Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

Title

Shouldn't this draft (and possibly later article) be called Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild or Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel? Calling it The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2 implies that it's the final title, which hasn't been confirmed. Icedmorning (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Icedmorning: Agreed. I'm in favor of Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, as that's the language used by Nintendo. —zziccardi (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with either title. But "Breath of the Wild 2" is the most commonly used title by the media (and fans) and since this is still a draft, it wouldn't be a big deal to keep the title for now. enjoyer -- talk 00:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

However, if this draft is moved to mainspace, the title should be Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel following Wikipedia's convention. enjoyer -- talk 01:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No clue, but IGN reports that there is a title, and it's kept secret. SWinxy (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could currently call the article itself "Untitled Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel", and in the bio/first paragraph refer to it as such: "The untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild (known as Sequel to Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in early promotion) is an upcoming…”

This may be too verbose, however. Mia Clifford (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Mia Clifford, the current opening paragraph is perfectly fine. "Sequel to" is just how Nintendo call it, don't treat it as an actual name. enjoyer -- talk 03:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My bad! I was referring to how Nintendo referred to it in its Youtube trailer’s description—with a capital Sequel, effectively treating it as a jagged, strange title. However, in hindsight, it may come off as confusing and unprofessional in a wiki article. Mia Clifford (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What about a title?

A title will be a same logo as Breath of the Wild 2 or a different logo as official announcement by Nintendo Direct/E3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.143.194 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No title has been announced yet. That's why it's at the current title. Sergecross73 msg me 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Questionable reception section additions

In regards to this addition:

1. Fans wanting a game despite delays is not noteworthy. That's how fans generally treat all games they're looking forward to.
2. Some Redditor creating fan art is 1) fundamentally not reception and 2) not worth mentioning on this page.

Please stop re-adding this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, I don't understand how saying that it is anticipated is not reception, but having a table of awards--all of which are "most anticipated game"--is. If you don't think that it is not worth mentioning, then remove either "despite the delays" or the awards table, because I see those two things as the same. As I've said in this edit, fans of games liking a new one in the franchise is not a given, nor are the reactions to delays. If you still think that anticipation is not noteworthy to mention, then remove the awards. You could also have moved or renamed the section instead of reverting if you thought it didn't belong as reception.

Making a piece of fan art is not the same as making a series of artworks. In this case, a significant amount was created for the sequel, and in a frequent occurrence to have an article written on it. If it's not reception, then move it. Please don't call my addition "questionable" or say that I am "re-adding" when what I did was revert your revert (which is not against policy), and don't say I should follow WP:BRD when a) my revision wasn't bold; and b) BRD isn't policy. SWinxy (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's great that you're using sources. Your additions aren't against policy in that respect. But having a source doesn't guarantee inclusion. It's your judgements calls in adding this content that I call questionable. Adding some redditor doing fan art in the reception section is a bad call no matter how you look at it. It's not reception. Reception is reviews or writers writing retrospectives making judgement calls about the merits of a subject. Not fans making art. And Zelda is a massively popular franchise. Millions upon millions of sales and some of the most positive critical acclaim of all time for video games. So forgive me for thinking that something like "fans are excited for the game (Gamerant source)" is a mundane comment. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'' sequel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Untitled ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'' sequel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ebbedlila (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Colloquial" name

@Popcornfud: Don't want to start an edit war over something silly 😊, but I do want to advocate a bit more to include: It was colloquially referred to as "the Breath of the Wild sequel" or "Breath of the Wild 2" until its official subtitle, Tears of the Kingdom, was announced in September 2022. I don't think this is WP:DUH -- this was effectively the working title in marketing [1][2], online, and in publications for around 2 years (!) so it's important context for the Development and marketing section (though certainly not the lead).

This wasn't marketed as "Untitled Legend of Zelda game" or something, but specifically as a "Breath of the Wild sequel" — subtle but noteworthy difference that's not explicitly communicated in the official title. (Makes me wonder... was Majora's Mask marketed as a "Untitled Ocarina of Time sequel"? That would be interesting, if so...) Also worth noting it's wording based on a quote from the WaPo. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Fully agreed. As I said in my edit summary, it's been referred to as variants of a Breath of the Wild "2" or "sequel" for the last 3+ years, and it got its final name mere hours ago. We write for general audiences - not everyone has their eyes glued to the Nintendo Direct news cycle. It's going to take some time for people to understand the name has changed. Will it be necessary in 2026 when the games has sold 20 million copies under the Tears of the Kingdom name? Probably not. But does it need it for recognizability right now and short-term? Absolutely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it particularly enclyclopedic to include the fact it was informally referred to as "Breath of the wild sequel"? What does this add, exactly? It was never an official name, or even a working name - it was simply an informal term that's so obvious in what it is, it doesn't really need to be stated. If it had a more distinct name (like how the Wii was originally the Revolution, for example) I could see the point. It's not like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan says that it was referred to as "Star Trek Sequel", even though it probably was before it was given its name. — Czello 18:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It received coverage for years under those sorts of names. Nintendo uses variants of it on its official release schedules too. Simple Google searches show it. We're not talking about silly pet names by the fanbase or something. I'm generally opposed to including that sort of stuff. We're talking about what the entire industry, Nintendo included, called it for years. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

