Jump to content

Talk:Link (The Legend of Zelda)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Todfox (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 22 December 2006 (Bad footnote in cameo section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:FARpassed Template:Zeldaproj Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5 Template:Todo priority

Archive
Archives

Revert

Okay. I don't know who it is that made the huge, sweeping changes to this page, but they need to stop it. I'll admit that it wasn't perfect, but it was rated highly and got a half-star. That means that while it needs impovment, it is still on the right track. You don't take that and destroy it. The newer form was awful; it had few headlines so it was difficult to find out where you were. In any case, just work off of the current page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

Ummm, No. The article is on its way to being defeatured as we speak, and I am in the middle of fixing it up. There were tons of unjustified, unsourced and un rationaled images that were removed, there was a trivia section that are not up to FA quality that was removed, and the sectioning was horrendous and was simplified, and vital information such as character creation and characteristics didn't even have sections.
True, the article currently looks bad as it is being totally reshaped to meet current Featured Article requirements and requires a massive copyedit, so lets fix up the prose, add more references, and not revert back to the version riven with errors and destined to be de-Featured. Clear enough? Judgesurreal777 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite clear. This article has been the way it has for months, with minor improvments being added on over time, and now you come in and remodel it in two days? You don't get to chage this article all on your own. The countless others who worked hard on it don't get their stuff thrown in the trash because you, (and you alone, I might add,) don't care for it. It still needs to be changed, but not by the discretion of one individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

This is outrageous. This article will be de-featured unless it is brought up to the current FA standards for writing about fiction, and you are attempting to keep it as it is, even if that means that it will LOSE the FA status? Totally outrageous. I have every right to improve any article I wish, and can remodel any article I wish as can anyone else, as long as it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia and is for its betterment. AND the things I have done have been requested at the Featured Article Review. Judgesurreal777 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you're making a big assumption in saying that Judge is the only one who thinks the article could use massive improvement. Secondly, large edits are fine on Wikipedia, and there are even entire templates dedicated to it. And third, if you don't want your contributions being changed in later revisions, then don't edit a wiki. That's sort of the essence of the project. --Digital Watches! 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you not to edit it. I'm just saying don't trash the page. It has a lot of good info in it. Besides, good wikipedia manners would require you to state what you dissapprove of on this talk page before taking things into your own hands and deleting others hard work. Its not just yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

Here, take a look at the Featured Article review currently going on now, and you tell me what should happen to the tons of unjustified fair use images, and extranneous gameplay text that belongs in their respective game articles and not here. For example, here is a recently featured fictional character Palpatine. That is what this article needs to look like to stay featured. I am not trying to undo your hardwork, but the article may lose its star to save it. Judgesurreal777 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:Bold? I've never heard of a need to discuss everything in the talk page before making an edit. -- Digital Watches! 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't talk about Link without mentiong the games that he's been in. How is it unjustified? And, please, be specific so we can be on the same page.

Look at the sword & sheilds section. That article is ridiculously long and does need to be trimmed. It only needs most of the first paragraph and the picture of various swords and shields, not all of the additional, excess stuff. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

Your right you must mention the games, but that's the point, the layout should be this:
  • Appearances in games
  • Characteristics
  • Concept and creation
The appearances in games must be concise, but in the old version there are huge paragraphs about his weapons, clothes, all of which belongs in the article, listed in the Featured Article Review that relates to Links weapons and items. That is a start, and you'll hear the FAR reviewers echo that.
Also, there needs to be fewer images, since those multi-game image collages are problematic for multiple reasons. Also many of them are duplicative or have unclear usage in the article, which is why I reduced it down to the lead image, a shot of Link from the original Zelda, and him from Windwaker and its unique art style.
Finally, there needs to be a lot of sourced information added, like who created Link, and why was he named Link, and all the real world information the article needs but doesn't currently have.
There may be other stuff, but those are the main points. Judgesurreal777 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, click on this and read it, these are the reasons, but many people other than me, why this article is being redone. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Link (The Legend of Zelda series) Judgesurreal777 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I agree to a point. Look at the sword & sheild section, which I am trying to use as an example. I condensed it down to the more essential info. And, there was a point made about the pictures being collage's. I don't know if the swords picture is, but if it can't be sourced, then how about replacing it with a picture of one Master Sword form a particular game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

