Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article title

I assume it is temporary until we learn the official English name? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 02:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

True, while its highly ulikely that NOA would not use Link to the Past there is possibility that the two may not be used. For instance, the second Luigi's Mansion did use a 2 in the US but instead used Dark Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.164.125 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"shortly"?

"[...] a new Zelda title for the 3DS was confirmed shortly after the release of Ocarina of Time 3D [...]"
OoT 3D was released in June 2011. The first mentioning of a new Zelda title for N3DS I could found was from 3 November 2011 (Portugese site MyGames, which is dead now). On 4 and 5 November 2011 other pages reported that Eiji Aonuma mentioned a new Zelda title, namely Gameskult (fr) on 4 and legendzelda.net on 5 November. Partly June and July till October are like 4 1/2 months. In historcial terms it might be shortly, but in common terms it doesn't seem shortly, at least for me. -Yodonothav (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article name discussion

I changed the article name, and then looked through the history and it looks like there's some contention on this, so I thought I would open up a discussion.

I personally support A Link to the Past 2, and not The Legend of Zelda: Kamigami no Triforce 2, per WP:COMMONNAME, as ALttP2 was what it is referred to in English Language sources. Additionally, the Japanese name is both confusing and meaningless to a majority of English readers, who have no knowledge or familiarity with the language, and its inconsistent with all the wiki-links to the original A Link to the Past. As such:

• Support A Link to the Past - is my stance, for reasoning above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I say keep it at LttP2 or move it to something like The Legend of Zelda (2013).--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be at link to the past 2 since Nintendo has not yet announced that as the title. It was not mentioned by that name at the Nintendo Direct, and the downloadable video on the Eshop called it new Zelda (or something else to that effect). Not, to mention if they did change it this would not be the first time that English language release did not use a 2. The second Luigi's Mansion as well as the Second Ace Attorney used subtitles instead.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• The NA Nintendo Direct referred to the game simply as "The Legend of Zelda". As was the case for Animal Crossing: New Leaf which was Animal Crossing (3DS) until the English title was revealed (and not the known Japanese title Animal Crossing: Jump Out), we should name the article The Legend of Zelda (2013) as suggested by Donaldismo, until the official English name is revealed. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I had been under the impression that Nintendo was tentatively calling it ALTTP2 considering all the sources that were calling it that, (Computer and Video Games, Polygon, GameSpot, etc. The Wired article even kind of sounds like Reggie Fils Aim called it that, though I guess its not a direct quote.) Additionally, I don't believe its commonly being called "Zelda 2013", and there's a lot of misguided hits out there on Google of people who thinkg Zelda 13 refers to the Wii U game... Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Reggie did not include a 2. The closest thing to that was when he called the game a sequel to LTTP but he never called it LTTP 2. Unless he called it that in some other interview the Wired article is clearly speculating.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually taking a closer look into Reggie's statement he only said it was in the same game world (didn't even mention the work sequel, no dispute on that though). So if Nintendo is calling it LTTP 2 it was not a Nintendo Direct.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it's "meaningless" is, well, meaningless. The correct title, right now, is "Kamigami no Triforce 2". Stop worrying so much about "English speakers" and worry about what is right, because the facts here are neither hard to acquire nor hard to implement. Even "The Legend of Zelda (Nintendo 3DS)" would be a better name than anything involving ALttP at the moment, because what we have is completely wrong. All the sources in the world cannot make up names like that, period.

As for which one you actually want, that's up to you. I think consistency would say go with "The Legend of Zelda (Nintendo 3DS)" as I've stated. I, obviously, would go for the correct name, because that's just the right thing to do. If you're looking to change the world's priorities with me, this is a good place to start. Despatche (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• My problem with "Kamigami no Triforce 2" is two-fold, there is absolutely not going to be named that in English regions, and that's not the name that it is commonly referred to by reliable sources. The second part is especially important because of WP:COMMONNAME. Not only are the words meaningless to the average English reader, but its not being used so commonly that they would just know the words without they're meaning.
• A Link to the Past 2 is not "flat out wrong". Its commonly being used by some of the most mainstream gaming signs, like IGN. (See [here http://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-3ds-139048/3ds-121949].)
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, was known as Zelda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Triforce. So, if this game is titled Kamigami no Triforce 2, it seems like a pretty logical progression would be that they translate that out to A Link to the Past 2.
• Above all, I'm hoping this problem solves itself in the coming days/weeks/month, with the various Nintendo Directs scheduled for before and around E3 2013. Hopefully they'll give it a title and be done with it. We can't be too far off, it comes out this year... Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be however its not always like that. For example, Gyakuten Saiban 2 was not Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: 2 but Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice for All nor should we forget the recent case of Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon which was not called Luigi's Mansion 2 in North America. These type of assumptions don't always work.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

