Eiji Aonuma and Miyamoto, it was said by Eiji that another Zelda game was in production, for the Wii. Eiji said said that he wants a whole different base of control to take form for the next addition to the series -- to open up the main Zelda adventures on Wii for the casual gaming crowd as has Phantom Hourglass done with the DS. When asked about one-to-one swordplay and full Wiimote control, he said he was dying to flesh out all the ideas but says its still pretty open.

Release/Chronology Respective

Although the chronology seems to be accurate, such as that Ocarina of Time is the fifth game in the series, but the first game chronologically, I'm sure that it would be great if there was a table to tell the difference in the order of when the games were released in real life, and how the story goes in the series, much like the Chronicles of Narnia. --PJ Pete (12:03 AM, May 10, 2008)

Except that we only know bits and pieces, and that's subject to change by now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the truth is that The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass respectively, are the latest Zelda games chronologically, like everybody knows it. --PJ Pete (12:20 PM, May 18, 2008)

...no, they're not.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The chronology is correct as far as I can tell but it it still extremely confusing for me at least. (But I'm sure it is for many other people too.)

--Uber-Awesomeness (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard that Ocarina of Time was a remake of the original Legend of Zelda, which would mean that the current Chronology is wrong. If I can find a source for this info, I'll post it, but I think some more research should be done in this subject so we can expand on it.

70.177.214.191 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

New Game?

Has a new game been announced yet? linceed@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.27.166 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this interview [2] with Shigeru Miyamoto, he says "The Zelda team is forming again to work on new games!" so, in a way, yes. Tommy11111 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anymore news other than they are creating them? I heard of a fake Zelda Game called Project Deluge/Valley of the Flood, but that wasn't real. Is there definately no more news on the games? I am eagerly awaiting the next installments! :) M.J.Sams-Barnes (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"...[S]hortly before the beginning of the game, Ganon broke free from the Dark World..."

In the Games section, the description for the first The Legend of Zelda cites Zelda Universe, the official Nintendo Zelda website, and it says that Ganon escaped the Dark World shortly before the beginning of the first game. I have no doubt in my mind that the official site says this, but I really don't think that the official site is a good source as far as information such as backstories and timeline information goes. Whoever runs the official site put up some timeline theory that he/she made up, and Miyamoto told them to take it off the site because it was wrong. In the definitions section of Zelda Universe, some bits and pieces of that old timeline still exist, and Ganon breaking free of the Dark World shortly before the original game is one of them.

Just take a look at this:

http://www.zelda.com/universe/pedia/p.jsp

Definition for Pendants of Virtue (WARNING: EPIC FAIL AHEAD!!!):

The Pendant of Courage, the Pendant of Power and the Pendant of Wisdom are collectively known as the Pendants of Virtue. When Link returned from his adventure in Termina, hundreds of years had passed in Hyrule and the Master Sword was hidden within the Lost Woods. To re-prove himself and demonstrate that he was worthy of the Master Sword, Link had to collect all three Pendants of Virtue.

Um, no. Just no. This is another remnant of the old timeline theory (which was also a single Link theory, in case the definition above didn't give that away). Ironically, the official Zelda site has some of the worse information regarding the storylines of the games on the Internet.

I will not edit out the quote and citation just yet because I want to see what other people think. I don't want an edit war, so I'll leave it for now. If no one can give a good reason to leave the quote and citation within a few days, I will remove it. I would also be willing to compromise with anyone who wants to leave it there. I won't try to remove it if it can also be noted that the official Zelda site is notoriously inaccurate. That's all. -(Vert Bandit (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Timeline (AGAIN)

I think that OOT was the first in the timeline, Followed by Majora's Mask, Then A Link To The Past, Followed by the original, And the the original, followed by wind waker and phantom hourglass, i reckon all the other games are just side stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.235.136 (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Deluge

anyone know if Project Deluge is an actual game coming out in '09? Legakis (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Legakis

Right now, no one's sure. The interview originated from 4chan, which was then posted on IGN's message boards. So far no one has confirmed nor denied its legitimacy. For now, don't include it into the article as it's all purely rumor. --kaoskastle (Talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Legakis 02:53, 15 July 2008

Zelda Wii

Hasn't Miyamoto announced a zelda game for the wii? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he stated that they were working on one but nothing else is known. --76.69.168.109 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And in an other interview, he said it needs to be more casual. Can we make a page of this 'Zelda'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.102.73 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Too early, there's not enough information and it's not even been officially announced by Nintendo yet. Haipa Doragon (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At the e3 2009 convention, Nintendo released an artist concept picture of Link standing beside an etheral looking girl. This is all that has been shown about a new coming Zelda for the Nintendo Wii. So, they are working on a new Zelda Wii, but any and all information about it is unknown as of now. You can do a google search for "zelda wii e3 2009 art" and it will come up. IGN and other gaming websites also have articles about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbone7 (talk • contribs) 15:00, September 24, 2009

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this conversation was a year and two months old. We obviously know about Zelda Wii now, and it's already mentioned in the main article. Arrowned (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The legend of Zelda: The legend of the Master Sword

I saw on some site that the newest game would be about the creation of the master sword and the previous wielders of it.

And you'll need a source before anyone believes you. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

external links

(^ lolpun)

Would it be alright if I added http://www.zeldauniverse.net/ as an external link, seeing as it is a very popular site with loads of info? 75.105.128.59 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, fansites are generally irrelevant as their information is not official or reliable enough. Haipa Doragon (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Influence: Drawn Together

This is a minor detail, but after glancing through the Cultural Influecne section, it's mention that Xandir from Drawn Together is "an over-the-top homosexual parody of Link himself". I always saw Xandir as being a parody of Cloud from Final Fantasy, never as Link. Look and compare these two pictures. Just a thought.

I really don't see any similarity besides spiky hair, and that's a parody of Japanese characters in general, if anything. Xandir even has the "never-ending quest to save the princess who looks like Zelda from the villain who looks like Ganon" thing going on, and Cloud doesn't fit that. He also has pointed ears.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his game is "The Legend of Xandir"...

I believe Xandir is supposed to be a generalized parody of fantasy adventurers, but with a main focus on Link. Of course there are going to be differences, and Cloud could have come into mind with them. Perhaps a source should be found for what the writers intended to reference with the character. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Zelda and Philosophy

The Pop Culture Philosophy Book Series is publishing a volume on Zelda entitled "The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy". This seems worth mentioning either in the reception or impact sections. (Note the site's name in the link below might suggest that its a fansite but its actually a subsite published by GamePro which has been established as a reliable source per WP:VG. The publishers other book are all available on Amazon so it should only be a matter of time until this book pops up on there too. http://www.omgnintendo.com/article/102639/pop-culture-philosophy-to-release-the-legend-of-zelda-and-philosophy-in-november/ S. Luke 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Master Sword

Resolved

Currently, the article is just a brief description of the item, while the rest is a pure repetition of plot from the games. The sword can easily be summarized here or in the universe article if appropriate, while giving the necessary detail. Even if some real world information can be found, the plot summaries in that article need to go, so it should still be small enough anyway. TTN (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It was more or less decided to merge to the Universe article, so merge away. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge here The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition

Merging this article here would eliminate a permanent stub, and would also bolster this article with content for a future run at FA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree The CE article looks fine to me. rdunn 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree I'd say everything relative to this game should be in a single article. What makes any one particular edition so notable as to warrant a seperate article? --CPAScott (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

...That this articles is for the series, not a game, and that edition is four different entries in the series.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree if we were to merge them we would have to merge other collector edition article for other games that have them. 82.25.149.106 (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree the CE article has more than enough content to be left alone. There is certainly enough unique information about it to warrant it being kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.175 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Although it is not an actual game it is a seperate disc. Also Majora's Mask was slightly changed, and it came with a retrospective movie along with sneak peak and demo of The Wind Waker which makes it stand out from the seperate games.

Nintendofreak91012:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cultural influence

In the section titled "Cultural influence", it has a picture of Link in a Mario game. I'd like to point out that the same guy created both Mario and Link. Even if his characters didn't both become extremely popular, he'd probably still mix them together in games like that for his own amusement. In Ocarina of Time, Zelda's castle has a place where you can jump up and see through a window, into a room that has a picture of Mario in it.

There was even a cereal I used to eat which had Mario and Link on the box. Inside there were two bags, side by side, and you could mix both of their cereals together.

I'm curious, why not mention the vast amount of merchandise released with characters from this series on it? I could probably search the official Nintendo site, Amazon.com, EBay, and whatnot to find some things, but is there anywhere out there which list how big the sales of Zelda related merchandise were? Or a complete list of everything generated with images from the series would be nice. Dream Focus (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Four Swords series" categorisation on the The Legend of Zelda navbox

I'm not entirely sure what the best place is to put this (I'd do go for the Zelda WikiProject in theory but that place has been stale for ages) but a random IP user has been changing the Zelda navbox to display FS, FSA and TMC in their own category as part of a so-called "Four Swords" subseries (although the person originally claimed they were spin-offs), which I have been reverting on the grounds that no sources exist proving Nintendo has created such a series or defined any games as being part of one. The only sources the IP user has provided to show otherwise are dubious, third-party statements, from things such as an interview with one of Capcom's developers involved with Zelda and a TP walkthrough on a gaming site, none of which I believe are reliable to prove this sort of thing. Essentially, what I need are more opinions on this, because the discussion between mostly the IP user and I on the template's talk page is at a deadlock now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Link to the Past / Ocarina of Time connection

It has been pointed out to me that someone reverted the addition of a citation for a connection between LttP and OoT. Granted that the original edit didn't use a proper citation format, but the point seems to be valid. The events of OoT are described in the opening of LttP, placing the two games unambiguously in the timeline relative to each other. Does WikiProject The Legend of Zelda not accept the content of the games themselves as valid references? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In that they pose contradicting stories, and Miyamoto and Aonoma have put forward different timelines? Or that, for example, the Knights of Hyrule mentioned in the ALttP backstory appear in the similar tale of Four Swords Adventures, but nowhere in OoT's version of the tale?