But that section doesn't even belong in this article, it belongs in the weapons and items article. It needs a one Sentence mention, not a section here, it's not the place for it. Judgesurreal777 04:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of his weapons are definatley deserving of a section. Not in the elongated form it has now, but breif mentions of his Master Sword, secondary weapons, and magic. You could put all of that into one fairly short paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to have to agree with Judge on this one, anon editor. Obviously, the need for a major overhaul of the article is not only held by one person and obviously, Judge has been working very hard to keep this article featured. He has cited the current existing featured article review, a process which has the possibility of delisting current featured articles, as his reason for the major edits. On Wikipedia, all older revisions are stored in the page history so if any absolutely vital information is deleted, there is always a record of it in the history where it can be retrieved and rewritten into the article if necessary. Judge's sweeping edits are based on his own (and others') initiative and desire to improve the article and part of the reason he feels so strongly is because all of his edits were casually reverted by an anonymous editor with less than 30 edits to his credit. As it stands, most of the "pre-Judge" version of the article is not vital to the understanding of the topic and also violates the Manual of Style regarding fiction, specifically focusing too much on the in-universe aspect. Much of it already has perfectly suitable destination articles for the excess information (such as the individual game articles, the weapons and items article, the animals article, etc.) which would make the article much more readable because of the shorter length. In a nutshell, the Judge is trying to make the article better and reverting two days of hard work isn't going to help it in any way. Axem Titanium 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 67.114, please do not disrupt the editing to this page - it is being edited based on comments on a FARC, and this is delaying the work effort. Please stop; if you wish to voice your opinions, please do so on the FARC page (you can click the link at the top). — Deckiller 05:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering why the article had been completely changed, seemingly for the worse. my comments in the FA review pertained to this version rather than the old. i understand why fair use images were removed, but there was a lot of good info there which just needed sourcing, and the layout was better too.

i tried to edit the current video game section, but realised i was deleting pretty much the whole thing as its all about the storyline. theres less about his character now than there was before. i cant edit it at the moment because i dont know what you're trying to do to it... but we'll see how it is after this major edit anyway. -- jeffthejiff 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should note at which version your comments were directed to on the FA review page, as well, to avoid confusion for people there. I agree with Jeff, the state it's in right now is much worse. I think there's not enough bold text and headings in it's current state. {{inuse}} has been on for a number of hours without any edits so I'm removing it. Feel free to put it back in when you're editing. - Zero1328 Talk? 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New edits

I don't like it, but fine. I'll concede the argument. But, I won't, however stop editing and let changes be made that I disagree with. Therefore, I removed the part in the intro where it said 'Link had a close but un-romantic relationship to Princess Zelda' and changed it to 'Link had a close relationship with Princess Zelda'. I did so because you can't say what their relationship is. It is never explicitivley stated, so anything else wouls merely be opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)


This seems like as good a spot as any to note changes while we're whipping this article back into FA shape, so: I've put the "a peculiarity of the character" paragraph back in the intro with some alterations. We need a cite for Miyamoto confirming the many Links of the series, but I think it's pretty important to esablish that there are several from the start.

Also, I think the games section did better with sections. Right now it's a big old block of text. I also think that the section might be better off titled "Incarnations within the games" or something along those lines to help prevent the "storycruft" from previous versions. --Sparky Lurkdragon 13:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to look better with the headings. But, SSB, SSBM and the CD-i games aren't "2002-present". Perhaps a separate heading for non-series games? We still need big cuts/paraphrasing to the video games section, too. Too much game plot. Sraan 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, Judge, I sound like a nag. I will help when I have a little more time. Sraan 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This article needs a lot of help, so continuing updates on how it looks are very helpful. Judgesurreal777 05:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to shape up now. Nice work! Sraan 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to edit this in prior to approval: Regarding the Character Creation entry, it mentions the series' actual chronological order is currently unknown. This interview seems to shed some light on the issue, straight from Miyamoto himself: Miyamoto Shrine, Interview (10-19-98). Is there need for some sort of validation before placing this in the article? 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, go ahead and add it :) Judgesurreal777 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be best if someone else did it -- I don't wanna screw up the wording... :P 67.123.110.70 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The new article looks fine, but the image at the right looks pixellated. Someone needs to fix that.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Link (The Legend of Zelda) — Mets501  (talk)  18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article move discussion

