Talk:Universe of The Legend of Zelda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hyrulian Timelines

This page seems to be arranged in a supposed "chronology" of Hyrule, as opposed to the order in which the games came out. As it has been said time and time again that a definitive chronology is all but impossible, perhaps this page should be restructured. Thoughts? --Jacqui M Schedler 18:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the best way to construct the page. If you look at Hyrule in different times, one game is going to be before another which will fit with someones timeline. Just best sticking with it. Trip: The Light Fantastic 12:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I say that, in order to remain neutral on the timeline debate, the games should be rearranged in order of release date. Jeff Silvers 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, game developers did make some claims as to the chronology of the series (i believe oot was supposes to be first, loz1 last or something), so the claim of impossibility is not true... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.130.130.59 (talk • contribs).

And their timelines generally pose more inconsistencies than they solve. The Ocarine of Time one was the closest to a non-problematic timeline, and the glut of games that came after it made a non-conflictory timeline almost impossible. In any case, the timeline they gave did not include many of the games on that list, so it needs to be put in the order the games came out, and reworded.KrytenKoro 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The developers themselves have said that there is a timeline, but they haven't revealed it. They did, however, tell one very important piece of information: See here [[1]]. 69.81.181.107 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes little difference to the purpose of this discussion, which is "which way should the Hyrule article be ordered without confusing people". Not to mention this discussion is almost a year old and long done. Arrowned (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'Great Sea' movement

Who moved the section on Wind Waker into it's own article? Does it really need one? Trip: The Light Fantastic 12:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Minish

In Minish Cap, one of the Minish says they're respsonsible for the hearts and rupees found in random, odd places. It was to "help weary travelers" or something. I think he was in the rafters of a house.

Proposed Merge

Hi, I've proposed that Hylia be merged into this article, since it seems to be about the same place under a different name. Please say if I'm wrong! --JennyRad 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I agree with the merge.

The article does need some work though, but we'll look at then when / if decided what to do with it. Hyrule 09:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. Deco 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hylia and Hyrule are not the same. As a Hyrulian is not neccesarily a Hylian. Hylia is an ancient kingdom, located in the same region as the "modern day" Hyrule, but thay are in fact different kingdoms (if my memory of my Link to the Past Strategy guide serves me...) That being said, I do agree that the articles should be merged, but a point should be made that they are not interchangeable terms. --Unreal McCoy

It looks like the Hylia article now redirects to the Hyrule article. Should the tag at the top be taken down?

Hyrule is the chosen land of the gods which is found within the lands of Hylia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.121.215.213 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyrule geography doesn't have an LttP section

And that's a problem. I'll write it if I don't here any objections. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, a lot of these articles don't have LttP sections. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a Link to the Past section to the Hyrule geography. Why wasn't there any added before? Dementus 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The article has three "It should be noted". That is not proper from an encyclopedia. Plus, comments from the fans are not notable for being included in the article. -- ReyBrujo 04:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help concerning article

I'm new here, and I'm having trouble inserting a map of Hyrule from aLttP. Could someone get a map from A Link to the Past and put it in the article? Thank you! Dementus 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Greeting

Should the greeting "hoy" be noted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs) .

Twilight Princess Hyrule screens

Anyone have any? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.90.188 (talk • contribs).

This article needs to be reworked in light of Twilight Princess - Hylia Clarification

Please view this video. Hylia is apparently the "world" in which all beings live in, and "Hyrule" is simply a kingdom within it. Hylia should either be changed from a redirect to it's own article, or should be included into this article somehow.--TSA 08:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's what he's saying. He says that a race of sacred people called Hylians made Hyrule, and they were created by another, more sacred race. The Hylians lived in Hylia, but that doesn't mean that the whole world is Hylia (then wouldn't every race be Hylian? Like the Gorons, etc?). What you're stating may be true, but I don't know that this conversation is sufficient evidence. Sraan 05:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hylia is the plural form of Hylian. That's all he's saying - they didn't create all the peoples, just the Hylians.KrytenKoro 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Princess Map of Hyrule?

As TP is the most recent Zelda game released, perhaps someone should include its map in the article, seeing as it has the most recent "revision" of Hyrule.
SouperAwesome 10:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but as no version of Hyrule is definitive, perhaps it would be more helpful to simply note that the current map depicts Zelda 2's Hyrule. - Klatrymadon

I believe we should use the Ocarina of Time map: http://www.zeldanederland.nl/images/hyrule/landen/hyrule.gif as it is inclusive of the land of Hyrule, and it also has the biggest spectrum, as the Lost Woods connect to Termina, making this the ideal map of Hyrule. Crazycarolina 03:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Zelda II Hyrule

There is no official evidence that the small area on this map that appears to have Lake Hylia and the Lost Woods is the Hyrule featured in other games. A theory that circulated on zeldalegends.com suggested that this game took place in a different part of Hyrule entirely. Normally Death Mountain is in the East. On this map it is to the West. This suggests that Hyrule continues east of Death Mountain and this section appears ONLY in Zelda II.

Often called "Eastern Hyrule" this land is clearly not the Hyrule of older games. Only the area with Spectatcle Rock is the same as the other map. The lake and forest near that location are probably not Lake Hylia and the Lost Woods. If they are then that means the the Hyrule in other games is ridicously small compared to "Eastern Hyrule." The geography tends to change between games so having a random forest and lake near Spectactle Rock does not seem unreasonable to me.

The article lists that Spectactle Rock, Lake Hylia, The Lost Woods and the Western Graveyard are APPARENT. That is a COMPLETE matter of opinion and should not be in the article. FOr one thing, Lake Hylia didnt' appear until aLttP, though there was a lake in LoZ that was probably Hylia. The Lake in AoL is not nearly as obvious and is an unfounded view. To that note, we should probably remove that Lake Hylia is even in LoZ and say that it is speculated that said lake is Hylia.

They could very well be Lake Hylia and the Lost Woods but that is not known. I thought I'd bring this up as it seems worthy of edit in my opinion. Gavyn Sykes 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Areas of windwaker compared to loactions in TP

Im looking for the mother and child rocks as they are said to be the NW which is where they were in ww, death mountain is in the same spot as dragoon roost from ww and i wanna find more anyone else have any thing theyd like to share? - 69.248.175.25 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

sheikah section

It needs to be rewriten. Please?15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of “Fate of Hyrule” section

I have removed the ’Fate of Hyrule” (presented below) section from this article, Wikipedia clearly states that “Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source”. The “Fate of Hyrule” section of this article was completely fabricated. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Only concrete facts should be presented by Wikipedia articles, not fan based research and/or opinions.

“Although the land of Hyrule was flooded in The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, it is important to note that there are actually (at least) two Hyrulian universes in the Zelda series. During an interview conducted by Nintendo Dream in 2007, Zelda series director Eiji Aonuma confirmed the controversial Split Timeline theory as a fact. In this theory (now fact), the Zelda from the Ocarina of Time split Hyrule's developing history in two by returning Link to his childhood era. One universe (adult Link's time) ultimately leads up to the events of The Wind Waker while the other universe (child Link's time) leads up to the events of Majora's Mask and the original advent Legend of Zelda series. So, while the original Hyrule was flooded in one universe (adult Link's time), it continues existing in the other (child Link's time). “

As a side note: At the end of The Wind Waker, the Link and Zelda from that game resolve to find a new land (which Zelda claims will be a 'new Hyrule'), but King Daphnes Nohansen says, "But that land will not be Hyrule; it will be YOUR land." In the same game, the Deku Tree says, "Forests have great power; they can change one tiny island into a larger island. Soon, a day will come when all the islands are one, connected by earth and grove." This line hints that a country will one day form between the islands of the Great Sea (which are the highest points of the sunken Hyrule). It is unlikely, however, that any such land existing in the distant future would be the same Hyrule as currently resides at the floor of the Great Sea. Rather, it would be a country existing over the sunken Hyrule and not actually a new Hyrule entirely.”

Gorons and Water

While I have little to say about the Goron who's at the bottom of the Royal Room for the Zoras in Twilight Princess, I do have something to say about the child Goron under the water in the hot spring and the "One Goron child sitting underwater makes a comment referring to the fact that he almost does not need to breathe." bit.

It should be noted he is in a hot spring. Since hot springs are generally known to restore energy (and health), we can infer that comment to have more to do about the regenerative properties of the hot spring than a Goron's ability to survive underwater. We've seen hot spring water to be nearly on par as a fairy for it's healing properties across the games, and I don't think it would be too far fetched to believe it can even stave off drowning. Yossitaru 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...So what about the Goron several meters under non-hotspring water? I think the point they're trying to give is the same as they did in MM - Goron's don't drown, they just have trouble getting OUT of water (MM never says that Gorons drown, it specifically says that they may get stuck and not able to get out).KrytenKoro 03:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics for this is based on, and only on, OoT. A few later races were thrown in, and the Sheikah section is particularly bad for cruft and OR, but the section doe not present it as an evolving demography, as it properly should (a good demography would list the demographics by game, so that the current setup can be seen and understood - this one makes it look like all the races are present at the same time). Then, there are several places where the races are out of order, having TP before WW, and silliness like that. The setup should list the tribes as they appear, in the order of the release history of the games.KrytenKoro 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, looking at it, the section is just a description of the races, instead of actual demographics. Even the stuff that is demographic-like is basically a regurgitation of what is on the races page. Because of this, and because the races page is basically the same info, but written with more quality, I'm going to remove the section, and leave the link to the races page.KrytenKoro 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate the above - deleting the Races article cannot be considered a merge, since this article's coverage of it consists solely of badly proportioned spooging from Ocarina of Time and somewhat from Twilight Princess. The races throughout the games are an important facet of the series unto themselves, and I personally do not see how they can be efficiently merged. As the section names itself "Demographics and government", I feel the section should instead be retooled into a summary of WHY the various tribes are important and how they interact - such as the persecution of the Gerudo and Sheikah, how the Hylian King united the tribes, etc., and leave discussion of the actual races themselves to the Races/Tribes article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Then improve it? The Races article was nothing more than a play-by-play of every single thing that could ever be said about every single race in every single game ever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is and is supposed to be a summary of what the individual tribes are. As said above, that is not the kind of coverage that should be in this article, and any reasonable and proper attempt at merging that article into this one would not work.

I will, however, start trying to rewrite the demographics section to be appropriate for this article - which should be about the setting of the series, as indicated by the title, and not simply a repository for any articles people want to delete.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So in essense, this section, which linked to the Races page, has nothing to do with the Races page. Right. Why do you say it would not work? Whether or not there is a clear consensus to merge, more people seem to agree with merging, so why wouldn't it work? Because you say so? And hint: You don't decide what the Universe of The Legend of Zelda is. Are you saying that a Universe article cannot be about its inhabitants? Please, feel free to explain why. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, "in essence", it was not an appropriate place for the Races page. As I have explained, this article is in every other place a discussion for the setting of the series - the Races/Tribes are important to that setting by their interactions with the plot and its prologue, not just by existing. While they are important to the series, and deserve some discussion about their other facets, the above is what makes them important to the setting.

Instead of constantly trying to pervert the meaning of "consensus", can we instead focus on a community discussion of how to fit the content of the races page to this article? While I don't like it, I'm prepared to agree with a merge, so long as it's done with the intent to merge, and not simply to delete an article and dump its contents, unaltered, somewhere else.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Really? So what you're saying is that an article about the series' universe, which is defined as "everything in The Legend of Zelda series", is not about its universe? A Universe is all matter. So I'm lost as to why you're in charge of this article's contents.
2. Instead of kicking and screaming that your bad article should continue to exist, why don't you actually work on improving it? And again, the Races article is BAD. It is the definition of an indiscriminate dumping ground - basically, anything that fits the definition of a Zelda race was in that article. I'm not going to agree to allow bad content on a potentially good page, so I trimmed, for example, that race of one Mermaid. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
3. If you want it to be about everything in the series' universe - then fine. I think it will make for a messy page, but let's go ahead and have huge sections on the weapons and items in the series.
4. ...and the Twili, and the Oocca, and Moblins, and the Wind Tribe, and the Minish, and the Korok, and the Rito, and the Gods/Spirits, and the Subrosians - in short, a crap-load of tribes who are absolutely integral to the plots of their respective games, and had plenty of coverage. In their place, you left the Deku. Again, I'm not really seeing how this attitude, repeated and rebuked by more than just me on the Enemies page, is defensible.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Um, no, because I kind of practice discrimination? I don't just say "well, since this article is about the series' universe, every single thing has to be mentioned! Better go write a section about a bush!" I mean, considering you never practiced it once while editing the Races article, I don't expect you'd understand how bad being indiscriminate is.
2. Are you making a list of the articles that could and should be covered in their respective pages? I'm really lost as to why Deku, an established race in, what, six games?, is such a good example of a bad choice for this section. I'm really curious why Twili and Phantom need to be here - can you explain what is worth mentioning that isn't already covered in the plot or gameplay of their respective articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also - as for your constant assertion that TTN claimed support for the merge - unless he did it by editing somewhere other than a talk page, he didn't do so in the last month. At least.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Then don't try to claim I'm being too discriminatory. It's hypocritical, and annoying. As for me "never practicing it" - again, that is because seeking comprehensiveness in an article versus removing two out of sixty sections really isn't "never seeking discrimination". Furthermore, you're definition of discrimination, which as demonstrated on the Enemies section as "what ALTTP doesn't want in the article, regardless of what multiple editors respond to him with" - not something I care to miss.
2. The Deku, which are in maybe one game important to the plot and setting of the story - versus the Twili, integral to the plot of at least one game, the Oocca, stated in the series cosmology as the creators of the Hylia, the Gods/Spirits, who've appeared much more than the Deku and, well, created the damn universe, the Moblins, again appearing in nearly every material, even the cartoon, the Minish, who have a game named after them - your feigned ignorance of why these should be included in any such list is simply annoying, and if it's convincing anyone, that's just depressing.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I doubt people would look at my removing a lot and you adding every single thing you can possibly do and say "well, that's not nice!". I never once said you were being discriminatory, if I had, it would have been a compliment and a lie. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dumping ground of crap". Crap can be replaced by many of these sections, including the awful Merfolk section. Discriminate is removing stupid crap like Razor Trap. Yeah, the oh-so notable Razor Trap, that is so notable that you're unable to find any sources besides strategy guides. Indiscriminate is ADDING Razor Trap.
2. Twili can redirect to TP. Minish can redirect to TMC. Phantom can redirect to PH. And as expected, you didn't answer my question. So we need to include these entries, but not enough that you can actually give one reason why? The Oocca are relevant to the TP article, so redirect it there! The Gods are not races, they belong in a section about the series' mythology, Moblins are very rarely depicted as a race, with only like three or four Moblin characters, only one of any importance (you'd have a point if you were comparing Dekus and Moblins as ENEMY RACES, not races). You fail at every turn to explain why we need to include sections that say nothing more than the plots of their games, so we're just going round and round. I suggest getting further consensus so even more people can explain why you're wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Oh yes, I've totally added every possible thing. I've totally never suggested and implemented methods of cutting down the Enemies article. I totally didn't start this damn discussion with "this info isn't appropriate to this page, lets cut it down". You're so right, ALTTP, how could I have never seen it before?
2. Fine, let me put it a way you can comprehend - why are the Deku more appropriate for a page about the "Universe of the series" (interpret that as setting or entirety as you want), but those who set up the cosmology of the series are not?

As for the Moblins - they are specifically depicted as a race in almost every game - TLoZ, ALttP, LA, OoA/S, TWW, PH, the cartoon, and nearly every manga, off the top of my head.

The Gods/Spirits - they set up the cosmology of the series. If any of the tribes belong on this page, they do. I can't think of anything more indiscriminate than only focusing on races which are of the least importance to the setting of the series.

