Talk:The Legend of Zelda CD-i games

Content

This info was culled from several other articles, including the individual game pages, so please don't blame me if it's apocryphal or not NPOV. :) --Sraan 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I had an Idea

This article has many similarities in the individual game articles. I thought it would be a good idea to compile the information onto the main CD-i Zelda article, so as to make it more easily accessible, because it's all in one place. If anyone dissagrees, go ahead and revert it, then post your problem with it here. Thank you.

No agree, the CD-I games should merged into one. All seem to have the same info except for the storylines and characters, but that's about it. I propose a merge. Magiciandude 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Are those songs remixed from these games notable enough for mention?

Rikolai, Gux, Crok, Avid Acid, Toilet Duck, Verix.
There might be more, but I didn't look very hard.
They're pretty awesome, but I don't think they're really notable, hence me asking. - Daakun 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sequence

Link, feeling increasingly useless in the now safe land of Hyrule, has no idea that the faraway island of Koridai has been taken over by his old nemesis, Ganon. Ganon has also kidnapped the princess of Hyrule, Zelda, and is holding her captive there. A mysterious wizard visits Link on a flying carpet to inform the hero of the dire situation. Only Link, with the aid of the Book of Koridai, can defeat Ganon. After being refused a kiss by Princess Zelda, Link then flies away with the man on the flying carpet and moves toward an island populated by stone statues in the shape of diabolical faces known as the "Faces of Evil."

Mah boi, this currently reads that Link is in Hyrule, is told that Princess Zelda has been kidnapped in Koridai, and asks Zelda to kiss him before leaving Hyrule to go to Koridai? I wonder what's for dinner. ~ Eidako 13:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of correction by a person familiar with the plot, I went ahead and removed the first bold sentence. ~ Eidako 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that all Zelda CD-I games be merged to this articles. Each articles are pretty much same when comes to the context except for the storylines which is already summarized in this article. The development section can be added here. A list of characters is not needed. So therefore, not much info will be lost. The game templates can be added here just like how Naruto video game series are set up.Magiciandude 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - Good idea, maybe we can help get one CD-i Zelda game article to GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - They're three different games, are they not? And the statement that the articles are "pretty much the same when it comes to the context" is flat out untrue. McJeff (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative Support This has been in the back of my mind for quite a while now. Think about this rationally. What would the development sections of the articles be if separate? They would all have to go into the exact same story about Philips and Nintendo and the failed CD-ROM add-on, as would this article. There isn't much to say about development that would be game-unique. Much of the reception sections would also be repetitive. The articles already have many statements about all three games ("Along with the other two CD-i Zeldas, the game was...", "Like the system they were created for, the three games were never very popular...") or sentences that specify one game but apply to all three (cf. "The Faces Of Evil is considered to be an inferior use of the Legend of Zelda title by most fans who know of the game's existence..." with "The Wand of Gamelon is considered to be an inferior use of the Legend of Zelda title by most fans who know of the game's existence..."). Granted, the plot and gameplay sections are different, but they're so painfully short that this might very well have a stronger presentation if merged. The argument "they're separate games" isn't a per se reason for separate articles—see the Oracle games, which are separate, yet stronger presented together. That article is also the example for how plot and gameplay would be presented here if merged. If the gameplay sections were greatly expanded or significant information about development was found that was game-specific, the articles should definitely be split. However, given the current state of affairs I am willing to consider the merge. Pagrashtak 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's why, my friend, I wish to merge all three articles to this one. Magiciandude (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Coolgamer (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as per Pagrashtak. Gurko (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose' there are three seperate games that have three seperate story lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.156.166 (talk)