The point is completely invalid. It is attempting to source the claim with the claim itself, when the whole point is that there is no confirmation that that's actually the version meant by the creators of the series.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was any conflict about that. The LttP sequence talked about seven sages sealing away Ganon, and the very next game they made was a prequel that features a climax in which seven sages seal away Ganon. It seemed blatantly obvious that they intended it to be the same story. How much more obvious does it have to be to be considered an in-game reference? The fact that the two stories don't line up perfectly in their use of knights seems to me like nitpicking. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. It was two games afterwards.
2. The Knights were a big part of the story, and were mentioned as merely stalling Ganon even then, letting the sages do most of the work.
3. Miyamoto and Aonoma place ALttP in the child timeline - in which the events which would parallel it's prologue in OoT did not happen. Even if they were misquoted, that's a damn large bit of not strongly backed up going on right there.
4. Almost the same sequence occurs in FSA, includes the knights as main characters, has nearly the same sages as in ALttP, is set on virtually the same map, and is as far as we know, still in the same timeline. That there is another possible source for the story also creates doubt.
5. In both timelines, the OoT seal is broken before ALttP could be set (TWW, TP). ALttP speaks of a seal still in place.
6. The original ALttP prologue speaks of the sages looking for a wielder for the Sword after Ganon's army showed up. Not only did Link already have the Master Sword before Ganon had his Triforce army in OoT, but no sage had anything actively to do with it.
7. And finally, requoting the line in contention cannot work as a source, and that's all that's been proposed so far. There are probably official sources stating that OoT is meant to be the prologue to ALttP, in the manner the line presented it. However, there is too much uncertainty to have such poor citation.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME.jpg

The image File:ZELDA OCARINA OF TIME.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair usage of my own screenshot

I looked over the wikipedia's Image use policy and I don't see any rule against posting screenshots someone makes themselves of a game. Isn't that fair usage? The other picture someone had was taken from someone else's site, without permission, and thus the reason it was removed. So I loaded up the game, and took a screenshot, showing off the first 3D Zelda game, and uploaded it in its place. I believe I entered in an acceptable rational. I scanned through the wikipedia policy page for the word "screenshot" and it doesn't say anything against it, indicating only what file formats to use when taking a screenshot of software. Is there a reason I can't use it? Dream Focus 07:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

what is there that you've put in for the copy right should be enough  rdunnPLIB  10:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the part at the beginning - whether or not you took the screenshot, you still don't own the image, as you didn't create it yourself. Otherwise, we could claim we owned every image in the game, which we obviously don't. This is the example given for how your image should be rationalized. The other picture was removed because it similarly lacked this full rationale - I doubt that it had anything to do with being taken from a fansite.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed after reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZELDA_OCARINA_OF_TIME.jpg the reason was that he didn't have the right to use that image, he just grabbed it from a website. Anyway, your only objection is not the image I upload, but the information I filled it for it, correct? Since you linked to what is obvious a screenshot, and is allowed, then I assume my image would be considered fine for here, if I just copied over the rationale they used. Dream Focus 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes, you just need to model your rationale after the one on that image.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Split Timeline Theory

After watching the video on GameTrailers, http://www.gametrailers.com/player/15194.html, I decided to include a text version to the Chronology section. Hopefully it stays. I added a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.8.212 (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While normally a source would be good at getting something to stay, in this case it is merely one contributor's theorizing, bereft from official sources. Sorry, but we're going to need some kind of official word for something like that.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Time Travel has it's own wiki article and it's 100% theory so what makes this any different? As a matter of fact everything in science is a theory and they all have wiki articles. Your argument that it should be removed because it is "theory" is understandable but not justifiable. I'll go ahead and throw this in here too.

In an interview that Nintendo Dream conducted with Eiji Aonuma in December 2006, he explained that the Zelda timeline contains two parallel worlds. The split in the timeline occurs during Ocarina of Time, when, at the end of the game, Link is sent back in time by Zelda. Once returned to his original time, Link goes to see her again, and the result of this meeting is an alternate future in which the villain Ganondorf is arrested and tried by the ancient sages, which causes him to get banished to the Twilight Realm; Twilight Princess then occurs several hundred years after the Ocarina of Time child Link's era. Meanwhile, The Wind Waker occurs in the 'original' timeline, hundreds of years after the adventure of adult Link in Ocarina.

In any case, the creators maintain that the series has a set timeline, but due to the poor translation protocols in the 1990s and the constant debate over what counts as being canonical, the publicly available information is disputed and may not be reconciled any time soon. Eiji Aonuma has stated that he will do his best to connect the games together and hopefully reveal the timeline someday, and both he and Shigeru Miyamoto have publicly stated there is a master document containing the timeline.--97.102.8.212 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be deliberately obtuse. One gamesite contributor's personal theories about a game series does not make reliable sourcing, and you know it. This has nothing to do with science, so please don't try to throw irrelevant topics into the discussion.