For one, as mentioned above, if any tribes belong on this page, it's the ones important to the plot - exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. For two - well, then why aren't the Oocca covered at all on the Twilight Princess page? The one sentence including that word is "After journeying through the Snowpeak Ruins, the Temple of Time, and the Oocca's City in the Sky, they obtain the missing Mirror shards."

Are you truly suggesting adding content focusing on the various tribes as tribes to the games they appear in? I think that would be ridiculous, and bloat up those articles, but if other's agree with your decision to do that - then fine. However, as said over and over, and explained countless places in the policies of this wiki - REDIRECTING IS NOT MERGING. Redirecting articles or sections to pages containing NO CONTENT ON THAT SUBJECT is simply idiotic.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've somewhat stated above - I don't see any point in continuing this discussion into someone other than you and me input. So far, you're the only one who has supported removing the various sections you did, so I ask you to please not remove them until consensus is reached on which and how to do the section. I will not add any more, or touch the Races/Tribes section other than to remove vandalism, if you can agree to that.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I've stated, act as if you are a competent editor. ANSWER MY FREAKING QUESTION. You've never explained any example of content that needs to be mentioned here that isn't already mentioned somewhere else. If you don't do that, then don't participate at all. I know that answering a simple question with a simple answer is simply difficult, but just freaking try. There is no point to this discussion because in between accusations of "gaming the system", you game the system by dragging your heels, plugging your ears, and yelling as loud as you can whilst ignoring anything you have no answer to. Show some dignity and answer me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which tribes should stay, and how should they be discussed?

I believe the demographics section should focus on the tribes central to the plot, and focus on discussion of how they are incorporated into the setting of the games. Tribes such as the Twili and the Oocca, which are central to the cosmology of the series, should also remain. I also think we should work on a draft that shifts the focus of each section away from banal details about the races (such as "Gorons eat rocks and cannot swim") to why the races or those details are important.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly free right now, but I'm going to try to start compiling references on how the different tribes interact - while basic details like diet and appearance are also important, they are more incidental, and should be toned down if included in this article. I will also post my notes on the series' mythology when I can - they are paraphrased and summarized from the text in the games, but hopefully we can agree that they are faithful enough to use.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Princess/Windwaker Chronology

Under the windwaker heading it states that:

"In the time of The Wind Waker (set parallel to Twilight Princess and centuries after Ocarina of Time)"

WW and TP aren't parallel are they? I'm pretty sure that TP falls somewhere in the middle of OoT and WW.

Jiub 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

According to [an interview with Eiji Aonuma], the Zelda series splits into two timelines after Ocarina, and Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are each on separate sides from each other. Though they don't take place at the exact same time chronologically, he claimed in the interview that they are indeed parallel, in the "this is what would happen the first time Ganondorf attacks after Ocarina in this timeline" sense. The Zelda series main article cites this, though I haven't checked to see if this article does. Arrow 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So WW occurs a thousand years or so after the OoT time line in which Link returns to childhood and TP occurs some number of years after the conclusion of "adult OoT" version of Hyrule history?

I know the Hyrule history is extremely vague and up for debate but is this close to what is intended?Jiub 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around, WW follows the "adult" timeline while TP follows the "child" timeline. Gurko 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganon's Castle merge

I didn't propose this myself, but seeing as the proposer didn't say anything about it, I might as well do something myself. I'm for a Delete, considering the amount of irrelevant, off-track information, and the unimportant, specialist-style nature of it all. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To give this article Out of Universe info

I've noticed that the article lacks OOU info, so to put some OoU, would it be okay to put an "Inspirations" section or something like that? Because I remember Shigeru Miyamoto mentioning that when he was a child, he would explore caves, fields, etc. So wouldn't that be a OoU info as describes where the idea of this fiction world came from? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That, and we could definitely find some info on how they designed the areas.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline references in game sections

Many of the sections describing the geography of each game have many references to their position on the timeline, i.e. "By the time of The Legend of Zelda, the features of Hyrule have been significantly rearranged." and "In the time of The Wind Waker, Hyrule has long since been flooded.". Should these references be removed, or the sections be reordered to reflect some sort of chronological order? Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Physical geography

The 'physical geography' section for TLOZ reads, "By the time of The Legend of Zelda, the features of Hyrule have been significantly rearranged." How can something be "significantly rearranged" when it is the first time it has appeared? Perhaps I am missing something, but this wording seems confusing and misleading. GCD1 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the game's position on the timeline, which is supposedly sometime after A Link to the Past. Indeed, though, the timeline is heavily disputed, and not really relevant to the subject. I would say info pertaining to the timeline should be edited out. Haipa Doragon (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyrulean? Hyrulian?