English Title Capitalization - "A Link between Worlds" vs. "A Link Between Worlds"

I'm not sure what Wikipedia's MoS would recommend, but the de facto standard for English title capitalization calls for lower-cased prepositions, usually regardless of length. Can we get a consensus on this particular article for future editing considerations? I favor lower-casing the preposition in any given situation, at least for consistency. 98.86.122.54 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CT states that you only have it be lower case if Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (of, to, in, for, on, with, etc.;). I'm not sure where or what argument that stance traces back to, but if we follow that, upper-case would be correct with "between"... Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation

Currently the Japanese translation in the lead is a bit haphazard with it using the direct translation in the Template:Nihongo and explaining the Link to the Past 2 thing a bit later. I feel it would be far more effective to handle the issue as documented in the template and as used at other games like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, and have it written in the lead like this:

The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, known in Japan as The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 2 (ゼルダの伝説 神々のトライフォース2, Zeruda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Toraifōsu 2, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: Triforce of the Gods 2")...

Do you think this is a better way of putting it? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I definitely understand where you're coming from -- your solution is elegant but unfortunately I don't think it's totally accurate. A Link to the Past never comes into play with either the Japanese or English names -- the English name is Between Worlds, and the Japanese name is about the Triforce. It's sort of a leap of faith to go from Kamigami no Toraifōsu 2 to Triforce of the Gods 2 to A Link to the Past 2.

To put it another way, let's pretend that the English name "A Link to the Past" never existed, because the game was never released in North America or it had a different name. In that alternate universe, we would simply refer to the Japanese version of Between Worlds by its Japanese name, or else by its literal translation. Since Between Worlds and its predecessor are two completely separate games I don't think we should mix them up. It seems inappropriate to draw on the English name of "Game A" when we're talking about the Japanese name of "Game B."

None of this to say that it's not a worthwhile concern over clarity and succintness -- it's simply a difficult discussion because the names for this game are so different between regions (or Between Worlds, if you will (; ). CaseyPenk (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• In any case, I think it's clear that we need to put the Japanese title front and center so readers understand that the English title is not simply a transliterated version of the Japanese, or vice versa. I went ahead and pulled the Japanese title to the front of the Nihongo template and bolded it so it's more prominent. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I feared this would get a bit complicated which is why I wanted to bring it up here rather then adding it straight away. Kamigami no Toraifōsu is the Japanese name for A Link to the Past though, so I definitely think it isn't much of a stretch to assume Kamigami no Toraifōsu 2 means A Link to the Past 2, and have it explained in the translation straight away. (I believe this article was even called that at one point.) Thanks, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 05:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I wasn't suggesting my edit was the be-all end-all. I do think it's closer to the desired solution though in the sense that it has the Japanese name bolded for comparison with the English name. What translations we include and where, we still need to hammer out.

Hmm, you're right that they refer to the same thing but they don't really "mean" the same thing. And yes, this article was known as A Link to the Past 2 (or at least the media referred to the game as such), but that was before this third name (Between Worlds) even came into play. Now that we know it's not a direct sequel and that it has an original name in English, I don't think it's accurate to incorporate the English name of a totally separate game.

I don't think we can condense the explanation of the name without sacrificing meaning. If we incorporate A Link to the Past 2 into the lead, the only way I see that being possible is by saying "the game known in English as A Link to the Past" 2. Obviously that's really contrived and sounds silly -- which is to say I don't think there's an elegant or snappy way to phrase this. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, one distinction I find important -- Triforce of the Gods is the original name of the 1990s game. A Link to the Past was translated from its Japanese counterpart, not the other way around. For that reason I feel we should give preference to Triforce of the Gods. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Triforce of the Gods 2 most certainly belongs in the 'lit.' section, as that is technically what the title means. However, Triforce of the Gods 2 undoubtedly conveys A Link to the Past 2 as a dynamic translation even though those exact words aren't in either title, so I feel this meaning is still an important part of the translation, as the Japanese name is basically #2 of Kamigami no Toraifōsu, so in English that would mean #2 of what Kamigami no Toraifōsu is, which is A Link to the Past. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Could you explain more about how you see the titles being connected? I can imagine that the Triforce (being an ancient relic created by the God[desse]s in ancient times) is certainly a part of the past. But the Japanese title doesn't convey a sense of linkage with the past, although in the game the Triforce exists today as it did then. Are you suggesting that "Triforce of the Gods" implies the Triforce as a "living document" that can be connected with and "channeled" even today?