All we can validate is that Twilight Princess and Wind Waker are in separate time-streams. The complete theory you posted has no root in official sources.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point. The info that is posted on "chronology" is adequate until an official timeline is release (if ever). Maybe I'll edit the zelda wikia instead, since it would be more fitting there.--97.102.8.212 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

As we well know, the chronology of the Zelda series has not been confirmed by Nintendo, even if the games imply something that could originate a timeline theory. For the article to be considered an extremely good article, we should not state stuff about its timeline, for it would become unreliable. Everything stated in the Chronology section of the article has not been confirmed (if it were, people would be talking about it all over the internet and al theories would be considered junk) by Nintendo, and therefore, we should modify that section, stating that the games in the series imply certain theories about its timeline (giving an example like the Time-Split theory) but Nintendo never identified them as being true or false. If we put that there is a split in the timeline that would come to the "Child Saga" and "Adult Saga", it would be considered speculation, desvalorizing the article and the chances of it getting FA Class. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

...all the information in that section is either straight from Nintendo, or explicit in the games. We don't have speculation in that section.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard that Ocarina of Time was a remake of the original Legend of Zelda, which would mean that the current Chronology is wrong. If I can find a source for this info, I'll post it, but I think some more research should be done in this subject so we can expand on it.

70.177.214.191 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Disprove Rumors

For the longest time I was anticipating a Legend Of Zelda game that was set to take place in the future. This was due to a youtube prank that was pulled on a few hundred thousand viewers. And I'm sure this is not the only or biggest one that has been pulled before. I think it would be a good idea to have a section that exposes these as rumors or misunderstandings or whatever they may be. Remember, people are coming here for information about the franchise, this could prove to be helpful.96.25.80.203 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Medieval Fantasy"

Fantasy, I can agree with. "Medieval", I don't think the guy knows what it means. I don't really think you can say that steamboats, trains, crane games, remote-controlled bombs, cameras, and rampant machine use would count as Medieval - I think at best, we could call the series late-late-Renaissance, or something similar, even though neither term really applies to the alternate universe setting. We don't really see feudalism, either - only a monarchy.

So the series has armored knights and cavalry - so did most countries until around the time of America. So they have castles and princesses - many countries still do, and they served a similar role to Zelda up until the revolutions of the last few centuries. Maybe the first few games could be seen as medieval, but since LA Hyrule has been shown to be at about the middle of an Industrial Revolution.

So, basically, please stop adding "medieval fantasy" to the top of the page.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, to consider Zelda a medieval fantasy game, it must contain objects that are from the medieval or renaissance era. So magic spells, pig monsters, dragons, shrub children, fish people, chickens supporting peoples' weight, mouse-bombs... these things are all historically accurate, medieval objects and occurrences? ... I think not. There is no reason why trains and steam boats cannot be imaginative medieval objects just as magic and monsters are. Look at the works of DaVinci. I vote for medieval fantasy because the games are largely based on medieval history and society, but with a plethora of imaginative, fantasy objects. By the way. The ideas behind the camera, crane, steam engine, were well established in ancient times. I also suggest reading some of the works of CS Lewis if you want to learn more about the relationship between magic and technology before making assertions. --Russoc4 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

...very few of CS Lewis works are set in medieval times - a great deal of them are set during WWII or the near future. What the hell are you talking about?

"By my logic", to consider Zelda a medieval fantasy game, it shouldn't be set in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. And I'm not sure what you're saying about the magic et all - not only did I not claim that made it medieval, it kind of seems obvious to me that that wouldn't affect the time setting at all.

There is a HUGE reason why trains and steam boats can't fit well in a medieval setting, because they're part of what totally destroyed the main facets of that system.

By the way, Da Vinci was part of the Renaissance. Seriously, look things up before talking shit.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Be nice, guys. As this has become somewhat controversial, we need a source calling the series medieval or renaissance before either of those terms can be added. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said CS Lewis wrote about medieval times. I said he wrote about magic and technology. Their settings during WWII are irrelevant to their plots though, they still contain magic and technology that exists neither during before or after WWII.--Russoc4 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is your proof that the games are necessarily set in the middle of the industrial revolution? --Russoc4 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You deserve credit here. Trains and steam boats did indeed signal an end to certain periods of history. But then how can you consider Zelda as part of the "industrial revolution" if swords and horse riding are not associated with this period of history?

I never said DaVinci was part of the medieval period. I know full well that he was a "renaissance" man. I was implying that modern technology does not necessarily have to be imagined in the same period that it is brought to life. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going for a fair, well mannered debate here. No need for strong language. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Talking shit" is not harsh language, nor a personal attack. If you considered it such, I apologize.

You didn't say CS Lewis wrote about the medieval era, but you very strongly implied it - otherwise, its a completely nonsensical addition to your argument, which is about whether the rampant use of technology in the Zelda series is contradictory to the claim that it is set in the medieval era. If I'm understanding your last comment correctly, you're saying that the use of magic isn't indicative of the era. Yes, I fully agree with that. Honestly, I can't figure out why you brought this up, since I've read most of CS Lewis' books and can't see any link to this discussion.

The common use of crane games, coal trains, steamboats, remote-controlled objects (hell, electronic age for that) which are explicitly said to be nonmagical, photography, use of electro-magnets, lasers, etc. - heck, I'd even say it's encroaching on modern day. The only real difference is that 1) it's set in a monarchy, which most people today aren't really used to, but still exists, and 2) the availability of magic and monsters seems to have stagnated culture slightly. slightly. Most of these objects are not just modern inventions, but indicative of the industrial age.

