Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

That release date at the top of the page should be considered tentative. Zelda games are always delayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.90.148 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Do NOT delete. The game has been officially announced and has a (tenative) release date. Faythoffenrir (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is "officially announced" and has a release date doesn't mean it can have an article. Just wait until more information is released. Once we have enough information to make a good sized article, then it can be separate. Why does it matter if the information is here or merged on another page? It still is covered somewhere, and the article WILL be made when more is released about it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Might I suggest we ponder a different name to call the article?., I (and maybe others) keep confusing this with twilight princess. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game). That's what the image says and that's when it's supposed to be released, as good as any other (and at this point in time as relevant as anything else). Someoneanother 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

sounds good. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Zelda XV?

Isn't The Legend of Zelda XV (or fifteen if you prefer) being used as the title of this game? Shouldn't that be the title, not The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game). I'm not sure if Nintendo itself is using the title or not, so I thought I ask here first. Thanks! 207.118.0.231 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Zelda games have never been numbered by Nintendo, and I don't think this is any different. It's actually difficult to assign numbers to Zelda games, because it is not clear which games are main titles are which aren't (I.E. spin-offs, like Four Swords). Some people only count console games, in which case this would be number eight, not fifteen. Zazaban (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that saying Zelda games have never been numbered isn't true. --Bentonia School (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While that may be true that has not been the case since Zelda 2 which was released in the last 80s so I don't think that fact is relevant.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect that Nintendo never numbered a Zelda game. It is correct that there was never a numbered series (only a single game). Salvidrim! 02:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That, and the latest Nintendo Power lists it as "The Legend of Zelda*", where the asterisk naturally means the name isn't set in stone. Digitelle (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with not using Zelda XV, since the last time they used numbered title for a Zelda game was Zelda II in the late eighties. I doubt that they would start now.--76.66.188.170 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Release date will probably not be in 2010

According to this totalvideo games article, the release date will be 2010 but only in Japan. I thought it might be important this part:

"It seems The Legend of Zelda won't be making an appearance in Europe or North America this year, but could make it to Japan. In a list of forthcoming Wii releases, The Legend of Zelda is listed as a 2010 release in Japan but is missing from the European and North American schedules".

Judge yourself: http://www.totalvideogames.com/The-Legend-of-Zelda-unannounced/news/Legend-of-Zelda-Misses-2010-15209.html I thought it might be worth adding to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.158.108 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

More evidence is found on Here --Earboxer (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We sort of knew that already. But 2010 is the first release date. If things are listed by release date, it would be by the first date, not the US date. How else would you choose between US and UK dates? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you Are talking about the article title this game will likely have a subtitle like every other zelda game since OOT so the relase date will likely not be in the article title when that happens.--76.69.168.53 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision on June 8, 2010

I rewrote and condensed the article, e.g. removing the claim of The Legend of Zelda as a tentative name, when it is just giving the series title. I also removed the Game Informer news of the game being in development even before Twilight Princess was released, as it was posted in their gossip section and didn't list a specific reliable source. Should the image go down, this is what it says: "Most gamers are still making their way through Twilight Princess, yet our sources tell us that the next installment in the series has been deep in development for around a year. It's highly unlikely that Nintendo would release two Zelda games a year apart, but don't be surprised if this game comes sooner than you think." As we all know, "sooner" turned out to be pretty late, and given Miyamoto's comments, the game's development really started sometime in 2008 rather than 2005. Prime Blue (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumors

Perhaps this is just my inexperience with Wikipedia showing, but I think it would be a good idea to include an "unconfirmed rumors" section near the end of the article. (e.g. the wii.tv spoof video, the identity of the mysterious figure in the picture, and other such gossip) I've encountered (and circulated) a few myself, and I always find it interesting when I encounter them. However, I would understand and take no offense if a section about rumors is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. That's why I'm proposing the idea here, rather than shoving it into the article myself. MilesEques (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is not appropriate to put any speculation on any article on Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:NOT (which includes speculation under "Crystal ball") to familiarize yourself with what's acceptable and what's not. Magiciandude (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is just fine with me. I found that there's a rumor section on the "Zeldapedia." (This section probably shouldn't be deleted. Likely, I'm not going to be the last to consider the idea.) MilesEques (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision on June 18, 2010

In the Joystiq interview, Miyamoto does not refer to the land beneath Skyloft as Hyrule. It could be that Hyrule includes Skyloft, or that Hyrule is the land under the clouds, so I removed this as speculation until there is a definite confirmation on the name of the ground world. And I'd appreciate if someone found a source for the similar gameplay to previous 3D entries, with the less apparent dungeon/overworld difference mentioned.

Also, I frequently see people adding information and speculation from fansites. Note that Wikipedia articles require reliable sources for everything, so please take a look at the list of accepted sources before you post one. Thanks to everyone contributing to the article these days! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if you watch the E3 press conference, Miyamoto talks about Hyrule near the end of it. 70.77.53.165 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gamescom

A single tradeshow appearance still bears no relevance on the development of a game. If some substantial new information is announced there and picked up by a reliable source, we can include it. Prime Blue (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

New Trailer

A new trailer was released on March 2 so if somebody wants to put a reference in to that with any new info that'd be great. I generally don't add new info because I haven't got a clue how to reference pages correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.149 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

I wasn't sure if this was a reliable date, but I know that I have already reserved my copy from Gamestop, and they said Nov 2, 2011. This article is from a website I don't know, so I thought I'd post it here and see what you guys think. http://www.thegamerbuzz.com/gamestop-leaks-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-release-date Vyselink (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Release dates from retail businesses are not considered reliable, because they frequently use "placeholder" or "best guess" dates. I'm unfamiliar with "gamerbuzz", but it looks like they're just forwarding Gamestops info on, so it's no different... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's why I asked. I'm getting really annoyed with people putting in unsourced release dates, and have reverted at least two. Vyselink (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Composer

Apparently the latest Iwata Asks mentions that in addition to remastering the soundtrack for OoT:3DS, Mahito Yokota (of Super Mario Galaxy fame) is composing for this title. Anyone feel like adding that in? (source: http://mynintendonews.com/2011/05/26/nintendo-mahito-yokota-composing-new-zelda-titles/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.208.186 (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've realised now that he is just credited for orchestrating the score but the composer(s) is/are not revealed. The information, however, is still helpful as we learn that the score will have some form of orchestral pieces. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, now the official composers are Hajime Wakai (The Wind Waker, New Super Mario Bros.) and Koji Kondo (Super Mario & Zelda Series). The source is found on page. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Release date II - the holiday season

I've been trying to work out how to re-word the phrase holiday season that was used for the release date. When I first read it, I assume it meant the Summer holidays and was thus rather pleased. Reading around I now know that "holidays" is US shorthand for what we would call "Christmas" over here. To avoid putting a religious holiday in - for obvious reasons of NPOV - I was trying to find a neutral term. "Winter" doesn't cut it. I've put in "late 2011" is that OK? I know holiday season directs to an explanation, but its not obvious from reading. Francis Davey (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact holiday season is a redirect to Christmas and holiday season. Francis Davey (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspected that "holiday season" would not be the clearest wording, though I initially kept it for the lack of clarifications from official sources. Now, I have changed the release frames throughout the article to "November or December", which may not sound too nice, but it is less ambiguous than "late 2011" or "end of 2011", and more definitive than the previous wording. Prime Blue (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Translating vague date periods is a known hard problem so I think you've done well there. Of course we all hope that more precise information will be available sometime soon. Francis Davey (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The only issue that I have with the "November/December" being added is that it is NOT supported by the reference given. Heck, the ref given doesn't even give something as vague as "holiday season". The only thing that I have heard, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that it will be out in 2011. If Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, and there is no actual date or even month given in the reference used to support it, how can we in good wiki-conscience put Nov/Dec? Vyselink (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed the (read: November or December) part of the article in question. Mouth, look out, here comes foot. Vyselink (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like people are contiually changing this back and forth. I'm starting to think holiday season (with the link to the corresponding article) is going to be the better way to go, considering it's the wording in the actual source. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The source makes it clear that "holiday season" means "November or December" which is a more precise and much more useful statement. "holiday season" really only means that period to an American (possibly a Canadian I don't know) which is way too POV. The constant changing is not always to "holiday season" but sometimes to other designations like seasons (which are hemispheric). I can't see any reason why the fact that lots of people keep changing it means it should change. What is there at the moment (as of my last edit) is the most precise information we have. I cannot see any reason why we shouldn't put that well sourced bit of information in the article instead of something which is vaguer and POV. Nor has anyone suggested any advantage in going with the vaguer term. Francis Davey (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether the months or the season are used in the article, but if it's the season, "Christmas season" would probably be a good substitute that is easier to understand for international readers than "Holiday season". Either way, it's no biggie – anonymous editors just always seem to have this weird infatuation with future release dates. *shrug* Prime Blue (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a POV problem if it's literally, word for word quoting Nitendo. But hey, you're the one doing the enforcing on this one, so whatever you want... Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case the quoted source states "November-December" so that is the most accurate information we have. If that wasn't there we might need to think more carefully, but "holiday" would then need glossing (and a link aint good enough). In fact the only changes away from Q4 (which I don't like, but I'll leave) has been in favour of "July" so protection was probably needed anyway. Francis Davey (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page is now semi-protected, so it should be easier for you to find a clear consensus. Prime Blue (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources I had come across just said "holiday season", I hadn't noticed this particular one specified months. I'm not sure that's what nintendo confirmed, but it's really splitting hairs. I have no qualms with what you're doing now. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghirahem

The name of the game's main antagonist is Ghirahim. Should this be incorporated into the Plot section? http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/11/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-preview-swinging-for-the-ski/

--ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.226.58.204, 28 June 2011

There was debate on using the terms "Fall" and "Holiday" in regards to release date.

"Fall" is exclusive to the N Hemisphere and "Holiday" is exclusive to North Americans.

I would like to see it preferably changed back to Q4 2011, so there is no confusion among the world's regions.

Using "November-December" is a little questionable, because a title with a "Holiday" date can sometimes be released in late October. 66.226.58.204 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it reads "Fall" after semi-protection, which must be wrong. Most of the vandalism has in fact been anonymous users trying to make it read July which is of course wrong on any analysis. I am happy with Q4 or November-December, but the source itself states "November-December". I'll replace "Fall" with Q4 and leave others to debate the merits of that over the quoted month range. Really you should get some reliable source for your Q4.Francis Davey (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Already done by Francis. I believe that since the source stated "holiday season" Q4 is a good and generic choice. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

European release date

November 25, 2011 [1][2][3] wolfblake 15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited your information so you don't need a "reflist" at the bottom. Anyways, it looks like this is just "leaked" information, so it's not official confirmation, right? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

-release date Switzerland

The link [3] that should verify a Swiss release on 11.11.2011 informs me the game won't be out until Nov, 18th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.87.0 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

SS team would like a worldwide release, Game is officially complete.

Can someone add that with this as the source.

Source:

says the team, in the interest of no spoilers floating about, is trying to get a worldwide release.

SS derives inspiration from Majora's Mask (Skyloft acts as a hub town à la Clock Town in MM).

SS is officially complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.254.105 (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

First in the series?

Isn't this game the first in the series? I don't see it mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBradford (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

At first I was like "what the heck are you talking about"? Then I realized you meant plot-wise, not game-release-wise. Dx I don't think the fact that it is the first in the plot is reliably mentioned anywhere, or is too trivial to be mentioned here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that has been confirmed (in an interview with Eiji Aonuma in Official Nintendo Magazine) is that Skyward Sword takes place before Ocarina of Time. It has not been confirmed to be the "first" game of the series, for as Eiji Aonuma says: "Yes, there is a master timeline but it is a confidential document!" explains Aonuma-san. "The only people to have access to that document are myself, Mr. Miyamoto and the director of the title. We can't share it with anyone else! I have already talked to Mr. Miyamoto about this so I am comfortable releasing this information--this title [Skyward Sword] takes place before Ocarina of Time. If I said that a certain title was 'the first Zelda game', then that means we cant ever make a title that takes place before that! So for us to be able to add titles to the series, we have to have a way of putting the titles before or after each other."" (Official Nintendo Magazine (Future Publishing), pg. 51) Vyselink (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Skyward Sword is not cel shaded

How many times does this have to stated? Skyward Sword does not combine Twilight Princess or Wind Waker's graphical styles with each other; rather, it has it's own distinct style that resembles neither of them. If the game was cel shaded it would look significantly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.61.190 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless a sourced stated it, I'd have to agree. Looks like original research. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

True, it is not cel-shaded. But it combines visual styles from each--the more realistic style of Twilight Princess (or Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask if you prefer) and the more cartoony style of Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is cel-shaded, and I would like clarify that cel-shading is a graphical technique and not an art style, wherein the only difference is that in cel-shading the shading is rendered in cells instead of being a continuous gradient. While SS uses more cells to give it a more realistic look and to make the cel-shading more subtle, it is clearly still cel-shaded: take a look here at the individual cells of shading on Link's robs, or here at the individual cells being shaded on the trees. Here are sources stating SS is cel-shaded:
  • E3 2010: Nintendo Reveals Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, 1up.com, "Skyward Sword features an adult-looking Link as in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, but the graphics are cel-shaded as in Wind Waker (but not quite as heavily stylized)."
  • The 10 games to play this autumnGQmagazine "Blending the scale of Twighlight Princess with the cel-shading of Wind Waker,"

AerobicFox (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those are reliable sources. Doesn't seem like it would be out of line to mention cel shading as long as it describes it as a combination of the two games, like both of those sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold

Why is the gold Wii remote not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.220 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is. It's written in the article's introduction. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Th Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword

The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword have been rated A all ages in Japan. Can someone add it for me? Look at the Japanese website. I can not do it because it is lock.69.131.127.150 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian release date

It seems as if though someone has already edited the intro to the article (along with an incorrect citation afaik) stating the Australian release date to be Nov 20 2011 as per the official website.

Two reasons I think it'd be prudent to wait for more information:

1. Australian games are always released on a Thursday (Nov 20 is a Sunday) 2. Australians don't use the mm/dd/yyyy format for dates as the website currently does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.156.244 (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The dreaded RPG discussion..

Do we really need a source for listing RPG as a genre?

The other Zelda games qualify as RPGs, so why not this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepard Commander (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's a separate game (It obviously is.) I would have to say yes. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What? I thought the only Zelda RPG was 2:The Adventure of Link. RPGs are where the player levels up. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an age-old argument. I personally don't consider it an RPG either, but there's a lot of people who argue it is just because of some of it's similarities to action-RPGs. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even the article that Shepard Commander is using as his source for calling SS an RPG states that, with the exception (in the author's mind) of AoL, none of the Zelda's have been RPG's, and personally I would have to agree. Customizable characters are essential for an RPG (in my opinion), which is why I never considered AoL to be an RPG, although I can see the argument. It has a couple elements of an RPG (exp/leveling up, choosing between stats), but beyond that not much. RPG's are games like Skies of Arcadia, the Elder Scrolls games and the like. Games where the character can be a truly unique creation. The only reason I reverted Shepard Commander's initial RPG labeling was because the article, while interesting, does not have enough information beyond the first dungeon, and is, at the moment, incomplete. Vyselink (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article states that AoL is the only "RPG" of the games; however, I was referring to the fact that Twilight Princess and Wind Waker qualify as Action-RPGs (according to their Wikipedia pages). If that is so, this game most CERTAINLY meets that category.

I don't care either way, but if we can't call this an Action-RPG, then maybe we should re-think the Twilight Princess and Wind Waker wiki pages (regarding their inclusion of Action-RPG as a genre). Shepard Commander contribs) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're operating on a flawed premise. Just because another article does it doesn't mean it's right. Those may need to be fixed/changed as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting that they need to be changed. Shepard Commander contribs) 01:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.244.173 (talk)

Then you should probably discuss that at the respective article discussion pages. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the action RPG additions (with the exception of Zelda II since that has been stabley listed for years) since having action adventure on its own has been longstanding and stable as well as the fact that there is no evidence that the other games are in fact RPGs. In fact the only discussion on this issue I can recall was a discussion on the Phantom hourglass page against using the term Action RPG--70.24.211.105 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering it has upgradable items, and different ways of building your items, maybe the RPG should be considered being re-added.

Also, rumored dialog choices. owo --96.30.189.52 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That depends. Have these changes caused reliable sources to start calling this game an RPG? Because if not it should not be up to Wikipedia editors to make that distinction--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception section - "Universal acclaim"

The opening sentence in the reception section keeps on getting changed to something along the lines of the game "Skyward Sword has received universal critical acclaim." Even with a ton of reviews, I feel that's kind of a WP:NPOV issue, but certainly that's not a valid claim based on only 4 reviews, correct? I wanted to make sure others agreed with this, and wanted some help in enforcing it, I don't want to edit war with these random IPs... Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I just changed it so it says critical acclaim from its reviewers which will hopefully satisfy both sides. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine. With more reviews in now, a somewhat less glowing tone is easier to implement. Stabby Joe (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so this is constantly getting changed. Is it really "universal critical acclaim" if the game has received a "B+" and an "85" from certain sources? I love Legend of Zelda, don't get me wrong...but universal makes it sounds like everyone unanimously gave it 100%'s or something... Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

While a B+, 85, 4/5 etc is still positive, there haven't really been any negative or mixed scores. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This argument does not make sense, a 90+ average on Metacritic and probably about the same on GameRankings indicates "universal acclaim". B+, 85, 4/5 etc. are good scores, even a 70 is fairly decent, a number of games with "universal acclaim" have 80's and such. I fail to see the problem, these issues are very uncommon for a reason. Also, if a game gets any "mixed" scores (for whatever reason) and still has a 90+ average (For example, Uncharted 3 got a 5/10 with an average still above 90), that is still universal acclaim, as those rare "mixed" to "decent" scores would be very limited in such a case. To aquire a 90+ average, a game needs very good reviews, obviously. I also suggest you check the high amount of 100's aswell. Flyingnarb (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My main problem is that "universal" leaves no room for exception. It is absolute. However, that Gamespot review wasn't really "critical acclaim". Thus, I don't feel the sentiment is "universal". (Also, my the other problem back when I originally started this discussion, was that people were saying "universal" based on like 4 reviews. You can't make a claim about "universal" sentiments based on only 4 people. But that has since been resolved I suppose.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Universal is the word that is given to games that reach a very high aggregate score (90+), Gamespots 75 is a "fairly decent" score, indicated as "good", even on their site, a score of 70 is above average, something around 50-60 would be "generally mixed", It is also one but review that counts towards the aggregate, depending on the current average, it either raises or lowers the score, basic counting. I suggest you read my previous response again, look at some other pages on games with 90+ averages, perhaps Uncharted 3 as listed above, and gain an understanding on this very strange issue. Flyingnarb (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I read what you said just fine, I just don't agree with it. There's a difference, you know. Please be patient wait and see what others say in order to gather consensus; so far very few people have weighed in on this. (Also, what Uncharted 3 does is irrelevent; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and it's not like it's a Good Article or Featured Article, so it isn't necessarily a good reference point.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, there is a reason no one else is commenting, this is a rare problem for a reason, Uncharted 3 was an example, go to any gaming article with a 90+ game. It's not about the quality of the article, its about the score. Also, here is the scoring system which determines acclaim, which EVERY game follows.

0-19: Overwhelming dislike

20-49: Generally unfavorable

50-74: Mixed or average reviews

75-89: Generally favorable reviews

90-100: Universal acclaim

Or perhaps basic scoring, which everything follows.

1/10 - Bad

2/10 - Pretty bad

3/10 - Well below average

4/10 - Below average

5/10 - Average - decent

6/10 - Above average

7/10 - Good

8/10 - Very good

9/10 - Great

10/10 - Fantastic

Whether you are trolling, showing dislike, or just have a limited understanding on games and counting/scoring in general, to reach universal acclaim is a great achievement for any game and is acknowledged, think about it, a MINIMUM average score of 9/10 is very impressive, regardless of a few 7/10's or 8/10's inside that (which are still positive), that do happen. Flyingnarb (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

2 Reminders you seem to need:

1. Assume good faith. Do not just assume that because I don't agree with you, that I'm trolling. I'm just trying to keep a neutral point of view here, nothing more or less.
2. Can you link me to where wikipedia or wikiproject video games has listed off these standards you're claiming? Because right now it looks like they're just your personal interpretations, or ripped from metacritic or something. If it's some wikipedia policy or Good article standard or something, then by all means, we'll go by it. But right now it just looks like you're working off of your personal opinions and/or observations of other articles, which again, just because you saw a random article do it, doesn't make it right. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions? I don't think I have stated any opinions at all. Random Article? More like every article. I am going by the general gaming scoring system which other single game articles follow with no problems at all, as you would see if you viewed some, yet for some reason it appears to be a problem here. Therefore, I can safely assume this is your first game related article and that you hopefully do not go around and remove the word "universal" from other universally acclaimed games. Flyingnarb (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that you can look at other users contributions, and see what other articles they work on...so you don't need to make misguided "assumptions" like that. Beyond that, I don't understand why you're having such a hard time supporting what you're saying with any sort of policy, guideline, or standard if what you're talking about is so supposedly "obvious". Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, if you wish to continue your unsupported and pointless "opinion" then so be it, I have provided sources for my information if you actually read what I write like you claim. If you wish, I could save you further embarrassment from the community and wrap this up now, in a plain and simple way which hopefully you can understand this time, because so far we have seen nothing more than a trolling attempt.

1. The Metacritic scoring system is listed above, in which the line or two of the reception/review section is based on, along with GameRankings, as they are aggregate sites, gathering reviews from around the world to present an average score, all game articles on Wikipedia follow this, given the titles on the table with sometimes slight adjustments depending on how high or low they are in that certain section, except for universal acclaim.

2. Most games which have reached universal acclaim have a limited number of 70's or 80's reviews mixed into the average, which are still good and positive scores, the other scores are 90's to perfect 100's, there are very few which only have 90's to perfect 100's, those games end up reaching average scores around 97. Heres another reference, Uncharted 3, a universally acclaimed game, got one review of 50, which is a "mixed" or average review, not exactly a negative score, but probably the lowest for a 90+ game, but the review was however based on the game being too similar to the previous game in the series, the rest of the reviews appeared to be very positive.

3. The scoring system is similar to any other scoring system, basic counting, such as a school test, for example, to get a 75 on a test is a good score, yet there is still some room to improve, a similar score would be a 70 or 80. A B+ is a good score, which sits somewhere in the mid to high 80s. Great games have averages within the 80's, where as the most impressive games will be within the 90's, similar system.

4. Perhaps you are over-exaggerating the word "universal" a bit, it basically means "praised worldwide" or "well received everywhere". However, there are very few games that do push it a little further.

5. As a little extra, which applies to most scoring systems is that the average is not absolute, for example, a game that gets 94 is not flat out better than a game that gets 93, infact, the game with 93 may generally be considered to be better, it depends on the reviewing critics who may judge different things, therefore there may be 1%-2% give or take on scores, not much of a difference, for example, there are some games with 92 that are considered to be among the best games ever made, and there may be some games with 95 that are called incredible, but maybe not within the best of all time. There's other systems for that however.

This answers to your arguments with facts and common sense, simple reading and counting basically. "Critical acclaim" represents an average more along the lines of "Generally favourable reviews" or "Positive acclaim". Universal may have been a little over the top with only 4 reviews, but there is generally 10-20 reviews needed for the aggregate to basically become valid. Coming to a gaming article especially, I would expect you to know all this like everyone else. You can comment if you wish. I could explain some more, but keep in mind this is a general, ethical consensus. Flyingnarb (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My argument isn't "baseless", it's very much so based on the definition of the word "universal". According to Merriam-Webster, it is including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception Source I believe at least one exception has been found. (The Gamespot review.

This is wikipedia, we're not metacritic, and we have no responsibility to adhere to the exact descriptions or terms they use. All your other commentary is empty and pointless without relevent examples. Until you start linking me to some specific Wikipedia policy, guideline, or precedent, it doesn't matter how many walls of text you decide to write, you haven't proven anything. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception."

The aggregate does include and cover all suitable as a whole, the Gamespot review was included in the average, it was not an exception, there's your definition covered. Also, the Gamespot review had a positive score, 7.5, not a 2 or 1, which would be a negative score. Therefore, all the reviews are positive, as they are with universally acclaimed games. If you were actually reading what I said, you would have noticed the argument was settled after my first post, you continued on, so I provided more facts from the ethical side. Perhaps you should also check how "universal acclaim" is used in media terms, "Overwhelming positive acclaim and commercial success" may be a similar term, you could also look at the other definitions of "universal". Now that you have displayed your issue, your confusion should be resolved with simple revision of this entire discussion. Hopefully we have helped you out. Cheers. Flyingnarb (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, we're just talking circles, repeating the same argument, and it's clear we don't agree on how we interpet the situation. Like I said earlier, let's wait and see what others have to say. Right now there's still no consensus. (Right now we're really the only ones actively arguing this, so there's no consensus with a 1:1 ratio in an argument...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be taking the word "universal" way too literally. When using the word "universal" for ranking a game, it does not have to mean absolutely everybody. Generally speaking, if a game is getting overwhelming reviews of 90+ out of 100 (or the equivalent. i.e. A, 9/10, 4+ stars etc) then it meets the definition of "universal acclaim", even if there is the random 7/10 (or so). From what I can see, only 3 out of the 23 scores given in the box in the "Reception" section gave it less than an outright 90+, and of those, only one was less than 80% (I'm going to assume that those are correct, I did not check them all myself) and that one was a 70%, still pretty good. As an example, I'm sure that the reviews for the book "The Lord of the Flies" are overwhelmingly positive (hell, William Golding won a Nobel Prize due in large part to the book). Personally speaking, I think the book absolutely blows, and were I a book critic at the time, would have given it a 1/10 and thought myself charitable. However, my one random outlier opinion is just that, one opinion, and does not affect the overall view of the book in society. None of the reviews that I see in the box are less than 7. Using that criteria, I would say that this game qualifies as a "universally acclaimed" game (though I have yet to play it myself). Vyselink (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I own a copy of this game and the gold Wii Remote Plus (left them at home though because I don't want them distracting me from studying for finals). That said, universal means universal. There is not universal acclaim, there is near universal acclaim, but the Gamespot review makes it hard to say universal acclaim. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

-I believe neither side has shown any Wikipedia policy or consensus supporting their position. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no guideline as to what constitutes univeral good reviews, despite the scales put forth by some editors (which remain, in the absence of any documentation, merely interpretation & synthesis from personal views). However, a definition from a RS dictionary has been presented to explain the common use of the word universal, and the use proposed in this article fails to meet this definition, as evidenced by the very fact it is being debated. I would say the use of the word universal in the current context is unadvisable and would recommend a less "absolute" wording.

-I also am rather worried that at least one editor acts condescendingly towards another who holds a different opinion. Assuming good faith is not only strongly recommended, it's also basic common sense -- if you intend to reach consensus, be nice and discuss politely. There is no need to belittle others with a displeasant attitude.

-Flyingnarb, you've claimed a number of times "this is how it's done everywhere/by everyone", "this is the consensus" (or other paraphrasings conveying the same message). However, you have yet to present any evidence that these claims are true. I would also note that you should not need to invoke a silent majority if you can produce a solid argument. Salvidrim! 06:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sergecross73 and Salvidrim. "Universal acclaim" is not a term of art - there is no industry definition for the term outside of Metacritic. Based on the dictionary definition it is clear in fact that it is nothing more than a hyperbolic generalization in this case. Whereas older games may have received closer to universal acclaim due to the youth of the field of video game journalism, the field has matured now to the point where it's nearly impossible to gain universal acclaim. There will always be some reviewer with a bee in his bonnet looking to make a name for himself by criticizing the game. I see problems when editors are making a habit of introducing this weasel term especially during ongoing discussions. Universal acclaim is an exceptional claim and it requires exceptional sourcing. Adopting Metacritic's use of this normally descriptive expression for categorization purposes without any explanation is as misleading as it is one-sided. -Thibbs (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The argument is being taken way too far, Sergecross73, there is no need to randomly attack other articles across over your issues, including your views on the standard scoring system, and getting other people involved. Thibbs, since this argument started, you have also been doing a similar thing, your reference to "editors making a habit of introducing this 'weasel term'" was reverting a change you made to "near universal" from the "universal" it had been peacefully for years. So your "editors making a habit of introducing this 'weasel term'" was actually referring to what you wrote.

Note also, that your issues are new to Wikipedia. "Universal acclaim" is a term that Metacritic uses, along with other aggregators in media, It, along with the other terms of acclaim (Generally favourable, mixed to average, etc.) are common terms used in general society and have been for many years, outside and inside the internet, whether it be about books, movies, games, music or anything else. Vyselink made a good view, it's pretty much how it goes. Now, it seems, that two people wish to change the terms used on Wikipedia, which may cause some confusion to Wikipedia users without the scoring table in the reception section indicating "universal critical" over the edited text "near universal acclaim", as an example.

I have noticed on Wikipedia that "Critical acclaim", meaning acclaim from critics, is sometimes used in a similar way to universal acclaim, however they are both listed within the one article, "Critical acclaim" would be in the minor pre-reception, perhaps along with awards and such, and "Universal acclaim" would be used in the main in-depth reception section. A few articles have listed in the reception section things like: "Indicating universal acclaim on review aggregator Metacritic". Which, the first line in the reception section refers to review aggregators anyway.

In a hopefully final conclusion, we seem to think your issues might be some type of huge exaggeration of the word "universal" in "universal acclaim" or a voicing of opinions without sources and/or without general terminology, hopefully you read this and finally see why your argument is alone, wrong, and confusing to others, cheers. Flyingnarb (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How have I taken this too far? What articles have I attacked? Who have I wrongfully brought to this conversation? (The only person I encouraged to join this discussion was "Grey Anomoly", and that was because he wanted to try to get an Admin to block you, in which I defended you and said that while I don't agree with you, I don't think you'd done anything block-worthy. I told him discuss it here rather than report you.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to say "Universal acclaim". I agree that while it may be true, it is going too far. You need to drop it, and stop trying to push your view. Sometimes the overall consensus isn't what you think is right. It happens, but if you are going to keep reverting other people, you are going to be blocked, and then not be able to voice your views at all. If you want this to be a blanket rule that going by metacritic scores description is what should be done for article's reception(which I usually do), then do that at the Video Game project talkpage instead of here, and do so with a calm manner, and don't be afraid to be rejected. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Flyingnarb, I was using only one example of your edits to articles where you insert the term "universal acclaim" or cut out qualifiers like "nearly" or "almost". In fact you made several such edits while the discussion of whether this term was proper was underway. You knew the discussion was under way because you had participated in it. This makes it rather difficult to regard your edits as good faith edits. That I reverted several of these controversial edits doesn't mean that I have been making a habit of introducing weasel terms as you suggest. Although you have suggested that I am an involved editor within the article I linked earlier, here are some additional examples of other edits you've made since 8 November 2011 (the start of this discussion): [4], [5], [6]. These kinds of edits are inappropriate while discussions are ongoing and while you are an involved editor. I can see that you've made several similar edits today. If you can't restrain yourself while the discussion is ongoing then it makes it very difficult to work collaboratively with you. If I were you I would consider Blake's advice very carefully and seek to gain consensus for your views rather than becoming an edit warrior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thibbs, note that your examples are on pages are changes you recently made and I reverted to what they originally were, you would see that if you looked at the articles history before your post, long before this discussion, I was not involved, also, you obviously did not read my last post at all before your baseless comment. Blake, you seem to know that universal acclaim is the correct term, clearly, it is the overall consensus and I noted that in my last post. Sergecross73, maybe attack was too harsh of a word, but removing a positive word from a fine article because of a positive B+ does not make sense, you would expect people to revert it, perhaps for vandalism.

The users of Wikipedia know that "Universal acclaim" is the correct term, used across the world. While "Critical acclaim" has pretty much the same meaning, positive/very positive praise, it could replace universal acclaim as the quotes from the reviews still reflect universal acclaim, as does the aggregate score, as it seems using critical acclaim would be an introductory term, followed by the in-depth reception, some articles are like this. However, don't get annoyed if people revert critical acclaim back to univeral acclaim, as the 90+ average score shows universal acclaim, along with reviews/reviews quotes, theres no reason why universal acclaim shouldn't be written there, using some solutions from my previous post may avoid edit wars, but it also depends on who watches the articles. These recent sudden article changes going around from two users out of nowhere is inappropriate, leading us to believe that this may be one of the reasons why we are told in schools and such that the "anyone can edit" feature on Wikipedia does have its downsides and it is best to use main dedicated sites for that extra information and accuracy. Note your minor changes on here are affecting how Wikipedia has always run and that you are slightly lessening the accuracy on the articles you have targeted so far, with only a few articles that you cannot change. It does seem however, that you are taking it a little far, ignoring everything and commenting without an understanding, despite being able to tell a universally acclaimed game by the impressive 90+ average score and the positive comments, a little more than "critical acclaim" seems deserving as they are nearing the top of the scale, perhaps you may reach some middle word for the reception introduction soon. Flyingnarb (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your assertions are scurrilous and baseless. If you can provide difs demonstrating where prior to 11 November I edited "Skyward Sword", where prior to 26 November I edited "Ocarina of Time 3D" or where prior to 14 November I made edits to "The Legend of Zelda" like you've described then I'll gladly concede that my reverts to your involved edits were just as improper as your revert warring. My edit history is freely available for review.

As for your claim that "Universal acclaim" is the correct term, this is an appeal to truth. Correctness doesn't enter into it. As Sergecross73 pointed out it is an imprecise term. Considering that Wikipedia is not affiliated with Metacritic, I see no reason to adopt Metacritic's terminology. Whereas Metacritic may explain what it means by "universal acclaim" on site, Wikipedia does not. That means that readers have to assume that the term is being used literally. This renders the term unusably inaccurate unless the sources demonstrate otherwise. I can see no problem with using the term "near universal acclaim" or "practically universal acclaim" or some variation. Wikipedia's job is not to entrench Metacritic's terminology but rather it is to present an NPOV picture that is clearly understandable even by those who do not read Metacritic. -Thibbs (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, time and time again, Flyingnarb refers to generalities such as "all wikipedia users" and "all articles" without providing any sort of concrete proof. He's yet to point to any specific wikipedia guideline or policy that supports his position. (Likely because it doesn't exist.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Few things you need to keep in mind.

1. You seem to be the first and only two people arguing this, whether it's your own confusion or personal views or whatever, it seems a little weird because this was not a problem before, understand why people are finding it as a trolling attempt.

2. From what you have said, you are only targetting certain articles, I am detecting bias.

3. There's plenty of invisible guidelines around here, it's just a little bit of general knowledge or common sense, depending on the topic, hence why there has never been anything against it. I have provided references and information on various related articles, notice how they all run the same way. It also seems that the Wikipedia community built a consensus itself based on the rest of the world.

4. By the looks of it, if you edit other articles, every game with a aggregate scores between about 78 to 95 will be under "critical acclaim", need a little diversity between them besides the aggregate scores, reviews, pre-info and awards showing the clear difference.

5. Your original reason for changing wording was based on a very positive B+ (about 8.3/10) and a positive 7/10 outside of the other reviews of near perfect 9/10's and perfect 10/10's, you admitted after a while however that yes, they are positive reviews, either that or you just did not explain that before, that possible counting issue appears to be somewhat sorted now.

6. I have noticed that you just tend to read the last two or three lines of comments, but anyway. Notice how I am not arguing, but maintaining a neutral point of view and seem to be the one attempting to sort it out, look back a few posts, I had a few suitable solutions which may be fine with the community without the need for you to exaggerate over how "universal" is used. The few posts from other users here aren't entirely on your side either, you should wait for a few more to post aswell before another random agressive and opinion posts which doesn't really appear to be going anywhere, although your story seems to change a bit. I don't want you getting banned for warring while i'm trying to help you out here, be patient and wait a while. Flyingnarb (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I only skim through your posts because they're always extensively wordy, without any sort of policy or guideline to back it up. Every time, you make thinly veiled attacks at anyone who disagrees with you, and just continually make reference to these empty "other articles", "other editors", "it was never a problem before", etc without ever providing anything concrete. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read through your entire comments, Flyingnarb, but as Sergecross73 points out they are little more than firmly stated assertions that the term is correct, that it is used in other articles, and that "other editors" agree with your opinion. You've failed to present any proof of these claims whatsoever. Despite wikipolicy (WP:NPOV) running contrary to your use of Metacritic's terminology across all of Wikipedia you continue to insist that it is not only allowable but in fact required (i.e. you refuse to compromise to any of the neutral terms that have been offered). The repeated and false allegations of badfaith editing that you have leveled against those with whom you disagree is counterproductive to your argument and as a result I agree with your view that the conversation doesn't appear to be going anywhere. It's been over a month now. If you can't provide any plausible policy-based or guideline-based support for your view then it's time for the conversation to end. -Thibbs (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You should think before you speak, I have given a number of "concrete" sources to other articles and if you choose to ignore them that is not my problem. Other users have also commented in this discussion, you have provided nothing at all to support your opinion yet. Also, you did not comment on my previous post like it touched a nerve or something. In relation to your previous comments, all the neutral terms are coming from me, you have said nothing, if you have read what I said, you would notice that "universal acclaim" is not made up by Metacritic, you assume that my allegations against you are false, all you need to do is look at the history of an article, at the top of your page, you will find "view history", just click on it and look back a bit.

Now, Sergecross73, your original argument was about "universal acclaim" based on 4 reviews, now that may have been a bit early. Then more reviews came in and it was changed back to "universal acclaim", you then commented on certain reviews, scores of B+ and 85, which are very positive reviews, but you did not feel met your "absolute perfection" definiton of universal, that is it so far. I came across a few definitions of "universal" and found one containing "universal acclaim" in the dictionary. "the play opened to universal acclaim" Source the same way we are using it, there are other definitions of "universal" there aswell. Based on them, universal acclaim can also mean "worldwide praise" or "praise from all", from that, as an example, a game could get nothing but 7/10's and have an average score of 70/100, that would still be "praise from all". However, universal acclaim has further meaning, "very positive worldwide praise" and "very high critical acclaim", which is closer to your "absolute perfection" definition. Take another look at the comment from Vyselink, I shall quote a section from it: "I think you may be taking the word "universal" way too literally. When using the word "universal" for ranking a game, it does not have to mean absolutely everybody. Generally speaking, if a game is getting overwhelming reviews of 90+ out of 100 (or the equivalent. i.e. A, 9/10, 4+ stars etc) then it meets the definition of "universal acclaim", even if there is the random 7/10 (or so). From what I can see, only 3 out of the 23 scores given in the box in the "Reception" section gave it less than an outright 90+, and of those, only one was less than 80% (I'm going to assume that those are correct, I did not check them all myself) and that one was a 70%, still pretty good.". Think about it, there may ba a few positive 7/10's and very positive 8/10's, but the vast majority of reviews are near perfect 9/10's and perfect 10/10's, that is the story for most of the highest rated games. Metacritic uses the term "Universal acclaim" on games that reach a very impressive average of at least 90/100, fitting to the definition. Books, movies and TV shows are judged in a similar manner, just look around you. If we used your "absolute perfection" definition of universal acclaim, only about three games would fit that, books and such would be about the same amount I would assume.