A Man In Black has recently moved the article to its current name from Link (The Legend of Zelda series) citing an unnecessarily long name. However, I remember some previous discussion about this topic and a group of editors agreed that "The Legend of Zelda series" would be a better description (presumably because it would disambiguate it from just referring to The Legend of Zelda, the game, since Link has appeared in more than one game with that title). I'm just asking around for other people's opinions on this. Keep in mind that if the current title, "Link (Legend of Zelda)" is kept, over a hundred redirects would need to be fixed. Axem Titanium 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend we move it back soon and then have a discussion about renaming it. Everthing else in the whole Wikipedia Zelda world is titled "Yadda Yadda" in The Legend of Zelda series. Though I think that capitalizing the "The" is an error (it would be "Yadda in the Legend of Zelda series", just like it would be "Yadda in the Mario series", wouldn't it?). Not that we should go changing all of them now. Sraan 05:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalized "The" referes the the series title: The Legend of Zelda, not the Legend of Zelda. It should stay. Jaxad0127 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Series" makes it way too long. I would be just fine with Link (The Legend of Zelda). Specifying "character" of "series" to me has largely been abandoned - see The Matrix; we have Trinity (The Matrix) instead of Matrix character or The Matrix series. Hbdragon88 08:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The only essential thing we need to fix are the double redirects, and there are only about 15 of them. Hbdragon88 08:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that shortening the title would be a good idea. I just think we should have had this discussion before someone up and moved it. Sraan 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree on Link (The Legend of Zelda)? Axem Titanium 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, sure. Sraan 02:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we do that with all of the articles? Jaxad0127 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly if there are any other articles using parentheses. Otherwise I would probably leave "series" on. Looking again to the Matrix sites, they have "List of ships in the Matrix series". Sraan 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up for requested moves. Most Zelda articles have the "series" bit but don't have paranthetical titles so they do not need to be changed. Axem Titanium 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Link (Nintendo character)?

I took a quick tour of other video game characters' titles. There's Kirby (Nintendo), Sonic the Hedgehog (character) (I think to differentiate if from the sonic hedgehog gene - a real gene named after Sonic), Master Chief (Halo), Mario (he's big shot enough to get the main title, also Luigi), Pico (F-Zero series), Guile (Street Fighter), [[Marle (Chrono Trigger)]. Most of them seem to name the game involved, and not say "series", but there is plenty of variability. Sraan 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Link is in many games outside LOZ, we should just say Nintendo for him (and similar characters (like Zelda, possibly)). Jaxad0127 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with the move in this case. "Legend of Zelda" is fine. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, the move is good. Renmiri 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doesn't Link go between 13 and 20 in the Ocarina of Time? I mention this because the intro says he is protrayed between 7 and 18, which doesn't fit the upper bound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.160.165 (talk • contribs) .

His exact ages are unknown, but that range is where most of the speculation is. Jaxad0127 16:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is generally thought to be 10 and 17.

Uh, says who? Is this official canon for every game? When is he 10? When is he 17? Has this been stated by an official source? -- Digital Watches! 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is stated in the lead links to a reference where the creature, Shigeru Miyamoto, says he is 7-8 in Ocarina of Time. the uppward bound I did not mention I don't think...Judgesurreal777 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link regarding Link's age is closer to 7-12 is from August 1998! That's before MM, WW, TP, FSA, TMC, and PH. That's 6 games for the average age to change drastically. Scepia 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name

The character we call link is named by the player in every game. This article does not discuss where the name link came from, or how it became the common reference to the character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) .

You get to name your saved game files, but those names are never used in the games themselves, at least not the early ones. I've read somewhere that Miyamoto chose the name Link because the character was the player's link to the game world. Not sure if this is true or just fan speculation, though. I do think that any official information on this should be added if it exists. — BrianSmithson 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So "Rinku" is Japanese for "Link" (as in "connection: something that ties, connects, or relates two or more things")? RobertM525 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Dialouge?

I think I distinctly remember Link in my pirated OOA. Early in the game, when asked to push a really big rock aside, Link says something like "I can't do it" or something. Of course I sold the game for LTTP because the damned thing wouldn't actually remember its own save files after five seconds, so I cant confirm... -Purple Pikmin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purple Pikmin (talk • contribs) .

I just replayed that part, it's actually Impa who says that. Axem Titanium 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

This article does not have the correct name! The article is about Link in every game in the series, not his role in The Legend of Zelda (the first game). Does it really matter how long it is? Scepia 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Um...wow. The series is also collectively referred to "Legend of Zelda" too, just so you know.
...wow.—ウルタプ 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page right now is Link (The Legend of Zelda) not Link (Legend of Zelda). It doesn't matter if people just think it's fine this way, it's incorrect. It's either Legend of Zelda or The Legend of Zelda series. You can't just make an arbitrary name and keep it because it was there. Scepia 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambidexrous

In The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii version only) he is right handed!!!!! Frankyboy5 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The article already knows. Axem Titanium 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wooohooo, we did it!!!!

The article is still FA. Weeeeee! Renmiri 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

…Why? You gave no reason.—ウルタプ 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except not really. A split for that would imply that we should have splits for every game he's been in, or at least every one that has a significantly different Link. Axem Titanium 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also object; the Links, while technically being several different people, are closely related enough that one article can cover them all quite nicely, especially if we keep complete story summaries out of Link's article - those are better suited for the individual games' articles. Pikachu do just fine with one article, as do the several Princess Zeldas and their alter egos. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we just renewed our FA status, so I wouldn't mess with what's working. Besides that lots of Links in the series are heroes of None of the Above. