Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Archives
Pre-2006 January ~ October 2006 October - December 2006

Strategy Guide Information

[1][2]

I bought the strategy guide with the game specifically to assist in re-writing this article now that the game has been released. If anyone would like to guide me to an area where the guide may be a useful source of information, I will be happy to relay it with a full citation. It is the official Nintendo Power guide. Mellesime 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia is not a place for video game guides [3]. Sorry. --Zooba 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the project's guidelines - the best place for such content would be one of the gaming-specific wikis mentioned there. --Oscarthecat 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, while gameplay information and tips don't belong here, the guide probably can serve as a useful way to cite story elements and other things that might seem suspect otherwise. --Herald Alberich 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, I've been busting my butt trying to update Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. I've added TP appearences for enemies whose names I know (Stalfos, Darknut, etc), but that still leaves a lot of new enemies, like the fish things in the Goron Mines or the mini bosses of most dungeons, to name a few. What's most important is the addition of their names; if you don't know what else to write/not to write, I can add the rest. SixteenBitJorge 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to using the guide or instruction manual as a source for pictures, plot, and profiles. -- Mellesime 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's all you plan on adding I don't see a reason why not. --Zooba 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

TSA?

TSA is cited a couple times in this article. Given the recent flak he's been under concerning his credibility, wouldn't it be best to find an alternate source? Surely some of those statements have been made by more reliable people? -- Mellesime 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? First, the two citations with my name are for SCANS of MAGAZINES, not even my own words...so how the heck is that questionable? Second, you mean flak as in people on GameFAQs yelling at me saying I lied about solving the bugs? I debnunked one, and am uploading another video to debunk the other, showing everyone I wasn't lying and that people need to get off my back. The other issue is me getting TP early, and it was a random GameFAQ's member trolling. I have several sources who verified I had TP early, not to mention I had videos posted of it BEFORE the release...along with the ending...so...not sure if you're a GameFAQ's member or Land of the Legend member...or just a hater...but back off. Thanks. --TSA 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

       I'm involved with neither site. I'd just heard your name dropped in negative ways recently, and    
       wasn't sure if you could be considered a credible source. However, if people besides you think
       you are, then I have no problem with it. -- Mellesime 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay is a poor form of evidence.--TSA 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hersay is one of the most powerful tools when it comes to credibility. However, I was wrong for bringing this up. I apologize and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive my error. -- Mellesime 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While I still believe hearsay is nothing more than gossip, I do accept your apology and sorry for jumping on you. --TSA 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosses Clean-Up

Now that we've decided for their inclusion, I believe a major clean-up is needed. First off, surely some of the information here needs to be summarized, as the main article is the characters page? Also, would some information on the dungeons (looks etc.) be worthy here (the game guide may be particularly useful)? Just my two cents. --Zooba 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you want from the guide? I'm sure strategy is unnecessary, but I can certainly edit in some aesthetic aspects of dungeons and bosses, as well as locations within Twilight Princess's Hyrule. -- Mellesime 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetic aspects please... --Zooba 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add information on the last dungeon boss (SPOILERS)

SPOILERS

I have added that the last boss is divided in three parts, and I would be grateful if someone could add details about them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisagame247 (talk • contribs)