Cavalry and sword-bearing knights actually are associated with that era - we still had armored knights up until the 15 or 1600's if I am reading the articles correctly. Widespread horse use continued up until cars got really cheap in the 1800's, so horse use doesn't rule it out. Cannons were used back in medieval times as well, so artillery-centric warfare in the recent centuries doesn't indicate a huge loss of armored knights as compared to the medieval era. For that matter, there's been artillery and cannons in virtually every Zelda game as well, so if you wanted to make that argument

For that matter, the sword-bearing knights in Hyrule were mostly ceremonial - having less use than even in the clearly modern Naruto series. Link's really the only one, and he's basically a backwoods vigilante, if you're looking at it from the realworld perspective. And until guns were industrialized, guns weren't freely available either - certainly not to a lower class farmer.

If you weren't saying DaVinci was part of the medieval ages, then your point was largely irrelevant. He was part of the Renaissance, which gave birth to the Industrial Revolution only about 150 years later. Added to that - while he did have some ideas (the practicality of which have been greatly exaggerated), the point is that Zelda is past that stage - it's gotten to the point where cannons, steamboats, trains, and what seems in some cases to be electronics have been invented and are widespread enough that not only the royalty and rich have them.

Most of the elements that could be considered "medieval" (princesses, swords) still existed widespread until only a century or two ago, if they aren't still in use, and the much more indicative technological progress seem to sometimes be almost on par with the early 1900's, in some cases going as far as lasers. Yes, there is a large element of stagnation due to the monster attacks (Heck, that's the main explanation in LoZ for the wasteland that was Hyrule), and the ease of using magic doesn't help either.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of this is because the series is based in part on the Tolkien-ish fantasy setting, which consisted of a similar fantasy world where monsters and magic have allowed culture to stagnate, but which is also smack dab in the industrial revolution (esp. Saruman and Sauron). However, Tolkien was very clear to note that the story was in an entirely separate epoch of the Earth before a cultural collapse which basically dwarfed the Dark Ages (if I remember correctly) - basically, it can be considered almost an entirely different world.

Here's a relevant link: [3]. Trains=Industrial Revolution setting. to be fair, though, it does claim that the series was previously in the age of chivalry, though I would say that at the very least, everything Majora onwards through that out the window.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your points are strong. It seems that Zelda is neither medieval nor industrial, but its own genre of sorts. Still, we can't help but classify it as a medieval fantasy game as it seems that most "fantasy" RPGs are medieval based and most "science-fiction" RPGs are largely futuristic. Though I realize that Zelda is not a true RPG, it seems that the original developers had the romantic medieval fantasy setting in mind in the 1980s. I would like to see at least the introduction say medieval fantasy, as it gives an ignorant reader an idea of what they are getting into. If there is no obvious reason why it should have this classification, then I suppose you are right in removing it.--Russoc4 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're right Russoc4; there's nothing in the intro to indicate the setting. The series could be set in outer space for all the information the intro provides. However, as detailed above, there are numerous direct contradictions when describing the setting as "medieval". Perhaps a brief description of Hyrule could place the "swordplay and dragons" setting in the reader's mind? Or, does anyone have a reliable source that compares Zelda to Lord of the Rings or something along those lines? That would get around having to use "medieval", etc.. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please read the definition of the term on wikipedia's article for it. medieval fantasy I also Googled, finding it a commonly used term. If it was a romance, we'd call it a romance. If it was a first person shooter, we'd call it that. That isn't original research, its common sense. This game meets the definition of medieval fantasy perfectly. Dream Focus 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

...except that it's not medieval. It's fantasy - there's no reason that can't be set in the present day. Narnia is a fantasy setting in the modern day. The Screwtape Letters are fantasy in the modern day, the Great Divorce is fantasy in the modern day. Bakugan is fantasy in the modern day, Naruto is fantasy in the modern day, etc.

The Medieval fantasy article, while very much a crappy article with no sourcing and completely spec and OR, still does not allows for Zelda to be considered as such - it specifically claims

"Medieval fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy that encompasses medieval era high fantasy and sometimes simply represents fictitious versions of historic events. This subgenre is common among role-playing games, text-based roleplaying, and high-fantasy literature.

Medieval Fantasy are non existing myths that believed to have happened during the medieval era, and contain topics such as Magic (fantasy), Black Magic, Shapeshifters and also creatures such as unicorns, orcs, goblins, etc."

-- so, it has to be set on Earth, and be set during the academically recognized medieval era.