At the moment:

• The article uses the two spellings once each
• This talk page has used only Hyrulian so far
• The page Hyrulean doesn't exist
• Hyrulian redirects to Races in The Legend of Zelda series, which ironically uses only Hyrulean
• Google hits: 16,700 Hyrulean, 33,400 Hyrulian

But does any official source indicate which spelling is correct? Or even if it is either of these at all? -- Smjg 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[2] (bottom of the page, "Hyrulean Soldiers") This page seems to indicate the former, but I wouldn't go by this alone; I think the official Zelda Universe contradicts the games in places, and it hasn't even been updated since The Minish Cap's release. Haipa Doragon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo has used both in canon. Four Swords Adventures has the "Hyrulean Adventure" subgame title, while at least one townsperson in Twilight Princess (southern thoroughfare, a male fruitseller near the top who asks you if you're the one who rescued Ralis) calls soldiers "Hyrulian". That leaves two possibilities: the adjective with an E refers to the country while with an I refers to its citizens (eg: Hyrulean mountains vs. Hyrulian children), or nobody on the localization team for the various games really cared enough to pay attention to making one standard. Arrowned 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibilities aren't really relevant, though. I would say to use "Hyrulean" simply because of the spelling similarity to "Hyrule", but really, only an official source (i.e. an interview) can really settle this. What spelling does Phantom Hourglass use, anyway? Haipa Doragon (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it mentions it once, when it calls Zelda a "Hyrulian Princess". However, TMC used Hyrulean a hell of a lot. Not for people, though, whom it just calls "humans". TP uses "Hyrulian" for what seems to be the human race. OoS and OoA call Link a "Hyrulean Hero!", and mention ancient Hyrulean legends. TWW actually uses both to refer to the Hyrule/ian royal family. I would say, use Hyrulean, as it makes more sense and is used more often, at least until the games make it more lear what if any difference in meaning there is.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Hylian? Christiangamer7 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That refers only to the race the kingdom is named after, not the general term for those who live there.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Termina and Great Sea (The Legend of Zelda series)

These two articles have no real right to exist aside from they would fit into no other article. These are mainly fancruft, speculation and excessive detail of one gaem (or two for the great sea). I seggest these two sub-standart articles are strained of excess information and put into a new section titled "Other Places" or somthing to that tune. Any objections, seggestions or thoughts?→041744 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If they do get merged, the merged article should be moved to a more appropriate name, such as "<regions / locations / places> <in / from> The Legend of Zelda series". -- Gordon Ecker 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I agree with merging Termina, but Great Sea I'm unsure about, it covers more than one game and therefore might be more notable. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Great Sea is notable enough for a separate article, shouldn't Hyrule have its' own article as well? -- Gordon Ecker 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean you dislike the idea of there being an article about Hyrule and Termina, yet a separate one for the Great Sea? Haipa Doragon (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If Termina gets merged into Hyrule because it's an alternate version of Hyrule then it should cover the Great Sea, the Dark World and the Twilight Realm because they are likewise alternate versions of Hyrule. If Termina warrents a merge and the Great Sea warrents a separate article because the Great Sea is in more than one game then Hyrule warrents a separate article for the same reason. -- Gordon Ecker 07:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to the recent merging of the Great Sea into Hyrule or the recent merging of Termina into Majora's Mask, since the Great Sea is the actual future version of the actual Hyrule (or one of the two actual future versions of the actual Hyrule if the timeline fork theory is correct), while Termina, like the Dark World and the Twilight Realm, is a separate parallel world similar to Hyrule. -- Gordon Ecker 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Debunking the "Hyrule in Adventure of Link map" myth