Having different storylines doesn't mean articles can't merged. The storylines Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons are on the same page, neither OoA or OoS have separate articles. The three games' plots summaries are already shortened and summed up in this article. Magiciandude (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Provided that all three titles are redirected. 66.68.99.199 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The third game has a completely distinct gameplay and development history than the first two. FightingStreet (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That part is already mentioned in this article in the game section itself in one sentence. Magiciandude (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose They're all notable in their own right, and the first two are distinctly different from the last one. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How so? The plots are already summarized in this article, the differences is already mentioned between the first-two and the third, and the gameplays are already mentioned. The development sections for each article are the same. The reception and beginning intro paragraph for Zelda's Adventure is the same as the first-two. There isn't much written in the gameplay and plot that couldn't be summarized for the articles. This isn't much different than Zelda: Oracle of Seasons & Ages, even with the addition of Zelda's Adventure. Magiciandude (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: They're three separate games, and therefore they should have three separate articles. Really pretty simple. Wizardman 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all games neccessarily need their own article. As I've mentioned, Zelda: OoA and Zelda: OoS are merged into one article despite being different games. Even with Zelda's Adventure having different gameplay, the plot summary, development, and its gameplay is already summarized in this article. As a matter of fact, Zelda's Adventure's section on gameplay is barely a paragraph long. Magiciandude (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's any differences in the games, which you acknowledge there are, then it's inherently better to keep them as separate articles. Your arguments for merging remain unconvincing. Wizardman 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nobody has given me a real reason why the articles shouldn't be merged. Other than the few anonymous opps, and the same arguement used against me that I already pointed out the solution, the articles are merged. Magiciandude (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And almost GA! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on it. The introduction and gameplay section are too short. But don't worry. I'll take care of the gameplay. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reception section is heavily lacking in sources from the time of the game's release. Currently there's only modern websites in the section. It would be more interesting to use magazines from the '90s. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's resolved. But at this point I no longer care to fight the rampant mergists. You win :( Wizardman 14:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only reason we "won" is because we managed to turn three messy stubs into one comprehensive, potentially-GA article. Is the situation that bad? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gee, it sure is boring round' here

Although it hasn't been "truly" mentioned, just by looking at YouTube alone, there have been many remixes and parodies of the CD-i games, mostly involving remixing them to change the context and add humorous value to them. We don't need a "true" source, since looking at a search result for "CD-i Zelda" shows many different remixes and parodies of this along with the straight clips.

So, think this whole subculture involving them should be added? ViperSnake151 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think YouTube Poop should have its own article. It is a self-contained internet phenomenon, increasingly popular as can be seen by statistics for these kind of videos on You Tube, and they don't always involve the Zelda games - for instance, The Simpsons and Ren and Stimpy are also widely parodied. 80.56.35.62 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.156.166 (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn right, it's boring! What the fuck is this??!!! YTPs with the Cd-I GAMES????!!!!!! I HATE CD-I!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!(chases SuperYoshi with a baseball bat with spikes)

Youtube Poop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why isn't there an artical for it/them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.151.36 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a section on this page about Youtube Poop. An anonymous user removed it seemingly for no apparent reason. I have added it back in. 85.232.209.158 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And that was apparently also removed- I have added it back in again. PLEASE, people who have been removing such information, STOP DOING SO. Go on youtube and search "Youtube poop", and you will get several thousand results of such videos. Youtube poop is very popular, and, if anything, should have its own article.Moleman 9000 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. YouTube itself is an unreliable source, and its contents are entirely user-created, so they can be uploaded and deleted at any time. Why should we waste our precious time talking about some weird thing that some guys do for fun? Why don't we just make an article about expansion fetishism while we're at it? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cat's Tuxedo, did you even check youtube to see just how popular youtube poop is before you deleted it? A search for "Cd-i youtube poop" on youtube will return over 11,000 results, and virtually all of them use these games or hotel mario as opposed to other cd-i games. And even youtube poops that aren't cd-i centric usually still have some audio from these games. And many of the lines from the cdi games are particually popular as memes, such as "Mah boi", "Squadalah, we are off", and Ganon's "Or else you will DIE", just to name a few. There are several Youtube-poop makers that are particularly popular and well-known in the community, such as Deepercutt, Kroboproductions, and the recently suspended Walrusguy. In fact, youtube poop deserves MORE information on this (and other articles such as the Super Mario World cartoon) page than I wrote. Deleting information about youtube poop from this page is like deleting the information about "All Your Base are belong to us" from the article on Zero Wing.Moleman 9000 (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At least the 'All your base are belong to us' page actually has some official sources and real-world notability. YouTube Poop, on the other hand, has not been referenced at all in popular culture, and is known only to those who actually bother to go onto YouTube. Try again, please. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Simpsons Game, Mario abruptly says in the cutscene before the final level, "I hope it's a spaghetti!", in a similar way to Luigi's line in the opening cutscene to Hotel Mario, which is a possible reference to Hotel Mario, and due to the nature of the scene, it is also possibly referencing, by extent, youtube poop and the fact that the line has become an internet meme. And also I HAVE added links to some of the videos as references. The Europeans have the right idea, see- there's an article on you tube poop on the spanish version of wikipedia, and even though I can't read Espanol, it looks like a pretty suficient article.Moleman 9000 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's nothing but original research. There is no "possible reference" here on Wikipedia; either it's a confirmed reference or not a reference at all. And the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have the same rules as the English Wikipedia, so that's out of the question. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I only brought that simpsons game thing up because you said that it hasn't been mentioned at all in popular culture. I can add a reference link to the forum site of youtube poop, Youchewpoop.com, if you need something like that.Moleman 9000 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop, your adding of unreliable information is purely disruptive. What is already there refers to this phenomena, so one reference is all it needs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is that information "Unreliable?" I referenced a link to one of the videos, which gives irrefutable proof that what I'm saying is true.Moleman 9000 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, YouTube itself is an unreliable source, and its contents are entirely user-created, so they can be uploaded and deleted at any time. The link that we have provided is reliable and is all that is necessary. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Youtube itself is an unreliable source, and its contents are entirely user created"