I'm confused. Isn't there a separate article for Zelda Bosses? -- Mellesime 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ocarina of Time page doesn't list bosses, I don't see why this one would have to. Also, that's a pretty big spoiler, shouldn't the GCN version at least come out before such a big spoiler is explained? Bradibus 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. The fact is that the game is now out, in one form of another, and that's all that matters. The Spoiler tags are there, also. --Zooba 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But how is this important to the article? Wikipedia is not a videogame guide. --Stratadrake 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But why can't we detail the bosses as much as the characters, in terms of appearance etc.? If people keep on editing in strategies to defeat the bosses, perhaps you could delete the strategies instead of, as some have done, just deleting the whole section? --Zooba 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point ("walkthroughs" or "strategies" are obviously not allowed), but at the same time, mere lists of enemies, bosses, items, etc. fall into the category of "indiscriminate" information, and in the context of a video game this is also stuff more at home in a strategy guide than an encyclopedia. Zero encyclopedic significance = zero mention. --Stratadrake 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I have called for people to expand the section. But you can't expect that to happen if it isn't there in the first place because it keeps on being deleted. Personally, the way I see it, there should just be a link to the "List of Characters in TP" page and only detail on the dungeons on the main page, as right now it's just a big mess (The "List of..." page especially needs attention). --Zooba 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we scrap the boss section on this page. It's reduntant of the boss section of Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess which, taking a precedent from previous Zelda articles, is the proper place for such information concerning boss appearences and basic strategy, by which I mean something to the manner of "Morpheel is defeated by using the Clawshot to extract its eye, similarlly to Ocarina of Time's Morpha" as opposed to the detailed walkthroughs people keep adding. However, I don't know if even that is acceptable on Wikipedia. SixteenBitJorge 20:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As of now, the Boss "section" is just a link to the TW Characters page. Old Characters... pages, as you say, do include such basic strategy, so it's either delete those instances or write such strategy into the TW Characters page. I do think the latter would be harder to enforce, however. --Zooba 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious solution would be, of course, to describe each indvidual dungeon, and to have the bosses formal title in there somewhere, linking to the characters article. -- Mellesime 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bradibus in saying that the Twilight Princess article should not contain detailed information on bosses, except in the description of a typical (not individually specific) TP dungeon. I think that there should be a separate page that describes the dungeons (without giving spoilers) and briefly describes the bosses (names, sizes, creature resemblances, origins, etc.). This article is already too crowded; I think that it should only contain a description of the storyline of the game, main characters, comparisons and contrasts between the Gamecube and Wii versions, and perhaps descriptions of the Provinces of Hyrule and their relatve locations. -- Darthmgh 19:18, 6 December 2006 (MST)

Bridge Glitch not verifiable

I have attempted many times to do the Bridge glitch, and I can't do it. Can anyone here get themselves the have bridge glitch? I can't seem to do it intentionally. Can anyone confirm it's a real glitch? Some are claiming the YouTube video was a hoax. Are there any other sources for it? I can't repeat it. Bradibus 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Glitches usually are not important enough to warrant mentioning in an encyclopedia article. I've occasionally experienced the type of glitch where your character falls "through" the terrain and either (1) dies, or (2) causes the game to freeze, but rare phenomena are of extermely specialist interest and not notable in general. So unless you think this merits some mention in the article, someone might mistake this discussion as pertaining to the game more than the article. --Stratadrake 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I should have made my point more clear: There was a section in the article talking about the game's glitches, this one included. However, this one happens to not be reproducible. Either way, the glitches section was removed, so I suppose there's no problem. Bradibus 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless a glitch is totally unavoidable, I don't see any reason it should be mentioned. I have not been able to reproduce any of the glitches that are circling around YouTube. Not to say they're fake, but I believe they are, at the very most, the kind of freak things that happen in games all the time. -- Mellesime 08:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Bosses and Dungeons/Settings

I split the Bosses from the Dungeons/Settings, because there doesn't seem to be enough information to share between this article and the Characters... page. Also, I thought it would be worthwhile detailing the separate dungeons/settings of the game, similar to the page of settings in Ocarina of Time. --Zooba 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No Crap

Whoever keeps putting swear words in the article and putting them in under the bosses, please stop. If you really want to do crap like this, go to a chat room. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a place for people to put crap up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.120 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately, such users don't read the talk pages, as they're only here to vandalize. Luckily, users and bots are keeping an eye on that to revert vandalism as soon as possible. If it gets really bad, the page can be blocked for non-registered users, but luckily that is not needed yet.

Thanks for your concern though.

Happy editting JackSparrow Ninja 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dungeon Section