Moving on, the Metacritic scoring table listed above refers to the Metascore and similar terms may be given to the single reviews put into the metascore, take a look Source. Now "critical acclaim", ranging from positive to very positive could fit between 50-100 for single reviews and 75-100 for the Metascore (or other aggregate scores). Think about it, you can improve the wording the higher the score to closer suit the aggregate scores, review scores and review quotes. Universal acclaim has a definition and can be used, I have cited the sources this time along and have quoted a response from another user, who seems to refer to the defintions aswell. Sergecross73, I know it's a bit to read but someone has to respond to the discussions movement, might get smaller with these citations. Flyingnarb (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia is not affiliated with Metacritic. There is no reason to adopt Metacritic's scoring system simply because it exists. It is not a universal scoring system - it is Metacritic's scoring system. Using Metacritic as a source for your claim that it is used everywhere and by everyone is worthless. Of course Metacritic uses Metacritic's scoring system. This tells us nothing. The dictionary source you linked provided clear evidence that there are several definitions of "universal" all of which essentially mean without limit or exception. This exceptional claim cannot be applied willy nilly. It requires exceptional sourcing - multiple RSes that specifically claim "the game received universal critical acclaim" and even then we as editors are not bound to ignore logic. If further RSes emerge that demonstrate these claims to be false then the exceptional claim can be redacted by consensus. You have given no indication of why a term like "near universal acclaim" would be inappropriate. You continue to present broad assertions without presenting policy/guideline arguments, and you continue assuming bad faith. Because this conversation is ballooning in volume without making any progress in a substantive direction I think it may be time to seek informal mediation on the issue. Would you agree to this, Flyingnarb? What about you, Sergecross73? Would anybody else be interested in such a mediation? -Thibbs (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Metacritic was used as a minor example of how we use the term "universal acclaim", it's definition is limited, near universal acclaim would seem to be used in the same way as universal acclaim in this case, therefore there is no problem with just using universal acclaim, like it was before. Flyingnarb (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it has a meaning outside of the meaning Metacritic gives to it. This bigger picture meaning is the meaning that most people who are not Metacritic readers will give to it. This bigger picture meaning is false in most cases. We would be misleading people in an non-NPOV manner if we were to use Metacritic's scale without any further explanation. We could say something like "The game has received what according to Metacritic's scale is 'universal acclaim'" in every case but that would be to adopt Metacritic as the official scale of Wikipedia. In my view that's unacceptable.

Please answer whether you would be willing to abide by an informal mediation on the issue. -Thibbs (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Flyingnarb - But that's the thing, you've yet to present a major example. Furthermore, you have been presented with a "problem" with using it, the definition of the word "universal", as I gave above, from a reliable dictionary website.

@Thibbs - I'd be fine with that. I can't imagine Flyingnarb would succeed in convincing anyone with these extremely wordy responses that don't ever refer to specific people or policies... Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are basing it on your own opinion, therefore you cannot provide evidence. I am not a Metacritic user, I already knew what "universal acclaim" meant before finding it as a small recent reference point, and the bigger pictire is it would seem that most people have the same meaning of the term, not to mention the posts from other users. I have provided more than one definition from a reliable dictionary website and there are varied definitions of the word "universal" and only one using "universal acclaim" which is using it in the way I described, the "problem" is yours. As you may not be aware, I am not the one who needs to convince people because this is not my discussion. You are the one who needs to aquire attention from other users in your discussion and gain their views, so far they don't seem to support it. Going by the definitions of universal, "near universal acclaim" and "universal acclaim" can mean the same thing, either one can be used, yet you are going around changing articles when the discussion had just begun with no reason, without contribution from others. Universal acclaim seems to suit the users fine and is a term being used correctly based on its definition, just because there is more than one meaning for universal, despite not being entirely different, does not make it my "problem". Now, for a Metacritic reference, which you will probably take as my entire post, uses a similar scoring system to your school or work, the words aside, therefore just because Metacritic uses something, it does not mean they made it up on the spot. As I said before, wait for more users to post before deciding on something between yourselves on what you think is right and wrong, ignoring other users and such. I am not stating my opinion here, and I don't think you're convincing anyone to support your argument with small responses that actually don't refer to specific people or policies. Notice how there is no policy for or against, because it would appear that no one thought it would be actually argued, due to understanding. Once again, near universal acclaim would be used in the same way universal acclaim is, but if users revert it back, don't go and start an edit war with them, both are fine, but it was already correct. Flyingnarb (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy it violates is WP:NPOV. Your blanket accusations against my editing record are patently false as can be verified easily through an examination of my edit history. Please stop making these accusations.

Please answer this question as this is the third time I ask it: Would you, Flyingnarb, be willing to abide by the ruling of an informal mediation?

If you are willing to compromise please be clear about it. Would you agree to the term "nearly universal" without resorting another revert war? Please answer in no more than 2 paragraphs if you can help it. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not violate that policy at all, also my accusations can be verified by looking at an articles edit history. I don't have a problem with the term "nearly universal", but "universal" has the same meaning from dictionary definitions and that is already there, you don't need to start a revert war over it, I had answered that before. Since there are definitions supporting both sides, the logical and NPOV way to go it to leave it as it was before, there was no problems. Flyingnarb (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to disagree, but stop stating there are "no problems" with it. There have been 2 raised, one about WP:NPOV, and one about the definition of the word universal, provided by a reputable dictionary website. If there were "no problems", then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

However, if it'll stop this arguing, "near universal" is fine by me. I still find that to be true, it is indeed close to universal. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Flyingnarb has stated that he has no problem with the compromise but then he has gone on to say in the same breath that logic and NPOV support his non-compromise opinion. I completely disagree with the analysis he gives above and his colorful history of revert warring makes me dubious that he will restrain himself if the compromise term is used in this article. He has pointedly avoided answering whether he will abide by informal mediation in this talk page so I've contacted him at his own talk page (here). If we still get no answer then we'll have to go with one of the unilateral options for dispute resolution. This issue has gone on for over 1 month and it has reached the point at which nothing new is being said by either side. Assertion is met with Wikipolicy without any impact and compromise is largely rejected. Let's not drag this on into a second month as it is apparent that no headway is being made whatsoever. -Thibbs (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on all points. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you agree with his opinion because it seems to be in partnership with your opinion. You two may have problems, flawed as they are, they also seem to be the only two problems. You have provided but one definition of the word universal and clearly ignored all the other definitions and examples, including the one mentioning "universal acclaim". There is no need for your little mediation over a limited understanding of a word.

I'll add yet another source, even more detailed, Source. Notice the one definition that makes an example of universal acclaim. "Applicable to or common to all members of a group or set; "the play opened to universal acclaim", the word "general" is listed as the related term; "applying to all or most members of a category or group; "the general public"; "general assistance"; "a general rule"; "in general terms""; "comprehensible to the general reader". Notice how most definitions of the word "universal" by itself are similar, including; "Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy" and "A general or widely held principle, concept, or notion". As you can see, and myself along with other users have already mentioned, all of the reviews are positive, with the vast majority of those being near perfect to perfect reviews. This clearly indicates "universal acclaim", which ranges, overall, from near perfection to perfection. It seems pretty plain and simple really, we also recommend that you should perhaps revise previous comments and wait for more comments from other users, notice how I waited for more users to post, being patient and showing restraint before commenting may give you some time to think. Flyingnarb (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources obviously disagree on what "universal acclaim" means. Metacritic has a specific meaning for the term that differs from the dictionary definition of what the term means. The average reader doesn't necessarily know what Metacritic means by its specific definition. I had no idea what Metacritic's scale looked like until you linked it. So to solve the inevitable problem of this term confusing readers we can either go with the literal term so that readers can go to a dictionary to inform themselves or we can go with explanatory phrases such as "The game received 'universal acclaim' according to Metacritic's ranking" or "The game received scores that when averaged fall into Metacritic's 'universal acclaim' category". Either of these is fine according to NPOV but I would say that the latter may violate WP:UNDUE.

Because you apparently can't accept this we must to go through a more formal process to resolve the dispute because the conversation we are having here has stretched on for nearly 6 weeks, takes up the majority of this talk page, and goes exactly nowhere due to your steadfast refusal to compromise your views though these views run contrary to policy. I requested earlier that this pointless back and forth not extend into the current month and because you have rejected mediation I have explored some of the unilateral options for dispute resolution. I plan to file an RfC and I'll link you to the filing on your talk page. I'm sorry we couldn't agree on a compromise. -Thibbs (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I've situated the RfC below so that all relevant parties can participate. Let's hope we can put this behind us soon. -Thibbs (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not even mention Metacritic, take some time to actually read what I post. The sources obviously agree on what "universal acclaim" means, Metacritic seems to use it based on its definition in the dictionary, this clearly proves you do not read are not reading any posts. Flyingnarb (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Comment

With WP:NPOV in mind, should this article use the term "universal acclaim" without further explanatory text despite some less than stellar reviews, or should this term be completely excluded, or should a term like "near universal acclaim" be used? The same question applies to the use of the term in all articles.