Just like wikipedia then isn't it? 86.159.228.8 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. You'll note that we do not permit Wikipedia, or any other open wiki, to be used as a reliable secondary source. Pagrashtak 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Odvious vandalism?

How so, Clegs? None of this section is of any way vandalism at all. You can search on YouTube yourself for proof, or visit http://www.youchewpoop.com for the official site. YouTube Poop is more notable than some of the other memes that have articles on this site. 85.232.209.158 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to be blocked because of my adding Youtube Poop back in. Oh boy, isn't this fair.99.167.231.124 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Making the Case for Creating an article about YTP

I am actually really surprised there is no article about the CD-i-inspired video genre known (somewhat humorously) as YouTube Poop. Consider the following facts and figures, each verified by reliable sources:
1. YouTube has been a Top 5 website both nationally and globally almost every single day for at least a year now, according to the Alexa Web Traffic stats:
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=US&ts_mode=country&lang=none
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lang=none
2. The Wikipedia article about YouTube is one of the Top 10 most frequently visited and edited articles on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages
3. As of this month, October 2008, there are 63,000 videos that show up for the quoted search term "youtube poop,"
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22youtube+poop%22&search=Search
And another 17,800 that show up for the search term YTP, of which there is certainly some overlapping, but many of the video creators don't write out the whole phrase:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=YTP&search_type=&aq=f
4. So many Internet memes are created and popularized by YTP videos, and there are Wikipedia articles about those things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_memes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena

I don't know how to create an article, and have seen all sorts of crazy multiple re-postings of articles on here (like this one itself), but a good starting point would be those above-mentioned stats, as well as the Encyclopedia Dramatica article (I couldn't hyperlink to it, but you can search it there), and the various definitions on Urban Dictionary (yet more proof of why it merits inclusion):
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=youtube+poop