Dream Focus, please, give one example of how the Zelda series fits the definition of "medieval". So far, you're argument has consisted of scoffing at me when disagree with you, and frankly, you might as well have just not commented at all for all the good its done.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got to throw in with Koro on this one. I don't think I've ever considered any of the Legend of Zelda games Medieval Fantasy, and more importantly, I don't think any source has ever called the series that. Also, aren't romance and medeival literary catagories, not videogame catagories? --Tainted Conformity (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The main character clearly uses arms and armor reminiscent of the middle ages. --Russoc4 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, seriously? You need to stop just saying "Obviously I'm right", and fricking back yourself up. If you mean Longsword, it's associated with the renaissance and very tail end of the middle ages, and that's a very simplified, early version of the sword Link has. The Master Sword does have mythological elements reminiscent of Caledfwlch (in role, not in design), which would have it placed chronologically at the end of the Roman Empire.

Armor? You mean his winged boots that let him run and hover, or his iron boots that let him sink? His magical bracelet and gauntlets that let him pick up pillars? Seriously, back your claims up!

As for the suit of armor he wears once in Twilight Princess - honestly, that kind of getup is more reminiscent of BC Greek armour, than anything worn by medieval knights, though it includes chainmail, invented 500 BC.

The details you are attempting to use to place the historical setting are incredibly widespread throughout history, and encompass pretty much half of recorded history. Saying "He wears armor and uses a sword, ergo he is medieval" is simply a useless statement. On the other hand, if you look at technology, which is so widely recognized as the best marker for chronological progress that it's used in most Fantasy and even in Star Trek, you can see that they are clearly taking elements from throughout the Industrial Revolution, and while in some places they seem to be taking tech from the present day or future (Beamos, Bombchus), that can be explained away with some magic (after all, a witch does make Bombchus in some of the games).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I had forgotten about this page until now. When I [4]googled, I found the expression "Medieval Fantasty" on 548,000 sites. The phrase is valid. You have a castle, a princess, guys with swords, armor, bows and arrows, plus fantasy elements such as the monsters you fight and magic being used. The towns have medieval style housing, no electricity or whatnot, people dressed as they did in simple times, standard RPG element. No signs of anything modern. Horses, no cars. I've only played the series up to a certain point though, so don't know if all of them meet this description. But the original Legend of Zelda, Zelda 2: the Adventures of Link, a Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, and Ocarina of Time do so. Dream Focus 15:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Are you serious? 1) You're search for "medieval fantasy" was frankly idiotic. No one's arguing that the term "exists" - we're arguing that it means something fundamentally different from what you're interpreting it as, and that it does not at all apply to the Zelda series. Again: Link's Awakening had crane games, photography studios, and widespread use of telephones. Plenty of people wearing modern clothes, as well (do you even look at the NPC's?) Hell, in Ocarina of Time, the Bombchu girl is dressed up in modern teenager clothing, and has neon lights all over the Bombchu studio. I think you're greatly confusing pastoral with medieval.

• Castles - still in use today
• Princesses - still in use today
• Swords - still in widespread use up to about a century ago
• Armor - still in widespread use up to about a centure, maybe two centuries ago, and virtually unchanged from BC era
• Bows and arrows - still in widespread use up to about a century ago, more modern versions in use today.
• "Medieval style housing" - wrong.
• "No electricity" - judging by photography studios, telephone networks, and neon lighting, probably wrong
• "People dressed as they did in simple times" - wrong
• "Standard RPG element" - you've played Final Fantasy, right? When's the last time "standard RPG" meant it had to be in a medieval-like era?
• "No signs of anything modern" - this is just outright denial and ignorance of this entire discussion. Again, telephone systems, lasers, neon lighting, trains, steamboats, photography studios, etc...there's no shortage of technology in the games.
• "Horses, no cars" - so? THEY HAVE TRAINS. Cars did not become widespread until less than a century ago, and that's in metropolitan areas. Most pastoral towns would not afford or really need them, while densely packed towns (such as London or Tokyo) make cars a hassle - few people in Tokyo actually use cars, for example.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Keep it civil. It's interesting that all these technologies are apparent in some of the Zelda games. I do agree with you that they of course indicate that some Zelda games fall outside of the "medieval" classification. But has it occured to you that not one of these "technologies" has been shown to be understood by in-game characters? I still stand by my belief that these "technologies" are actually just vague ideas brought about by the magic available to those in the Zelda universe; they just happen to be analogous to objects that we associate with modern technology just because we understand them.