• Argument in favor: This term is used everywhere from video games to films to mean that the subject being reviewed had received an average of 90+ on a 1-100 scale. Various dictionary definitions can be found online that suggest that "universal acclaim" means something less than "without limit or exception".
• Argument in opposition: The plain meaning of this term can be found in all dictionaries to mean "without limit or exception". Though groups like Metacritic may use a definition wherein a 90+ average score is described as "universal acclaim" this is a non-neutral term and violates WP:NPOV unless text is added to the effect that this term is applied as a label according to Metacritic's scale.
• Suggested compromise: By using a term like "near universal acclaim" we can express the fact that the game received high critical accolades consistent with a 90+ score but we can avoid NPOV-violation concerns by restoring the dictionary definition of "universal".

The discussion has gone on for ~6 weeks but no progress is being made. Although lip service has been paid to the compromise it is clear that the compromise has been basically rejected. Any help would be much appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• critical acclaim by itself. Universal has a very intense meaning that does not apply here (based on the above discussion, "near-universal" is also excessive. Any statement like this is a value judgment, and for anything to actually have "universal acclaim" is the sort of very exceptional thing that would need to be supported by quotes from multiple unquestionably reliable and authoritative sources saying so. And even then I would word it "according to the major gaming sources ,x, y, and z, it has "universal acclaim" ". DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• critical acclaim by itself. The definition of the word "universal" by the Merriam-Webster dictionary website, is "including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception" Source At least one review, the Gamespot one, criticizes the game a lot, and gives it a 7.5/10. At that point, it ceases to be "universal", because there is an exception. Additionally, we have no responsibility to use Metacritic's terminology, it violates WP:NPOV, it's a weasel word, and ultimately seems unnecessary. It seems similar to calling the game "Extremely, very good" when "extremely good" or "very good" is sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• critical acclaim by itself, per DGG and Sergecross73. Using "universal" is incorrect because there is at least one review that is less than 80. The concrete definition of term allows no exceptions. I also feel like the long argument in itself to use "universal" violates WP:NPOV, as if the real goal is say "Everyone thinks this Zelda is awesome" in the article in some manner. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: If there must be a compromise, I would suggest using "widespread" instead of "universal". --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when was 80 (8/10) the limit on being positive? 7/10 is more realistic, but even a 5/10 can be more positive than negative. If you are going to mention the Gamespot review, there is a discussion on it. But it was strange to see a mostly negative review with a positive score of 7.5/10 which was even listed as "good" on their site, not to mention the issues with the review itself.

Also, universal is used on a number of articles not just this one. Your opinion on how universal is used is to basically say "absolutely everyone everywhere with no exception thinks its super awesome", that can't really be said about anything at all, but if you were generally speaking then it would be correct, this Zelda is still highly praised and popular, the Zelda series is known for many of the best games ever made, why wouldn't this one be good too? But the word universal is not entirely what is used in articles, but instead, the term "universal acclaim".

Widespread seems fine to use, but you might want to see if the other three have something against it. Flyingnarb (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about your opinion DGG, I mean, the scoring system and aggregate system are listed there, comments are also.

Sergecross73, you have clearly displayed that you ignore information that "you don't like" and keep coming out with random opinions. You still seem to be making a big deal out of the Gamespot review, note how the reviewer still gave the game a positive score of 7.5/10. While it doesn't matter, his main criticism, regarding the motion controls, was incorrectly described. Take a look at the Gamespot discussion below. Yes, the review may be somewhat negative, but a 7.5/10 is a positive score in everyones eyes. It seems like you are just showing some negative bias and will be treated as such.

I have already said that things along the lines of "critical acclaim" and "very positive acclaim" are fine, quite a few articles use these, but "universal acclaim" may also an acceptable term, based on its definition, which you ignored. Regardless of what term is written, a very impressive aggregate score of 90+ clearly shows "near perfection to perfection" to us all, and that's a fact. Flyingnarb (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: "Universal" and "Universal acclaim" are different, the common definiton of universal is not the same as universal acclaim. Metacritics scale is the same as any other aggregate scale with perhaps slightly different wording of terms, other than that, it's just your general number scoring system. I have made some minor improvements to the introduction post for improved accuracy on what is being discussed. Flyingnarb (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not focus on making a vote instead of writing whole theses about your opinion? Don't make this stretch out any longer. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Universal and universal acclaim being somewhat different is not really an opinion, the dictionary has multiple definitions for universal and that's what the argument is seemingly about, but I guess you could vote on it or something if you wanted to. Flyingnarb (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The word "universal" retains it's meaning regardless of what it's describing (ie "acclaim" in this case), and so far, despite claims that "universal can have multiple meanings", no such reliable source defintions of "universal" have been presented. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Flyingnarb you are welcome to make "minor improvements" to the introduction post if you feel I've misstated the argument in favor of using the term but how on earth can you justify modifying the argument against? This is not your argument and changing it to fit your own hazy understanding is intellectually dishonest. The same goes for modifying a compromise that you have rejected. I've restored the original wording for these portions. And I think that claiming that various dictionaries define "universal acclaim" to allow non-universal acclaim as you do in the intro is patently false. I've left your edit intact since this is what you seem to believe, but if we look at the facts, the single dictionary definition (WordNet - presented in two different online dictionary scrapers) whose examples you rely on to prove your case is the following: "applicable to or common to all members of a group or set" (emphasis added). Please note that "all" is here used to mean "whole number or amount of or every one of a class" (using WordNet again). In no place except Metacritic have you presented a definition of the term "universal acclaim". -Thibbs (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source I provided earlier had two related examples, within the "applicable to or common to all members of a group or set" definition of universal, they are "the play opened to universal acclaim" and "rap enjoys universal appeal among teenage boys" Source. Now, you can't safely say that every single person highly praised the play, and about the rap one, that is a clear exaggeration as a vast amount of teenage boys dislike rap and therefore this example may be invalid. Despite that though, "applying to all or most members of a category or group" was listed as a related definition to universal acclaim, nothing else is listed. Also, I have already I am fine with terms like "widespread acclaim" and "very positive acclaim", so there is no reason to argue. But where would "universal acclaim" go, because it doesn't seem to mean "praise from everyone", would the lowest review score have to be above a certain number or something? Flyingnarb (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• critical acclaim by itself is fine for this article if that's the consensus. For other articles where this issue comes up I'd still be open to "near(ly) universal" or ThomasO1989's compromise "widespread", or even Flyingnarb's "very positive acclaim" whichever is more NPOV. -Thibbs (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• critical acclaim (dropping by in response to request for comment) The use of the word "universal" suggests no exceptions, and is probably unsupportable using reliable sources. If (for instance) the New York Times were to write an article (not an editorial or game review) indicating that the game had been released to "universal" critical acclaim, then the use of the term might be effectively defended. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• critical acclaim Although saying universal acclaim would be okay in my opinion, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL because it leaves no room for exceptions. GameSpot gave it a 7.5/10, which I don't really consider critical acclaim, so we should avoid the term universal acclaim no matter what Metacritic says. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 18:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

While 7.5 is a positive score, it appears there is some limit on how positive the lowest review can be to use universal acclaim on certain, not all, articles on Wikipedia, which is somewhat biased and unbalanced. As as example, universal acclaim was recently added to the Skyrim article, despite the 7/10, which is still positive, and universal acclaim was recently removed from the Twilight Princess article, where the lowest score is an 8.8/10, which is very positive, they should both have universal acclaim. It does depend on the users who watch those articles, but the problem started from this discussion which a couple of users argue that universal acclaim should have a different definition on Wikipedia than it is elsewhere. There has to be some sort of scoring system here, for example, if a game got nothing but 9/10's and thus had an aggregate score of 90 and is given "universal acclaim" on Wikipedia, but another game had an aggregate score of 97, which included one 7/10 review but "universal acclaim" is removed, well that just doesn't make sense. If the vast majority of reviews are near perfect to perfect, with only two or three reviews just being positive, perhaps being slightly negative towards what most highly praised shows something is up with those few reviews, whether it's for attention or not, it is a somewhat recent situation with a couple of reviewers. They are generally taken into some aggregates and do slightly affect the score, you can spot out a harsh or flawed review even if it still mostly positive, but that's enough really. You need to think up some sort of unique Wikipedia-only scoring system that would somehow work because it seems that simply getting an average score or using the normal scoring system is not good enough or something for one or two Wikipedia users, but they have yet to even find one definition of "universal" in "universal acclaim" (not just "universal" by itself) that does not mean something like "applying to all or most members of a category or group", which was from a reliable dictionary source, cited in previous posts. I'm not arguing with the wording used, but with additions or subtractions to select articles, one could detect bias. For starters, you could make up your own definition of "universal acclaim" using a random definition from both universal and acclaim, and what scores or something it would apply to, see what other users think. Flyingnarb (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If you want to suggest a set of terms of art like this for use on Wikipedia's video game articles you should make a post at WT:VG/GL and try to get the MOS changed. The current guidelines and policies require a plain meaning approach to such words because non-gamers will be reading them as well as gamers. And the non-gamers may not understand that "universal acclaim" means "90+ average review score on a 1-100 scale". -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that even every gamer would know that.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Demo leak