If any of you are admins or have like 10 minutes to get the article started, I will definitely help to expand and edit it!
Please let me know what you think. 68.174.101.64 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't have an article unless you can show why it meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. I agree that YouTube is a popular site, and the Wikipedia article on YouTube is popular, but that's irrelevant. Pagrashtak 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The statistics about YouTube were provided as a reference point for the popularity of "YouTube Poops," of which there are tens of thousands, and new ones being created and uploaded to YouTube every single day. I'll see what I can do... 68.174.101.64 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WOOHOO!!!! Congratulations, anonymous user! You have suceeded where I, Moleman 9000, have failed, and posted a valid explaination for the notability of Youtube Poop! BTW, you might also want to check out the uncyclopedia article on YTP- it has some valid information as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.244.204 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Only third-party sources can be used as references validating the "notability" of YouTube Poop. YouTube searches and Wikipedia itself are not such. Better luck next time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat's Tuxedo -- In all honesty, I don't understand why you have taken such a stance against there being a Wikipedia article about YouTube Poop: My reason? I just read through your profile and saw, first of all, that you do consider Wikipedia "a primary point of reference;" furthermore, you are clearly a huge fan and supporter of modern animation--as evidenced by your creation of dozens of cartoon-related articles--but what especially struck me was your YouTube channel, where your 68 Favorites contain at least 7 YouTube Poop videos. So my question is: Where exactly is the line between your demonstrated preference for this new genre of entertainment, and your feeling that it is not worthy of inclusion ("notability") in Wikipedia, where those who are interested in YTP may expect to find some authoritative information about it from those who are most familiar with it?
68.174.101.64 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal interests are irrelevant when it comes to preserving quality work on Wikipedia. As interesting as an article on the subject may be, there simply isn't enough reliable third-party references to validate the notability of YouTube Poop, since it's never impacted popular culture beyond YouTube. It was the same deal for the page on expansion fetishism, but I digress. The bottom line is that I put the readability and reliability of Wikipedia before my own selfish wants. That is all. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm back, and this time I DON'T plan on getting banned again. And I DON'T plan on allowing you villains to continue removing all traces of Youtube Poop from Wikipedia. And I DO plan to finally succeed at secureing a place for YTP on this site. But I'm not ready to do that yet, so just wait for me. I'll be back in about a week or so. To prepare for my last stand, you know?76.167.244.204 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on that, junior. Here in Wikipedia, vandalism never prevails. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For a reference... Youtube Poop has an "official" website, http://www.youchewpoop.com , where the most renowned YTP creators have accounts and post blogs and events. User:Malak Wolynx —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great, great idea.

I mean, really. The only notability for these games are the extremely low quality of them, and they're mostly discussed as a whole rather than separately. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationals

The following images do not have fair use rationals:

• Image:Zeldawandofgamelon1.jpg
• Image:Zeldasadventure1.jpg
• Image:Zeldawandofgamelon2.jpg
• Image:Zeldafacesofevil2.jpg
• Image:Zelda wandofgamelon packaging.jpg
• Image:Zelda facesofevil box.jpg

Epass (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Added rationales to all of them, need to replace a few as they are huge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a potentially silly question, but...

What the frick is Youtube Poop? Is it videos that no one wants to claim as posted by them? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A YouTube Poop is a mashup video posted on YouTube with the intention to annoy, confuse, or entertain whoever watches it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So it's a YouTube cultural thing? Why does it keep coming up here? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the animations from these games have been uploaded onto the net and made available, they are now one of several games/shows lampooned in the 'poops' on a regular basis. Other examples include Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario and the Cillit Bang advert. Someoneanother 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for reasons for them to be incesantly included in the article. Are they particularly rampant, particularly popular, particularly venomous, ect? Because as Someone stated, it's not unique to these games. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^ Yes, they are 71.163.117.33 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

• "and the final one by Viridis on 5 June 1994." - the final one sounds a bit... sucky. Just refer to it by its name (ie. and Zelda’s Adventure 's by Viridis...)
• "Nintendo rarely acknowledges the game's existence and are a source of ridicule by many reviewers." - sounds like Nintendo are a source of ridicule... reword
• "All the CDi" - should that have a hyphen?
• Release date section in infobox needs italics
• Check overlinking in Plot section (Link a few times, etc.)
• Same with Nintendo (and others) in the Dev section
• "Philips insisted that all the aspects of the CD-is capabilities including FMV; however, the fact that it was not designed as a stand alone game console and the infrared controller lagged behind the on screen action" - first part (before semi colon) makes no sense...lacking verbs, I think
• "(which does not include the CD-i games)" - better with commas, rather than brackets (or perhaps em dashes)

Leave me a note when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the nominator, but I believe I've addressed these except for the confusing sentence. I'll let Judgesurreal handle that one, as I can't tell what the intent is. Pagrashtak 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I expanded two of the three plot summaries. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased the sentence, so all the GA issues should be fixed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All passed! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Currency

I noticed that the currency in these games is apparently reversed to that of the rest of the series. Green Rupees being usually worth one, Blue being 5 and Red being 10, if I remember correctly (which I may not). If the article is incorrect, which I can't say as this might be the first time I've even heard of them, then it should be corrected. If the article is correct, is this worth noting? It seems like yet another departure and failing of the titles. --Epynephrin (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that these games use "rubies" instead of "rupees", so I don't know if such a comparison is even meaningful. Pagrashtak 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats because this is the earliest... well only Zelda game that uses voices, no one was really sure how the word Rupees is pronounced. If you say it over afew times you would noticed that the P and the B arn't very different. Not to mention that the Rupees seem to be mostly red. 86.128.33.12 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Mystic Monkey

AVGN said it was Rupees, & none of his commenters disagreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What's with the citations?

I'm not sure the standard format for citations in a wikipedia article, but I don't think every sentence needs to have a cite after it, resulting in a paragraph with a dozen or more citations that lead to only one or two citations at the bottom. Is that how we're supposed to do it or is there a more concise way? Errick (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's how we do it here. It's to make sure every statement is referenced and therefore believable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other ways to do it but yes that's how we do it here. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look right, though. Isn't there some way to have an entire paragraph point to the citation, instead of every sentence in the paragaph pointing ot the same citation? I'm just saying, it looks terribly messy that way. I do know every statement needs citations, I understand that much, but surely there's a format for citing the entire paragraph at once?Errick (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible but I think you need to discuss it first as people may object. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Errick, there's no point in citing common knowledge. It's like a downhill spiral where in a few months, each individual word will need citation just to prove it's a real word.

...your face the GREATEST in Koridai!

I don't think he could mean physical attraction.. Not saying that Link denying physical attraction would be stupid... CDi Link, not the others... I think what Ganon ment was having Links head as one of the Faces of Evil... and with a mug like that not even the 3 Goddesses would love that face.

Just what I thought he ment when I herd that line.

--86.128.33.12 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Mystic Monkey

Agreed. I changed "physical attractiveness" to "great power". Tubba Blubba (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My Boy?

Should that part in the refrences be changed to Mah Boi? I mean, it REALLY sounds more like 'mah boi' instead of 'my boy'. --98.215.53.250 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In the context of the paragraph, it quotes the original line from the game. The original line was "my boy". Fan interpretations (e.g. YouTube Poop) have no place in here, unless they're exceptionally common and well-sourced. 66.57.44.247 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording

I suggest either removing or rephrasing the two final sentences of the first paragraph under "reception":

"The first two games received praise for their detailed and well-drawn in-game backgrounds and "pretty decent" gameplay, making them some of the best games on the CD-i, despite its weird controls.[1][41][28] The audio was thought to be "average", and not up to the usual Zelda quality.[28]"

I don't like them because:

(1) They make a generalization, which in reality applies to a few critics.

(2) This generalization further contradicts the rest of the paragraph, where there is another generalization which almost directly opposes this one.

If this issue will not be fixed, I will look for other issues and consider putting this article on GAR (huh?).

Thank you,

66.57.44.247 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

do it yourself92.12.42.16 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of Fair use images

I think the current number makes sense. First, you have three games being covered, each with their own art style, so each has a box art cover and a game image. Then, there is the horrendous FMV image that is extensively discussed in the article, so that is necessary as well. If you want to approach it another way, we definitely need on box art image, one game play image, especially since the good art direction was the one redeeming thing about these games, as referenced in the article, and again the FMV, so in that case you would have three images. My question would then be, isn't that going to cause a lot of tension as people keep replacing the boxart between the three games, and adding images from the games that are no longer represented? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How could you have too many images? We should put in as many images as possible!Moleman 9000 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The images are copyrighted, and the more we include, the less free our encyclopedia becomes. Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content for a better explanation. Pagrashtak 05:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What worries me is the suggestion that it takes $6 millin dolars to run this website. Someone please linch the greedy host company.

WTF?! This is a fucking website!!! Copyright law doesn't apply to the internet- on the internet, you're supposed to be able to post whatever you want, regardless of any copyrights. Let alone simple images on a text based website. Add any images that were removed from this article back in- we shouldn't need to have a "fair use rationale" or any of that BS.Moleman 9000 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish that were true, but anyone who posts on YouTube will tell you otherwise. As a rebuttle, all this copyrighteousness is actually increasing torrent piracy as a sort of one-finger-salute to the companies tossing lawsuits left & right. & these companies own so many other companies that you don't even know if the company boycott you agreed to parrticipate in is effective or not.

Whoh, where the fuck did you get that idea? Copyright laws apply. Go study your copyright laws. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just ask you this: Has any company EVER tried to sue wikipedia or anything like that because of "copyright infringement"? Or is wikipedia just doing this to itself?Moleman 9000 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact User:MGodwin and ask him, he's the Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) attorney. Also, ask one of your teachers about the copyright thing. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moleman, you need to calm down. I'm not sure where you got the idea that copyright doesn't apply to the internet. Are you familiar with the legal battles Napster and Kazaa has fought? Heard of a program by the name of Scrabulous that was removed for copyright infringement? One of your own edits references the removal of videos on the internet for copyright infringement. I don't know if you're familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License, but it is the license under which Wikipedia content is released. That license ensures that Wikipedia is free to distribute and reproduce. You may have noticed in the upper-left over there that we are "the free encyclopedia"—that's free as in free speech (libre), not free as in free of charge (gratis). Part of that means using free images when absolutely possible, and restricting our use of non-free images when having no image is the only other option. This is why Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is official policy on the English Wikipedia, governed by the licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. Pagrashtak 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of such issues with copyright and the internet, what what I'm trying to say is that is SHOULDN'T have to apply to the internet. I am strongly detestant of copyright complaints directed at the internet, especially with Youtube. I guess that I could understand if one company complained about a website owned by another trademarked by another company who put stuff up on it without permission, but as for user-generated content, I am 100% against copyright and the internet.Moleman 9000 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You want to destroy copyright incentives by making the Internet copyright-free? What do you have against the production of content?! And the Internet, for that matter! You're 100% against it? But you're ON IT.64.111.153.16 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Wikipedia isn't "The Internet", and mainly because of the word in the top-left hand corner of the page you're looking at - "Free". Copyrighted works are not free content by their very nature. See m:mission - "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain..." Black Kite 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that it is part of wikipedia's "policy" to not use stuff without permission, and if it didn't have that policy, we could put whatever we want without question?Moleman 9000 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the law. Copyright law says you cannot use copyrighted material without explicit permission from the copyright holder. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia "policy". As someone else already pointed out, Napster and countless others, had no "policy" against copyrighted material, and look at what happened to them. It's very simple, what part of copyright law don't you understand? Gutenberg has a good explanation of what is, and what isn't permissible. [1]. And, by the way, Particleman, please start using proper threading to your comments. I'm going to re-thread this discussion to make it easier to follow.

Simple really. This is an article about multiple titles, one box art cover is enough under minimal fair use. The screenshots similarly don't individually provide anything extra under WP:NFCC#1, one is enough here. I leave it to editors more experienced with the subject matter to decide which ones should stay and which should go, but seven NF images for a minor article like this is clearly too many. Black Kite 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can call a trio of games with such a large Internet cult following "minor". Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that seven non-free images is excessive, but it's certainly not "clear". I'm not sure how we could get away with just one screenshot. Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure look very different—one is side-scrolling, the other is (mostly) top-down, the art styles and the use of color are different. For which two games would you suggest that we have no representation of the graphical style? Or would you have us ditch the gameplay screenshots and keep the FMV shot instead, which looks completely different from the style of the rest of the games? Pagrashtak 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All the screenshots show is that two games are side scrolling and one is top-down. That could be (and actually is) mentioned in the text. The FMV shot is reasonable because it was an unusual point at the time. I'm don't see what the multiple box art images add, though. Black Kite 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into box art. Do you really think that the perspective is the only thing shown in those screenshots? They don't tell the user anything about the graphical capabilities of the games, or the palette choice, or the art style? I think most readers are getting more out of the images than you do. Pagrashtak 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there should be no screenshots at all, but I'm not sure these are particularly illustrative of anything notable about the games. Black Kite 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're OK with four screenshots, just not these four in particular? Pagrashtak 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4 - doesn't matter as long as each image passes every criteria in WP:NFCC - at the moment, I'm not convinced that these do. Black Kite 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Under NFCC8, I guess? Pagrashtak 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and #1. The box art probably fails #3a, as well. Black Kite 07:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