Unresolved

There is a common theory that the Hyrule region seen in the first game appears in miniature in the Adventure of Link "North Hyrule" map, at the bottom left corner. Let's get it straight: this theory is baseless, and is blatantly contradicted by the full world map shown in one of the official comics. In that full world map, it's obvious that the theory is wrong considering the first game's region is roughly the same size as the Adventure of Link western continent. Moreover, the small region claimed by the theorists to be the first game's region is actually reproduced faithfully in the full world map of the comics; see this comparison picture that I've just put together [3]. So... please do not re-insert the "Hyrule in Adventure of Link map" theory (or however you call it) in the article. FightingStreet (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the manga are considered non-canon, or, at best, secondary canon, I don't think that officially-licensed third-party English-language comics should be considered an authoritative source. However the Death Mountain area in the The Legend of Zelda and The Adventures of Link do match up. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No they don't, I just checked the world maps on gamefaqs, the lake in front of the White Sword cave is too far east and the level 6 entrance and gray armos field are two far west. The world map from The Legend of Zelda has one graveyard, two large lakes and two large forests. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the game map, the valiant map was clearly tweaked to make that portion merely the mid-north. However, I think it would be ridiculous as well for it to be merely a miniature-map - too many forests, mountains, and ponds are missing, and it's actually kind of silly, compared to the sizing of other places on the AoL map.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't get much detail at that scale. Even if it's not supposed to correspond to the LoZ map, I'm not aware of any canonical sources supporting the assertion that the LoZ world map is south of the AoL world map. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. But if it was a mini-map, it includes one "fairy spring" - and there are much larger landmarks that it seemingly neglects. At this point, unless Nintendo comes out and says that it is meant to be the LoZ map, it's just a coincidence and we shouldn't mention it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO the two squares of water and four squares of forest correspond to the lake in the forest, not the fairy spring, however I'm okay with dropping any claims about the relative scales and locations of the LoZ and AoL maps. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any in-game or reliable out-of-game reference to the two boulders in AoL being Spectacle Rock? That is listed elsewhere in the article. I seem to remember them being referred to by name, but I could be wrong. 12.216.67.204 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The AoL text dumps on zeldalegends.net include the following quote:

"HAMMER...
SPECTACLE
ROCK...
DEATH MTN."

I cannot verify that the quote is authentic, however if it is, the NPC would likely be located in Ruto. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series#Adventures of Link map controversy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyrule map is actually my scan

The information associated with the map of Hyrule that was scanned from the Valiant comics says that it was scanned and uploaded by Arthur Hoffert, just as the source page at northcastle.co.uk says. I'm convinced, however, that it's actually the version I scanned myself back in 2003, and that it has been cropped and slightly resized from my original file, which I still have.

The reasons I believe it's my scan are the following:

- A pattern of grain in the image is consistent with the pattern that my old scanner commonly produced.

- Originally, the scan was actually of two pages that I edited together, the visible seam in the center of this image exactly matches the seam in my original version, even including the amount of each staple that remains visible from the comic book, and even the light reflections on those staples is identical to my original scan.

- There is a very slight tilt, maybe less than 1 degree clockwise, which precisely matches my scan. There's a small bit of white space on some corners of the image that reveal the slightly imperfect orientation.

- The likelihood that both myself and Mr. Hoffert both scanned the exact same image, editing it in precisely the same place, and resulting with the exact same mis-orientation are so improbable as to be effectively impossible.

I don't mind that Wikipedia or northcastle.co.uk are using my scan -- the reason I made them is for everyone to see and enjoy -- and I don't even mind Mr. Hoffert being recognized for providing the image, however I object to his being cited as the person responsible for the scan. Do I need to contact someone about having that credit removed, or is it acceptable for me to make that edit myself?

Garsh (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Was the image created by you? Wikipedia doesn't really care who uploaded the image, only the artist matters for copyright reasons.

If you're having trouble with Hoffert taking credit for scanning the image from the comic books (I'm not really sure what the problem is, though), I would take that up with him.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. Unless I'm mistaken, this is not a copyright issue. My concern is more with the accuracy of the information associated with the file. If I'm correct that the scan is mine (and I'm confident of that) then the information on the page with the image is inaccurate. Does Wikipedia care about accuracy?