Consider this: Back to my example of CS Lewis, his Space Trilogy contained ideas of spaceflight and "modern" technologies unheard of at the time. Does this mean the books were set in a period where these technologies were real? No. Their setting was when the books were written and the technologies were not fully understood. The same goes for Zelda games. They may be taking place in a medieval setting with "modern" aspects that are not understood, yet still exist. Likewise, look at some of the more present concepts about the future. Many works have this idea of flying cars and pill sized meals. Say, for example, we expect these technologies to come about in 2020. What if they actually occur in 2120. Does this mean that works written in 2009 containing flying cars actually take place in 2120? No. They were meant to take place in 2020. I believe that Zelda games are meant to be indicators of the medieval period. --Russoc4 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't played the games in awhile, so don't remember anything about Link's Awakening. Got it when it first came out on the original Game Boy many years ago. None of the games I've ever seen have had trains or steam power in them, but as I have said, I haven't played them all. And the definition doesn't say that no modern things could be in a series, just that the overall theme is still in a primitive state. The lasers weren't technologically based, they shooting out of the eyes of various creatures which had that power. No one was running around with laser guns or anything. And the lights could've been magical lights of course. But if some had technology more prominent, then I agree, the term wouldn't make sense for the entire series. Dream Focus 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The series is 2 timelines, and as such each "timeline" (DISCLAIMER: The The Split-timeline theory has not been proven but it makes the most sense) is a different style of game (not counting the art style differences). The Windwaker/Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks seems to be evolving into something that is essentially steampunk. And the "true" Zelda line Ocarina of Time/Twilight Princess seems to be staying true to the medieval fantasy style. BUT regardless of what style or time period this is, remeber that this is Hyrule and not Earth. --75.184.35.169 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "'true' Zelda line", why is the line with fewer games in the true one? Anyway, valid point that this is Hyrule and not Earth. For what it's worth, I think they started out fairly squarely basing it in our own Medieval times, with added magic. Since LA however, Hyrule (ok, I know it wasn't Hyrule in LA) had its own technological developments that wouldn't stand to be explained away with "magic", putting it in its own universe, related to, but with no direct connection to, our own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.227.209 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Expantion on Cultual Influences

An expantion of this section would be great. There are many more easter eggs, refrences and stuff like that out there... [Will find source in a minute] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.164 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I need some help

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Legend of Zelda (series)/1

I am completely unable to decipher what they want us to actually do. I tried, was told I was wrong, and was ignored when I asked for clarification. Honestly, this sort of mindless bureaucratic time-wasting is why I stay away from the other side of wikipedia. Can someone who has more experience dealing with these guys please help figure it out?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So do any of us care enough to do anything about this?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the article has already been delisted. Gary King (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

...Yeah. Does anyone care enough to help get it relisted? Noone seemed to eve show up for the discussion in the first place, so I thought I might as well ask if anyone gives a damn.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Article project.

The Legend of Zelda theme - eh? Anyone wanna make an awesome article?! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New Concept Art

In the new concept art, the woman does not have blonde hair and is way too short to be Zelda. It should be changed. Also, some speculate on Kotaku that it is the living incarnation of the Master Sword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about speculation previously in the article that's already been changed, so it's not an issue anymore. Arrowned (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I hadn't seen this before; I assumed he was talking about some Spirit Tracks art or something. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not a RPVG?

I could never understand why "The Legend of Zelda" games are not considered Role-Playing Video-Games. What do they lack?

1. They have plot (except for the first title and Four Swords);
2. They are non-linear;
3. The main character has permanent upgrades in HP, attack, defense, and (sometimes) MP.

The definition of Role-Playing Game is not "a game with experience points"! An RPG is a game where the player plays a role, i.e. he interacts (talks) with NPCs and make choices about what to do next and where to go; so, the main features of RPGs should be the plot and the non-linearity.

(For the same reason, I can't consider the early Pokemon games as RPGs: they lack plot almost completely.)

But maybe a Role-Playing Game and a Role-Playing Video-Game are something very different, and I'm just trying to apply the definition of the former one to the latter one.

RSVP.

--Abacos (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a massively huge argument that's been covered on the internet for over a decade now, and will probably never reach a satisfying conclusion. So as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we answer that question with: what does the source claim? [Nintendo.com says Action/Adventure], so we go with that. Arrowned (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, and I agree that the author has the right on the definition of his property. But I read here and there on the web that LZ lacks many features that are necessary to consider it an RPG, although noone ever states what these missing features are. So, what are these missing features? For what I'm concerned, LZ lacks just the experience points, and this is pointless to me (but this is my personal opinion). Is there anything important that I forgot? Or should I assume that a RPG is "a game with plot, non-linearity and permanent upgrades", while a RPvG is just "a videogame with experience points"?

Anyway, you wrote that the argument has been covered for a decade. I don't want to start here a new decade of discussions: I would get bored quite soon :-)

--Abacos (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the definition of an RPG is that almost every modern game would be considered one if we used the definition "a game where you play a role." Therefore, it's generally just defined as "sword and sorcery" and "turn-based." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot is not actually a requirement for RPG's, it's the development of your character. The main purpose of Zelda gameplay is not to "be" a character, as in Dungeons and Dragons or MMORPG's, but to perform a certain task. Games like Pokemon focus almost primarily on personal character development - in fact, 90% of the game is geared toward this, with a small allowance to a semi-linear story. The problem with the rest of your statement is that most of the Zelda games in the series do not give you permanent upgrades to any stat besides HP, and some don't even give you that (Four Swords, for example). It's also largely linear - even more so than Super Mario 64, which let you choose which world to go to in relatively any order, and allowed you to skip some. The most amount of important choice I'm aware of is that in ALttP, you can do one or two of the dungeons in a different order, and in Ocarina of Time, there is one of the temples you can switch with the other. You still end up having to clear them all, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo dismisses timeline totally

I have simply added to the current set of timelines, but it seems that Nintendo does not believe in any timeline. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93128-Nintendo-Lays-To-Rest-Zelda-Timeline-Mystery

I leave the full treatment of the section to someone more experienced with the subject than myself. I simply read about it on the Escapist.VogonFord (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Eiji and Shigeru have explicitly said there is a timeline. One youtuber's reporting of a private e-mail he got from them does not invalidate that.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has a couple of broken links

References 39, 40, and 42 are all broken links. Please adjust these references. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Move this page?