I removed the references to Ocarina of Time dungeons in the descriptions of the dungeons "Lakebed Temple" and "Arbiter's Grounds" simply because there is nothing official saying that these dungeons ARE the Water Temple and the Spirit Temple, respectively. I know that most likely they are the same places, but considering the lack of any true timeline and the vastly differing layouts of Hyrule between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, I must insist that these points be left out. -- Mellesime 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Added more detailed information about the first three dungeons. Also considering adding a section for the separate provinces of TP Hyrule. This is the first time I've edited anything that people... you know... read, so if there's anything wrong with it please let me know what is wrong and how I can avoid doing the same thing in the future. Just keep in mind that, if I've done anything terribly wrong, I'm still an amateur. -- Mellesime 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps say that they're similar. Personally, I would think it's worthwhile keeping such connections. I also think we ought to be careful with the information we add to the section, so that we don't re-tread the storyline (which should be detailed in the storyline section itself), or start typing out game guide information. Good work otherwise. --Zooba 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The only information I got from the game guide was Darbus's name. Beyond the story surrounding each dungeon and any kind of strategic information (which I object to), I'm not sure what SHOULD go into a dungeon description. As for the links to OoT, it's fine if the similarities are listed, but to say that the Lakebed temple IS the Water Temple, and that the Arbiter's Ground IS the Forest Temple is a little presumptuous, considering the vastly different Overworld layouts. If there is another section you'd like to add about theories concerning the links between OoT and TP, that's fine. However, within the dungeon section I say we stick within the game and make as few references to other games as possible. This is a standalone game, not a sequel. -- Mellesime 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, reflecting on the Places in Ocarina... page, what is here right now is fine. I just don't want the section to turn into "And then Link must defeat X Stalfos, and then he battles this and that, and then he finds the boss Morpheel whom you can defeat by XYZ". But basically, as far as I'm concerned, the section should describe what the dungeon looks like and what's in it in terms of what to do. The names of the mini-bosses would be great also, and perhaps what the "Major item" is (again, looking at the Places in Ocarina... page).

The problem with naming the enemies and minibosses is that even the official guide lists NO enemy names outside of stage bosses. The only known enemy names outside of bosses are those of returning enemies. Unfortunately, accurately naming the minibosses will have to wait until the Collector's Guide is released. Even then, it may not be doable. I was honestly surprised when there was no bestiary in the Nintendo Power guide. Usually what those guides are lacking in actual helpfulness they make up for in fan-boy food.

I understand what you're saying about not wanting to write a walkthrough, which is why I made a point to be as vague as possible, and mostly only elaborate on how each indivicual dungeon fits into the story. -- Mellesime 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the dungeon section be a different page? Like "Dungeons of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess" or something?65.89.233.33 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's not really enough info to warrant a separate article. -- Mellesime 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless people write as much information as this page, or thereabouts, I would agree that there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article. --Zooba 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right-Handed Link

I noticed that in the picture that depicts Link in this article displays him holding The Master Sword in his, left hand, but in Twilight Princess, unlike the rest of the games in the series, Link is right-handed. I think that this picture should be replaced with a more accurate one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darthmgh (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please read past discussions on Link's handedness (is that even a word?). In the GameCube version, Link is left handed while in the Wii version, he is right handed (or vice-versa. I'm not quite sure). There really is no "accurate" photo when it comes to which ever hand Link uses. // Sasuke-kun27 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct (and the term is "laterality"). In fact, the GCN and Wii versions are mirror opposites of each other (or so I've heard). Although that seems to make official guidebooks a problem.—ウルタプ 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Never mind then; I only have the Wii version (which is awesome). And yes, handedness is a word, as well as is laterality, though laterality does not exclusively refer to handedness. Darthmgh 16:24, 5 December 2006 (MST)

Ok guys, here it is, on the Wii, link is righthanded for control purposes, and on gamecube Link is Left handed, as usual. If you ask me, he should have stayed left handed on Wii as well.

 (User:Keirotuo)

Storyline Clarifications

From the ending I saw, the Triforce of Power fades from Ganondorf's hand before Zant snaps his neck. --TSA 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even 100% sure he snaps his neck. He seemed kind of twitchy to me during the battle with Zant, so when I first saw the end of the game I didn't think anything of him twitching his head. Then I read the story section and it said he broke his own neck. I don't know, maybe it's me, but I'd have to do a lot more that throw my head slightly to the right to break it. My first impression was that the director of that particular scene wanted to convey Zant's moment of realization that everything had failed. -- Mellesime 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While you presumably have the advantage of playing the game, in the video I've seen then Zant's neck-snapping is accompanied by an audible crunch. It didn't sound healthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.112.11 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

A user pointed out a plot point below that I overlooked. Zant says Ganondorf is keeping him alive, not vice-versa. Zant may be Ganon's link to the light world, but his life is not bound to Zant. -- Mellesime 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, it is clear that the order of the events are: 1) Ganondorf run through with The Master Sword 2) Triforce of Power mark fades 3) Zant snaps his neck 4) Ganondorf becomes lifeless. What this means, or how this came about, will remain under dispute until more evidence is found or the creators speak up. --TSA 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure Zant snaps his own neck. I think vagueness is the best possible solution here. Link kills Ganondorf, Zant is killed in the process. We may bring it up that exactly how Zant's life is bound to Ganon's is under dispute. -- Mellesime 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the story section, it states that Zant killed himself, Ganondor'f Triforce symbol faded form his hands, and he presumably died.

This is incorrect. the Triforce symbol fades before Zant 'commits suicide'. Yet, even that is wrong; it is so random, why even put it in there? Remember, after the battle with Zant, he said that as long as Ganondorf is alive, he will keep Zant alive, no matter what happens to him.

I think the snapping of the neck symbolises Ganondorf's death; the only way for Zant to die is for Ganondorf to die.

I could be totally wrong, but it makes more sense then an out of the blue suicide. And remember, Ganondorf keeps Zant alive, not the other way around. I think the current description should be taken out.

Didn't Ganondorf tell Zant (when they first met, in Zant's flashback) something like "What you desire, I shall desire also"? Coult Zant have wanted to die, or wanted Ganondorf to die? Although since it's so ambiguous, then the plot section should probably just state the sequence of events in Ganondorf's "death" scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.112.11 (talk • contribs).

I removed the speculation. This whole discussion is speculation, and thus, I left it neutral, and we'll leave it at that until it is further elaborated upon. -Chao9999 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Primas Guide

The Primas Guide is now in stores. If anyone has it, could you please check for a bestiary? If it has one, it would be great if you could update the enemies article, as well as add miniboss names into the dungeon section. -- Mellesime 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese Twilight Princess site has some of the bestiary up now, albeit it is the "translated" names of the Japanese enemies - some are the same in the North American vesion, some aren't. For example Twilit Igniter Fyrus is simply Magdoflamoth in the Japanese version.--TSA 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tips

• When using the <ref> tag, you do not have to give it a name unless you cite the source more than once.
• When using the cite web template, the date is wikilinked automatically.

I have gone through and cleaned up all the current references on this page. That said, thanks for writing this article! ---Remember the dot 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Places & Races

Three questions. First, isn't there a little too much speculation concerning Renado being a Shiekah and Telma being a Gerudo? Second, I can't remember -- did the Oocca create the Hylians, or are they the ancestors of Hylians? Third -- is the link between the City in the Sky and the Palace of the Winds in Minish Cap worth exploring? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mellesime (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

There is no specific documentation in-game I've seen to support these claims in whole. Renado does appear to have the demeanor of a Sheikah, but he does not seem to really divulge enough to reveal if this is so. Telma acts very much like Nabooru from Ocarina of Time, and her skin tone really makes her out to be more in line with a Gerudo. However, again, no concrete evidence. The Oocca speculation is from a quote from Shad - he says there was a race closer to the gods that made the Hylians. However, there is no in-game evidence the Oocca are these beings. I can see where the connection is drawn from - Palace of the Winds is in the sky, so is the City in the Sky. However, the Wind Tribe and Oocca look nothing alike. --TSA 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, did the "race closer to the Gods" CREATE the Hylians, or are they simply ancestors? As for the Wind Tribe looking different from the Oocca... I can accept that, BUT, if the Oocca AREN'T the "race closer to the Gods," the Wind Tribe could be. On top of that, the Minish Cap place in the timeline is unclear, and there is some evidence that points to it being earlier than Ocarina (I can't remember if Shigeru's statement about Ocarina being first came before or after Minish's release). I don't know, I just thought it was an idea worth exploring. -- Mellesime 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this video, Shad says there is a legend of a race closer to the gods than the Hylians who could have created the Hylians, not the gods. --TSA 08:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hyrule Castle

Anybody here who can accurately describe the architecture of the castle? Or is there anybody here with a capture card who can take pictures of each dungeon to a) add to the article, and b) compare with real-world architecture? -- Mellesime 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My visual guide is not up to that part yet. When I get there, I can have a video which you can rip screens from. --TSA 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Just let me know when you get a good shot of the castle. A first person view would be tizight.

Sorry. -- Mellesime 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPoV tag replaced with Cleanup tag

There seemed to be no problem with NPoV, and there was no discussion about NPoV on the talk page, but it does seem to need to be cleaned up. Removed NPoV and replaced with Cleanup. --Pichu0102 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Prior to Link first entering the Forest Temple, a number of monkeys have been captured and imprisoned by the malevolent forces currently residing within the temple. It is up to Link to purge the temple of this unwanted presence, and he can only do so via the help of the detained monkeys and by utilizing the magical Gale Boomerang."

that is undoubtedly POV. I dunno which tag to use though. let's just clean it up! Scepia 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That example is not POV in the sense of presenting biased information, but more of presenting a biased (in this case, promotional) tone of voice. {{inappropriate tone}} at most. --Stratadrake 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it promotional? -- Mellesime 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to be going through the article and fixing anything that I see is wrong. If I do something wrong, please tell me for future reference, since I'm new at this.