3a says "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." - How do we convey all three box arts while using as few images as possible; all three box arts need to be represented somehow. Could we make a group image where all three are in the same box art? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As the 'Reception' part mentions the Zelda's Adventure cover, it should be pictured. Glutko (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fari the Spaniard

Where did that name come from? Is it actually mentioned somewhere in the game or in the manual? Overlord Xenu (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it first appeared in the YTP 'Zelda has a Boyfriend'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glutko (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Voice cast

Who was the cast of voices? I recently relised that Link sound a lot like Matt Hill.--86.146.58.39 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the voice cast was credited, which really sucks in my opinion. I wanna know who's the legend who did King Harkinian. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At the ending credits screen you can find the voice cast. It doesn't say specifically who voiced who though.Overlord Xenu (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Any voice actors we've heard of in that cast? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the voice cast for Wand of Gamelon:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4240/capture27012009203532ks9.jpg http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5893/capture27012009203536lg4.jpg http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5598/capture27012009203537tl4.jpg http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7084/capture27012009203541fe8.jpg Overlord Xenu (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of the animated sequences?

I suggest that we replace one of the gameplay images with an animated cutscene image; it's certainly one of the more identifiable aspects of the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't replace, add. AliceSKD (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Article's locked, but I need a cite

"After Nintendo decided not to have Philips create a CD add-on to the Super Nintendo, Nintendo gave Philips permission to use five Nintendo characters in their games for the CD-i."

Need a cite on the timeframe of this. This sentence goes against everything I ever read (even back when these games were new). The games came about because there was going to be a Philips CD add on to the SNES, and it would play CDi games, so Philips was allowed to make these Nintendo themed games, then later, after the games were already out, the Philips SNES CD-ROM wound up not happening. If there's a source for the version in the article, it needs to be cited, if not then please add a CN tag if you have access to edit locked pages.76.226.140.34 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mah boi

Or is it "mah boy"? Or is it the bagel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsutarja494 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. Be nice to luigi WHEN HE EATS HIS INTELLECTUAL SPAGHETII!75.171.14.76 (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing

You people need to stop vandalizing this article. My paragraph about the controls has been cited by a reliable source. How is it reliable? Because it's a video game critic! The article on Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing uses Gamespot as an extensive source; why is gametrailers NOT a reliable source? Yeah, I used gametrailers.com. How is that a "weak" source? Sure, the actual review itself primarily delves in comedy - particularly slapstick - but then again, so does X-Play! X-Play also uses comedy extensively. Is X-Play a "weak" source?

Please, stop vandalizing this article.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well.. this is a page everyone wants to get their hands on, my boy.140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

In "The Faces of Evil" it says only link can defeat ganon but in "The Wand Of Gamelon" zelda manages to defeat ganon. Shouldnt this be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.5.82 (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement

Touching the orange color words brings up advertisements. There is no advertisements on Wikipedia it is a free internet encyclopedia. I suggest this is vandalism and needs to be removed. I must confess though the chicken does look good.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Retro Gamer reception