I'm also concerned that the wordplay with Link's name is unique to the English version; this is a unique feature clearly not found in the Japanese title.

Ultimately, the Japanese title neither mentions the titular character nor any link he might have to the past. The Japanese title seems more concerned with the historic past without a notion of the linkage with the current.

What do you see as the relationship between the two titles? CaseyPenk (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just thought it made sense because Triforce of the Gods essentially means A Link to the Past, in the same way Triforce of the Gods 2 could mean A Link to the Past 2. If Phantom Hourglass had been called Tackt of Wind 2 in Japan, it would make sense that and English title would be Wind Waker 2; this is the principle I applied here. If you feel this connection isn't relevant or significant or direct enough though, I can understand that. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 11:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Link to the Past is needed. Just because the original game ゼルダの伝説 神々のトライフォース was called Link to the Past in the West does not make that a translation of the orginal. Is there any evidence that it is do did NOA make a new title based on the plot? I tried a translation software and got nothing even close to LTTP so I have strong doubts. Since the current US title is not using the LTTP name and assuming that I am correct that the Japanese title does not translate as such I see no reason to use it since LTTP is not used in any regions. Also, two other things. First, regarding a statement made earlier, the game was never called A link to the Past 2 in the West. The closest we had is a reference to the fact that the game took place in the same world with a trailer calling it something like New Zelda. Also, if Spirit Tracks was called Tack of the Wind 2 in Jpan but the Western version used Phantom Hourglass instead of Wind Waker 2 I would not use Wind Waker 2 since it would never have been called that in any region either.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said A Link to the Past was a direct translation of Triforce of the Gods. It isn't. But the media was calling this ALtTP 2 before the final name was announced. My point was that if GAME A in Japan was called GAME B in the west, then GAME A 2 would mean GAME B 2, although the localisers might decide to call it GAME C instead, although the name essentially means GAME B 2. I guess the sequel to ALtTP thing is explained in the article, although a little poorly. Maybe I didn't explain my point very well, but everyone seems to disagree with me... DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 12:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you explained your point well and I do see where you're coming from -- you're suggesting a basic equivalence between titles for the same game, in the sense that both titles refer to the same thing. I think we understand where you're coming from and it makes sense, but we don't want to make A Link to the Past 2 seem as if it were the canonical translation of the Japanese title. I don't want you to take this personally because your contributions have been outstanding and you're making valuable contributions to this and other articles.

Whatever we do, we need to explain the translation of the Japanese title better. I agree. Given the current form (wherein the explanation comes at the end of the lead rather than in the first sentence), do you have any ideas on the phrasing we could use? "Closely related" is vague and confusing. I'm thinking something like I talked about earlier, wherein the Japanese name is "the game known as ALttP / TotG but with the number 2 on the end." It's a bit of an annoyance because it's not 2 in the sense of a sequel, but literally just "the previous title with a 2 appended on the end." CaseyPenk (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on the discussion, but I don't believe there is any reason to add the name "A Link to the Past 2" besides mentioning it in Development as a name news outlets and fans took up until the official title was announced. The game is not officially called A Link to the Past 2 in any context. I believe it's fine right now as it is, putting both region's official names at the forefront. The only other modification I would make is the labelling of the Japanese title before romanization. The game is known as "Zelda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Triforce 2" in Japanese, but pronounced "Zeruda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Toraifōsu 2". Is everyone okay with that change? ServiceGhost (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the rationale behind replacing Zeruda with Zelda and whatnot because those terms are transliterated but I don't see why it would be necessary. I've seen this on other pages and it seems like a misrepresentation of the name. Mostly because that's not how it's written in Japanese.. the English word "Zelda" is not a Japanese word. It seems weird to translate only the katakana portions of the name. I think we should call it either The Legend of Zelda or Zeruda no Densetsu, but why a hybrid?