Unluckylink13 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the dungeon section needs to be cleaned up. -- Mellesime 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Should I delete the Boss section? It seems sort of useless to have a section that redirects you to another page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.162 (talk • contribs)

I'd keep it. It doesn't add much space to the page, and I'm sure many people will try and access Boss info from the page. You might as well delete the characters section if you delete the boss section (although I'm definately telling you NOT to do so), which would just be ridiculous. --Zooba 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't finish much now, but I think I might have messed up something about the Clawshot, and I never got around to some of the dungeons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.162 (talk • contribs)

As for the boss section... Why not take it out and just link the boss names to the article? -- Mellesime 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what ever happened to that rumor about downloadable dungeons? I'm sadly ill-informed on this matter and was wondering if it could be added to the artical, if of course it's true.

I've been wondering if it's possible (as I've heard it is, thanks to WiiConnect24), but there's been no official announcements, so I don't think it should be added. =[[ Unluckylink13 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember an announcement saying they were no go... I'll look and see if I can't find a source. -- Mellesime 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a misinterpretation from some notes by GamePro. [4] JackSparrow Ninja 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the misinterpretation? That there would be online support, or that it was cancelled? -- Mellesime 13:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

There's a couple of parts of the article where it says 'citation needed', but I think it's common knowledge. Such as the Arbiter's Grounds statement that it's similar to the fashion of the Forest Temple in OoT since you need to defeat four poes to return the light to the torches. Should I remove the 'citation needed' sign?

Unluckylink13 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I for one can attest to it being accurate. --Guess Who 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the similarity was just about Poes ;) the other citations need to stay though - they are unverified. "In the past, the Temple was known as The Water Temple". no way you know that. they are, for all intents and purposes, seperate. you can't say "In the past, the Arbiter's Grounds was known as the Spirit Temple". Scepia 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Did somebody re-add that? Because I took it out like a week ago. -- Mellesime 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)\

Doesn't it tell you in the game that the Lakebed Temple is the Water Temple? I'll play through the game again and see... Maybe I misread something.

It never says it once. -- Mellesime 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

GameCube Version Clean-up

Hey guys, I just edited some stuff on the GameCube version details, since almost everything was pretty much very old news from the beginning of the year. I've added GameCube controls and I've cited that as well, so if I wrote anything wrong feel free to edit any portion of it since the information may not be 100% correct.

Thanks, Wakachamo 03:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

directions

we're going to have some problems (and already have had one) with the flipping of the GCN vs. Wii versions of the game. Gerudo Desert... is it to the east or the west? it boils down to which version is more "official" so to speak. let's remember the GCN version is the original, and the Wii version is only an "altered copy" so to speak. what I mean is that the developers intended for Gerudo Valley to be to the west, but it was flipped to the east. we can additionally base this fact upon Ocarina of Time, where the valley is to the west. on the total other hand, the Wii version will be more widely distributed and the majority (over 50%) of WP users will be looking for Wii version info. another idea (although completely speculation on my part) is that the GCN version has also been flipped, meaning the desert is to the east in every version. should we go with what they created it as, or what it was widely released as? Scepia 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to add to the debate, but no, the GC version is not flipped. --Guess Who 10:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw on Land of the Legend that it was already released in Japan :D. one less thing to worry about. this greatly confuses me though - official or widely used? Scepia 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Scepia. Wii is a port, so technically the GCN version is the 'official' version. Maybe there should be a note somewhere that tells that the directions used in the article apply to the Wii/GCN version. Unluckylink13 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The GCN version is the original, therefor should be considered the "official" version. However, we really need to stop bringing Ocarina of Time into these discussions. There was no plot point that linked the games. The sages looked different. The Temple of Time looked different. The "Water Temple" looks VERY different. Frankly, if you want to spend all of your time looking for links, you're bound to find them. But until Nintendo says something, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Mellesime 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds like the GCN version is the way to go, with a note. I've also considered having something like "west for the Wii version and east for the GCN version", although that would be long. honestly, there is so much similar between OoT and TP. Miyamoto might never say "Lakebed Temple = Water Temple", or anything, but some things are just plain obvious. I mean, both on the bottom of Lake Hylia? both Zora buildings invaded by an evil monster (Morpha in OoT and Morpheel in TP)? let's remember, TP takes place 100 years after OoT. comparing OoT to TP is not like comparing Final Fantasy I with Final Fantasy XIII. hey, the Gerudo Desert is to the west in both games even. Scepia 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with Scepia. The game was originally made for the GCN, then ported over to the Wii. We can mention all of the differences (such as east = west) in the "Twilight Princess on Wii" section of the article.