But the name wasn't used as some kind of working title, it was purely descriptive. I'm not surprised Google searches show it - what else would people search for? We don't normally say that a sequel to X was referred to as "X sequel" until its title was actually revealed. — Czello 21:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of it. Contrary, I do believe it is encyclopedic to elaborate on as part of its marketing. SWinxy (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources used this term, because it goes without saying that it was used. The untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild was referred to as "the Breath of the Wild sequel" before its title was announced? I'm sorry, but that has WP:DUH all over it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It may not matter how many sources refer to it, but it should be added if sources talk about how it was "formally known as x" even if x may be intuitive to you (WaPo makes this explicit, I can look around to see if other cites do this). FWIW I don't think this is a discussion around WP:COMMONNAME, but about WP:DUE. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And recognizability. They're writing entire articles about it. It doesn't hurt to have a single sentence alluding to it. It's such a basic, minor thing. I can't believe I'm getting pushback on it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If Nintendo referred to it as "Breath of the Wild 2" earlier in development — because that's an actual working title, not just a descriptive compound noun — then I don't object to mentioning that in the body of the article. In either case it doesn't belong in the lead because it's not very important ("a minor thing" as you say there). Any permutation of the sentiment "the Breath of the Wild sequel was previously known as the Breath of the Wild sequel" is totally surplus to any reader's requirements, though. Popcornfud (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't seem particularly notable to state that the Breath of the Wild sequel was in fact referred to as the Breath of the Wild sequel before it had a name. — Czello 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I feel convinced by this argument at this point, mostly because Nintendo never used the title "Breath of the Wild 2". We already have The first teaser trailer was released in the E3 2019 Nintendo Direct, announcing the game as an untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild which I suppose covers this aspect well enough. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly — the article already tells the story in its entirety. It's the sequel to Breath of the Wild, it didn't have a title for a while, and then it had the title Tears of the Kingdom. That covers it, doesn't it? Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay sorry to bring this back up, but now we have coverage from Kotaku [3], TechRadar [4], ScreenRant [5] and a few others since the title announcement still calling it BoTW 2. I understand it may be "obvious" to some but it's at least WP:DUE to note that some people are still calling the game BoTW 2 despite the new official title. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend: The game was announced at E3 2019 as a sequel to Breath of the Wild with some outlets using the colloquial title, "Breath of the Wild 2".

Yes, this seems a reasonable compromise. — Czello 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I support it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's a commonly used alternative name then you could make an argument to put in the first sentence as a disambiguating element, eg "also known as Breath of the Wild 2". I wouldn't buy that - but it sounds like that isn't the proposal above.

Instead it sounds like we just really want to record that this name is used like it's a notable fact in itself.

Is it? Do we have a secondary source that reports that outlets are using this title (thereby indicating its notability as a fact) or are we just recording the writing choices of these websites for some reason? Popcornfud (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku source above identifies exactly why I've been pushing for a mention of sorts.

Heck, far more people have discovered Kotaku’s coverage of the sequel by searching Google for “BOTW” than anything mentioning tears or kingdoms. People are going to be so slow to turn on this!

It takes more than an announcement to keep people from recognizing it from the colloquial name that has been used for years prior. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

OK that Kotaku source scratches the itch for me - worth mentioning in the article. (In fact I'd spell out what Kotaku reports there to indicate to the reader why this name is significant.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the Kotaku one is what raised it back for me. I added in my proposed wording [6] as it seems like we have consensus but it's a good point to add more . Popcornfud any thoughts on wording for that? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I added it to the article, but didn't spend a great deal of time on it. There's probably a better way of phrasing it so we can iterate from there if anyone has any better ideas. (I'm traveling and not giving Wikipedia my full attention right now...) Popcornfud (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Tears" vs "Tears"

Think it's important to note the difference between "tears", crying, and "tears", rips? There's been some discussion and Nintendo confirmed it's the crying one. Legowerewolf (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's just meant to be a play on words of both meanings. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 10:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's "Tears". — Czello 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If Nintendo isn't particularly concerned about confusion on the name (they came up with it if their own accord) the. I'm not sure it's worth us clarifying it.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I always read it at tears; it never occurred to me that it might also refer to or be pronounced as tears. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The katakana ティアーズ (Tiāzu) in the Japanese title and logo[7] makes it pretty unambiguous that it's tears as in crying. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it will be tears, as in rips, bcuz the kingdom of hyrule is legit breaking up and tearing itself apart, creating floating islands.

oh, and about the islands, why did the trees up there suddenly turn yellow, if they came off of the ground where all the trees are green? 74.51.31.110 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)