I think this page should be moved to Legend of Zelda and the current Legend of Zelda game be moved to Legend of Zelda (video game) per their respective importance.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page more important than the original game's? -sesuPRIME 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not without precedent. See Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy (video game). With a series as long as this, the first game diminishes in importance, relative to the whole. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's moved, every The Legend of Zelda link throughout Wikipedia will have to be changed to The Legend of Zelda (video game), otherwise users will be taken to the wrong page. This move just seems unnecessary; things have been this way for too long. -sesuPRIME 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a terribly difficult fix, with a lot of the editing tools available these days. At any rate, ZXCVBNM probably should bring this discussion to WT:VG for a wider opinion. I'm leaning slightly towards pro-move, but I'd definitely like more people to weigh in to establish consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the move is unnecessary, it's fine as it is. RazielZero (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't look forward to the moving required, even with tools to help, but I support the move myself. I, however, also support this being brought up at WT:VG for a much wider selection of community input. Arrowned (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I need an admin to move it; it's protected from page moves due to vandalism.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per consensus. Specifically, The Legend of Zelda → The Legend of Zelda (video game), followed by The Legend of Zelda (series) → The Legend of Zelda. This involved, all told, about three hundred separate edits to take care of the redirects and dabs which because of the nature of the move, could not be left to a bot. I accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express and your first born child. Please, no personal checks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The Legend of Zelda (series) → The Legend of Zelda — The consensus of this discussion was that the undisambiguated spot (ie, without parentheses) should be decided on a case by case basis, depending on whether the series or the first game is more well known, which a preference for the series in the case of series with many games. I believe that applies here since The Legend of Zelda has no less than 12 games plus spin-offs and unreleased games. This is mostly procedural since The Legend of Zelda is move-protected. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Legend of Zelda → The Legend of Zelda (video game)
• Support — I fully support this move. It makes sense to make the series as the main article. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 17:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The original game is extremely notable and often cited as one of the best games of all time, it should remain where it is and so should this page. In general the first game in a series should get the article and the article on the series should have the disambiguation. TJ Spyke 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support – It makes more sense that way, than the way it is at the moment. Also, as a user of AWB I'd be happy to update the links (and the fact that this would cause a bit of work is not a valid reason for not doing this). Just makes sense - somebody says to me "Legend of Zelda" I think "series of games", I don't think "first in a series of games". Alan16 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support — I was initially against the move because I was concerned about updating all the links and redirects, but your assurance that that won't be much of an issue has lead me to change my mind. -sesuPRIME 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The original game is indeed a landmark title, but at this point, the entire franchise is both more well-known and more notable. Arrowned (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support — the reasoning provided makes perfect sense to me.
  — V = I * R (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: say "Zelda", and I think of the series, not the game. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support IFF the links are cleaned up afterwards (I assume the links that are currently to the plain title intend the video game). Dekimasuよ! 08:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Any particular reason this is still going? Seems to be a consensus. Alan16 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, consensus is pretty clear. Who's going to take care of the big move? -sesuPRIME 05:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split Midna out?

I believe this version of the Midna article, User:New Age Retro Hippie/Midna, should be its own article. It has both sections required to form its own article, and it's somewhat well-written. It may have been merged once, but I believe it was merged for lack of notability, not the character itself being unworthy of being separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

LoZ & LotR

Is it just me or is this whole section irrelevant? I mean, in essence, any high fantasy can be related to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.210.239 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Mushroom (Talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

exclamation of CDI titles inappropriate?

IMHO the exclamation of the CDI titles from the general timeline and article is unprofessional and inapropriate. While i think we can agree these are the worst zelda games ever it is unacceptable to see them missing from the official timeline. I know they are ugly and the weakest in the series, but they ARE officially licensed by Nintendo. I mean i also think Terminator 3 was crap and that we'd be better off with pretending it doesn't exist i think it would be ridiculous to remove it from the wikipedia article. Yeah Nintendo was very stupid with this licensing, but come on, since when do we remove games from a series article because we think "they were bad parts"? I am aware this series attracts much young audience, but i hope there are a few mature authors here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.194.63 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no official timeline. and since neither of the two key developers worked on, or cares about these games, they certainly would not be on it. Magicbologna (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Daily Motion Fan Film?

I believe the last section of the article is a lie. The trailer was IGN-made, there has never been a complete Zelda movie. The site exists, could somebody please verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.40.156.83 (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

yes there is. It's.. not that good, but it is feature length and completed. Made by a company called "BMB Finishes" Magicbologna (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

3D Dot Game Heroes

I believe a few sentences on 3D Dot Game Heroes should be included in the Reception section. noskap (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Yes I agree the games draws many influences from it —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheezeDoodles (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Skyward Sword Chronology

I think that Skyward Sword comes earlier in the Zelda timeline than Ocarina of Time because the Skyward Sword, at some point in the game, transforms into the Master Sword. 68.4.214.54 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6