And speaking of which, if we're going to consider the GCN version as the 'official' version, then shouldn't we also be using the GCN boxart in the infobox? --Stratadrake 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "official" version. The fact that Nintendo has barely mentioned the GC version and isn't even selling the Japanese version in stores makes it clear they consider the Wii version the main version. No reason to change the box art. The Wii version is hardly a port either since it was released before the GC version and is superior to it. TJ Spyke 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's the thing, the GCN version isn't nearly as notable. I have this feeling that the GCN version will never come out. Nintendo has really swept it under the rug, saying Dec. 12, then Dec. 11 or Dec. 13, and there's nothing confirmed, and we have no idea that it exists. I heard the fishing game is not on the GCN version. true? the thing about this all, regardless of the official version or whatever, is that WP is for people. it's not for robots. it's not for the minority of people that own the GCN version. Scepia 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is no "official" version. The fact that Nintendo has barely mentioned the GC version and isn't even selling the Japanese version in stores makes it clear they consider the Wii version the main version. No reason to change the box art. The Wii version is hardly a port either since it was released before the GC version and is superior to it."

Yes, because Japan = Entire World Market. It's being sold tomorrow at US Stores. "Makes it clear which is official". Yes, by that you mean blantant non biased opinion, go go go.

Do you even know what a port is?

And I quote Wikipedia "Porting is also the term used when a computer game designed to run on one platform, be it a personal computer or video game console, is converted to run on another platform."

I'm pretty sure Twilight Princess was a GameCube title. And the Wii version TAKES the GC built and adds on it's own control scheme. It's a port by definition. And that superior comment only makes you look more arrogant than you already are. Have you played the GameCube version?

Of course not, the game is not out. You are ASSUMING the GC version isn't as good or better than the Wii version. Your opinion IS NOT HOLY TRUTH. Stop acting as if it was. You have not played the GC one so you are not entitled to an opinion about an unreleased game. Nor can you even ASSUME it isn't as good as the Wii version. It all comes down to preference.

GameSpot may even give the GC version a higher score, a profesional review scores it higher than the 'intended' version you claim. Awesome, the word of a Wikipedia user obviously > Word of a profesional. And just so you know, the GameCube version has full camera control. The Wii one doesn't. Handling Epona + sword combat on the GC version may be easier than it's Wii counterpart. I'm not saying IT WILL, but it's still open for overall perfomance and preference. You on the other hand have a crystal ball and has played the game ahead of all of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.86.202 (talk • contribs)

TJ Spyke never asserted that his opinion is "holy truth"; if he had, he'd put it in the article, where facts are, not the talk page, where opinions are. Furthermore, this is a talk page, not a forum. We're not debating which version is better, we're determining which version to use when conflicts between them occur in the article we're writing. TJ believes the Wii version should be used. That's his opinion, and there's no need to blow up about it. You believe the GameCube version is more official. Explain your reasons calmly, and your opinion will carry as much weight as the others presented here. And, by the way, of course we have opinions about unreleased games. That's the whole point of advertising, previews on game sites, etc. --Herald Alberich 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only casting doubt. He basically said a released port of an unreleased game is better. I'm not going to explain my reasons because he didn't. I don't care enough, I only wanted to show he isn't right to assume such things. I ONLY CASTED DOUBT. He carried his opinion as truth and didn't provide enough reasoning (Japan isn't the worlds only gaming market, and the fanbase can be different, as shown by Famitsu Most Wanted List Zelda isn't #1). I disproved his "TP Wii is not a port" comment. It is by definition and he should learn to accept that. -ChibiMrBubbles (I don't care enough to log in)

Removing Gamespot

I do not beleive Gamespot is commercially successful enough to be included as a reference on Wikipedia, vote for removal needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.74.227 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree! And giving Twilight Princess that mark is a very good proove of their inhability to be a reference :D (It´s a joke)