What I'm getting at is that words like "ゼルダ" and "トライフォース" are actual Japanese words now because they are well-established. They're no longer really "English" words -- they have a life of their own. For example, "トライフォース" could mutate over time into something else (such as "トフォー" as an abbreviation) and the English name would stay the same. So the two names would be independent, and thus one is no longer reliant upon the other.

See loanword for the distinction between foreign word and loanword:

• Foreign word: "A non-integrated word from a foreign language spelled as is"
• Loan word: "An integrated word from a foreign language, orthography adapted for the receiving language" <-- this is what "ゼルダ" is, because it has been integrated into the Japanese language

CaseyPenk (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion everyone. I will concede the point, and A Link to the Past 2 should not go in the Nihongo template. I suggested it because I thought it would help the readers' understanding of the title, and wanted to see what others thought. (As I came here first, rather than adding it myself). So the consensus is: A Link to the Past 2 does not belong in the Template:Nihongo in the lead because it is not a literal or official translation. (And I of course wouldn't take it personally! :) ) DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 08:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it a sequel?

The Japanese name would suggest that it's a sequel to ALttP but I haven't heard any official mention as such. It would be helpful to clarify one way or another if it's a sequel or not, so our prose can be precise. As it stands the article feels a bit wishy-washy.. it's set in the same world but it has a different title (at least in English) but it was originally intended as a sequel? Anything to report on this matter? CaseyPenk (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was a sequel, since there are some locations in this game that are almost directly ripped from ALTTP, though I guess I'd have to do some digging to find some concrete proof. (Sometimes it gets a little hazy with these sorts of things in this series, with its vague and convoluted chronology, something I don't personally keep track of...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, lo and behold, the first result I find uses the title, "A Link Between Worlds Is Not a Sequel, But Not a Remake Either" But that title might be a bit misleading, because series producer Aonuma doesn't deny it being a sequel of some kind. He says:

"It’s not a direct sequel in the sense that it’s the same Link and Zelda."

So, it's not a direct sequel, or at least not a direct sequel in every sense of the term, but it might still be a sequel in some sense... so I guess we can't really say what it is... CaseyPenk (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A thought -- we can include the information about the debate between sequel and remake, etc. on the article so people can judge for themselves. That would free us from having to interpret what Aonuma was saying. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to challenge. The game's localized title may as well have been called Link to the Past 2. Of course it's a sequel. In Zelda, whether or not they share the same characters is just as irrelevant as it's always been; it's a canon entry in the series that follows another canon entry. It's incredible that anybody could dispute this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The latest word, from a day ago from an IGN interview with Aonuma, is In Japan, where this game is called Kamigami no Triforce 2 (editors note: this translates to The Triforce of the Gods 2, the original Japanese title of the game we know as A Link to the Past), in the U.S., it’s titled A Link Between Worlds, so there’s a little bit of difference even in the image the title creates. We’re positing this as… I guess you could say it’s a sequel to the last game. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

2nd retail release of Zelda on 3ds

An IP keeps claiming that there are more physical retail Zelda games available at stores beyond this and Ocarina of Time 3D for the Nintendo 3DS. Can someone provide proof of such a claim. Virtual Console rom re-releases would not count as a retail release. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Factual error

"The game is also set in the timeline of the original The Legend of Zelda and is the first game to be set in the original timeline since the split that occurred following the release of Ocarina of Time"

There are two ways to interpret this statement but it's incorrect either way. If it's meant to be understood from an in-universe perspective it's wrong because A Link to the Past, Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages and Link's Awakening all take place before A Link Between Worlds but after the split. If it's meant to refer to the release dates of the games it's incorrect because OoS and OoA were released after Ocarina of Time. 213.114.151.59 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been fixed up, just so everyone knows. My edit was obviously referring to the "Downfall" timeline along iwht release dates and I was forgetting the Oracle games, which has now been made clear. Colliric (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Opening Sequence and why it should be summarized in the Plot section

Here it is, incase anyone started the game without letting the "Title Screen" do it's full cycle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve1MG5Xee64

It should be summarized in the plot section, because the story makes more sense in light of it, as is also the case with the following Zelda games(which also have the pre-game story sequence written up): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_Waker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelda_2 (Plot section taken primarily from the Printed Manual's lead in story)

I suppose it's alright, though still, it could definitely still be shortened down too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)