Apparently someone released a leak of a demo of the game. Is it relevant enough to address in the article? --200.118.90.37 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that are reporting on it? Like Gamespot or IGN. (Giving a link to the actual download would not be considered a reliable source, and probably a big legal issue, so I'm not suggesting that...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Links in the GameSpot review paragraph

Whether people actually agree with this section or not aside (the review changes I suppose are relevant), I have to question the link that follows the line regarding community controversy given that all it links to is a blog hosted by 1UP from someone who doesn't appear to be a professional, if not more like a rant. As a result, I question the line about there being any cited controversy. Unless anything official can be linked to, we can't keep it. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it was "official", there's no need to document some fans getting riled up by a less than stellar review. With a game like this that gets so much coverage from the press, there are so many more important things that can be covered instead... Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But actually, I'm not convinced the GameSpot review belongs here at all. GameSpot is a situational source on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VG/RS#Situational_sources). Why? First, because it allows users to submit articles; second, because their database is shared with the unreliable source GameFAQs; and third, because "their methods of verification do not meet the standards of Wikipedia." It can only be used if the person who posted it can offer a cogent reason why it should be here, given the amount of coverage this AAA game is recieving from numerous other reliable sources. If anything, the fact that their review is so far out of the mainstream consensus, contains at least some inaccuracies by GameSpot's own admission, and clearly did not rely on robust methods of fact-checking is demonstrative of why GameSpot is not considered a reliable source. This is pure OR and please disregard it; but I'm convinced that their review is simply untrue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews from staff are reliable. Just because there is also user-contributed data doesn't change the reliability of the official reviews. Reach Out to the Truth 06:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan or the review either but part of the statement regarding GameSpot as a situation source was ommitted. The actual statement was Their databse is shared by http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/entry.html?cat=42 [GameFAQs] which is considered unreliable and their methods of verification do not meet the standards of Wikipedia This was in fact saying that the site was not reliable for infomation regarding release dates etc not that there news and reviews did not meet Wikipedia standards.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the sentence is just saying that GameFAQs is unreliable, then the sentence "GameFAQs which is considered unreliable and their standards of verificiation do not meet the standards of Wikipedia" is a run-on. I think it suggests that GameSpot also does, indeed, lack reliable standards of verifiability. You're technically right that this only explicitly refers to data such as release dates, and that their opinions are opinions; but if they post inaccurate data in certain contexts, it damages their credibility all around. Remember: This is a AAA-game with massive media attention; the article only needs the most credible sources, because we can't fit them all (and right now we're giving GameSpot a whole paragraph). I'm wondering what kind of editorial standards of verifiability they had in place to scrutinize the accuracy of Skyward Sword's motion controls. In any case, you might still be right. But if we leave the review, I still don't like the way it is used. The very negative quote "Inconsistent controls continually torment poor Link, and the predictable structure does little to distract you from these faults" is so harsh, its odd that it's summarizing a positive review. There are many more positive quotes in the review. It just seems strange to me that if we all agree that GameSpot's data is frequently inaccurate, we nevertheless give them a whole paragraph in the review section, because their reviews aren't true or false--even when there are many, many reliable sources on Metacritic not mentioned here at all. What makes GameSpot special? The fact that their article is so out there? In a way, being out there is bad; we're supposed to be summarizing the critical consensus, but we're giving those that dispute it undue weight. This section seems to have as many or more negative quotes as it does positive, but on Metacritic the game has "universal acclaim." Should GameSpot's review really get a solo paragraph, or should all of the critics of motion control share one? Also: "This was in fact saying that the site was not reliable for infomation regarding release dates etc not that there [sic] news...did not meet Wikipedia standards." Release dates aren't news?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph about the GameSpot review can be shortened, yes. The quote used doesn't mention the IR sensor, so it's not necessary to point out the addendum. People can see it themselves if they choose to follow the link to the review.

Discussion of GameSpot's status as a source should go on WT:VG/RS, not here. Reach Out to the Truth 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think this is a case of not reading the statement properly. The part about not being in line with Wikipedia standards specifically refers to the database with the term news not being mentioned. The discussion rasgarding moving GameSpot to a sitaution sources Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Gamespot. The only thing mentioned in that whole discussion was release dates stronly indicating that the database line does not have anything to do with news or reviews so therefore the part about not meeting Wikipedia standards does not apply to them. There is also another relevant line eariler on and that is GameSpot uses a similar interface for displaying news, user blogs, and "union" postings. Be careful to ensure that the author is a staff member. Now if GameSpot was not considered reliable for news or reviews there would be no need to make sure the article came from a staff member because it would not be considered reliable regardless. Based on my reading I don't see anything to indicate that GameSpot is not a reliable source for reviews written by staff members. Also come to think of it I don't believe that GameFaqs even has a news section of have staff members do reviews (I think they are all user subbmitted please correct me if I am wrong) so the database line couldn't possibily be talking about staff reviews or news. To be clear I do not agree with the review but I don't think there is a stong enough case for removal.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to yield to the consensus on this matter, but I still must respond to the above straw man. I never said GameSpot was inherently an unreliable source; I said it was a questionable source that can be used in the proper context. It is listed as a situational source; it doesn't have to be wholly reliable or unreliable, but my argument was merely that it is not needed when there are more reliable sources available and controversy surrounds their review (at least not unless a cogent argument is made for its inclusion). Just because something must be written by staff members to be reliable, does not mean everything written by staff is automatically reliable. You just said we can't trust their release dates. Who puts them up? The staff, surely?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I recall similar feelings when Twilight Princess came out. In short, GameSpot has always been mentioned in a good chuck of game article review sections. Despite all that has been argued above, I still get the feeling certain people just disagree with another persons feeling on a game they like. Just because a long standing review source doesn't fit with the norm isn't doesn't suddenly make it redundant. Granted however, I'm not sure if it requires this much weight, although the paragraph was actually cut down despite people's issues. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Game-Breaking Bug

Zelda Informer reported a game-breaking bug, which Nintendo recently responded to. 1 2 Anyone consider this notable for the article? I recall Twilight Princess having a terrible bug also, but it's not mentioned in its own article, it appears, so I'm asking. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume that other websites reported a bug as well... There is a way to avoid it though (IGN, Kotaku, Game Informer, Eurogamer). -- Hounder4 (T) (C) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Twilight princess glitch was originally mention but that was removed due to this discussion [[7]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.215.154 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the side of that conversation that said it'd be okay to mention, but only using what reliable sources are saying, and keeping away from any "gameguide/faq" type information. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo are fixing it by send them your save file to them and will offer an internet fix later, the SD card fix gets mention in the metroid article so these fixes should be mentioned here as well because they seem notable enough.--sss333 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Right now the article only references Nintendo Australia. Are they the only branch doing this? Sergecross73 msg me 05:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Japan and NOA are as well, IGN has a story for the US, haven't heard about Europe.--sss333 (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I feel that a section dedicated to Skyward Sword's soundtrack should be included. Its notable for being the first Zelda game to use orchestral music, plus a soundtrack CD was included with the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Its notable for being the first Zelda game to use orchestral music" Have you been in a coma for the past 20 years or are you just stupid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.102.150 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you name a Zelda game where orchestrated music has been used prominently? Previous games might of had one or two arrangements, but nothing like what Skyward Sword has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.15.81 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)