On your advice, I will contact Mr. Hoffert.

Garsh (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"World of The Legend of Zelda series" versus "Hyrule" article

Which should it be? I think that the notability of the entire world of the series (Hyrule, Koholint Island, Termina, Labrynna, Holodrum, Subrosia, Great Sea, Sacred Land/Dark World, Twilight Realm, etc.) rather than just one region. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "regions of The Legend of Zelda series" or "locations in The Legend of Zelda series" over "world of The Legend of Zelda series", since Termina, the Sacred Land / Dark World and the Twilight Realm aren't part of the same world. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We already tried "Locations in The Legend of Zelda series", which became an unruly mess of every location in the series history. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If we do such an article, it needs to simply be Universe of The Legend of Zelda series - that way, it can cover the cosmology and important elements of the series, such as the Triforce or Sacred Items, as well. Each section could be described in short, without having a stub article - so, not too much detail, but not too empty. Plus, it would have the ability to amass a lot of sources, due to wide range of topic, and rationalize having more than one image for clarity purposes.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the name of this page

User:A Link to the Past has recently moved the page Hyrule to this current title. Would anyone happen to have a better name in mind? The Legend of Zelda universe and World of The Legend of Zelda seem like good candidates. If you ask me, I think the latter would be most fitting. Precedents include World of Final Fantasy VI, World of Final Fantasy VIII, World of One Piece, World of Naruto, and World of Monkey Island. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles such as Universe of Kingdom Hearts and Universe of The Longest Journey seem to set the precedent, along with these others, that "world" is used when there is only one world, and "universe" is used when there are many worlds with a united cosmology. The TLoZ series has several worlds (Hyrule/Labrynna/Holodrum/etc., Koholint, Sacred, Termina, and whatever Oshus was talking about), so "Universe" would be appropriate in this case. I think ALinktothePast made the right move.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you say to The Legend of Zelda universe? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it sounds too much like a game title, or actually, the official site itself, which is named either "The Legend of Zelda Universe", or just "Zelda Universe", I can't remember which. It also seems like it would be against the precedent shown with other articles of analagous scope, but if they're are a lot of other articles of that naming style, or other editors want it, then I'd be fine with it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care too much which title it goes too, but I think it sounds more... "professional" with this style. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided that we could go with Universe of The Legend of Zelda. The word "series" doesn't seem needed, and KrytenKoro did mention a few pages above that support this precedent. What do you say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How is "series" not needed? It helps to disambiguate from the first game in the series. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but how is that any different from Universe of Kingdom Hearts, based on the Kingdom Hearts series? It doesn't quite make sense that the KH universe page omits "series", while the Zelda one uses "series". Explain? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question. Are you suggesting those pages should be renamed? Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just this one. I say we use the shortest and clearest title possible, which in this case is Universe of The Legend of Zelda. Who's with me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since the first game takes place in the same continuity as many of the rest (if not all) anyways, fans would already know that "series" can both make sense or not be necessary in this aspect depending on personal opinion, and newcomers to the saga likely wouldn't care. So in this case, it's better to just go with Wikipedia precedence, and if other Universe pages omit "series", then we should too. Arrowned (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Master Sword

While a good bit of the material in its article was part of the game's plot, and shouldn't be there, it's nonsensical to have the section here in this article, portraying itself as important to the game's universe, without actually explaining why. A great bit of the plot stuff did need to be junked, but there should be at least a sentence for each appearance summarizing what it did.

Also, I added a somewhat summarized bit of the Oracle appearance, as it cannot be cut out as "redundant to plot". I feel it should still be somewhat shorter, as its by far the least important appearance, and undue bias is a concern, but I'm not sure what parts to cut. We need to mention at least that its relation to others is uncertain, that its obtained through passwords, and possibly the Zora heirloom and forest shrine bits - but I can't figure out how to cut it effectively.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's always tough to get a merge 100% right. I think you made some good improvements, even if there's probably a way to summarize it better. Randomran (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)