I've recently been going through old issues of Retro Gamer and I notice that they tend to have positive reception of these games (or at least Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon). I have added these reviews (from Issues 31 and 32) to the article to provide some balance to the huge batch of negative reviews. One thing that struck me, however, is that among the sources listed as giving negative reception I notice a listing for Retro Gamer Issue 27. I don't have a copy of Issue 27, but it seems strange to me that the magazine would flip-flop on their reception so dramatically within only a few issues. Furthermore, the later issues repeatedly refer to Issue 27's coverage and seem to suggest that the coverage was largely positive. Can someone verify that this source (Retro Gamer Issue 27) is being used properly in this article to source a negative review? Or is the review more nuanced and on balance should it perhaps be moved lower to the positive reviews paragraph in the reception subsection? -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I managed to get hold of the magazine (Retro Gamer Issue 27) now and I can verify that it is largely a positive review for Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon. The article's coverage of Zelda's Adventure is quite brief and it doesn't mention that game's voice-actors at all so its current use as a citation in this article is inappropriate. Luckily it is only being used here to bolster a claim already verified by sources from 1UP, the Star Tribune, and the repeatedly cited "Zelda Elements" (though I'm not sure if this last source meets WP:RS really...). Anyway for all of these reasons I will now removed the citation. The article seems to be a useful one as it covers the development of FoE and WoG quite well, so I'll reinsert it soon to provide additional details and to source more content that is currently unverified or is supported by sources of dubious reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dale DeSharon(e) / Disharoon

This article currently uses two versions of this developer's name. All of the sources I have seen use "Dale DeSharone" however I am also aware that at some point in the 1990s he had changed his name. Within this article we use both "Dale DeSharone" and "Dale DeSharon." Within the Below the Root article, he is listed as "Dale Disharoon." I think we should stick to one consistent name throughout all Wikipedia articles. Does anyone know what he changed his name from or to? This might help in determining what to call him. If all else fails, I suggest "Dale DeSharone" as a default since it seems to be used by most sources. -Thibbs (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I put my name into Wikipedia and stumbled across multiple pages referencing my articles in Retro Gamer, including this page and my interview with Dale. For the record, he passed away a couple of years ago. I'm sure there's several online sources if you want to mention this. Anyway, as explained in the biography article I wrote on him, his name was originally Dale Disharoon, but his second wife wanted something more poetic - long story short he discovered that an older version of the surname was "DeSharone", which he legally changed it to sometime around or after the release of the Zelda CDi games. I can't remember the precise details, but his exact quotes are in the biography article in Retro Gamer31, pg 72. As for quoting, his name is different depending on which game of his you're discussing, and in fact I believe the Zelda CDi games have Disharoon on the box but DeSharone in the game. - John Szcz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.188.93 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Very valuable information. Thank you kindly! -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

Looking back at the 2008 merger discussion (above), I think there is a good way to compromise that was unfortunately neglected. Instead of treating all three games as one set with one section on development, one section on reception, one infobox, etc, I suggest we treat all three games separately. The article should be restructured so that each game makes up a third of the article and has its own major subsection devoted to it.

E.g. - Rather than the current structure:

• Gameplay
  • Link: The Faces of Evil
  • Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon
  • Zelda's Adventure
• Plot
  • The Faces of Evil
  • The Wand of Gamelon
  • Zelda's Adventure

we would have something more like:

• Link: The Faces of Evil
  • Gameplay
  • Plot
• Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon
  • Gameplay
  • Plot
• Zelda's Adventure
  • Gameplay
  • Plot

I realize that a compromise isn't necessary at this point, but I think that a restructuring of this nature would be more consistent with the other multi-game spin-off title articles such as LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series and Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series. Another benefit of treating each game separately in its own subsection is that links to the individual games (which currently redirect to the top of the article) could be made more specific and could redirect to the subsection on the game to which they refer. In addition, the article's currently merged subsections like "reception" and "development" give the false impression that the development and reception of a title like Faces of Evil was substantially similar to Zelda's Adventure. Sources such as "Retro Gamer" demonstrate this to be incorrect. I've made a mock-up (here) of what I believe would better suit our needs and I'd appreciate it if someone could give me some feedback on this idea. If possible I'd like to implement it as soon as possible. -Thibbs (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Memes?

The memes from this game are so well known, why aren't they in the memes/phenomina page? I have some sources to check out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That question belongs here. I've moved it there for you. -Thibbs (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a quick question

Does this game only apply to people outside the US? It seems that most of the editors linked to this article and all of wikipedia are from Canada. Do we have ANYONE from the US, parts of Europe, Africa, or India or Asia? Where are you guys from, big cities/small towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.42.45 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)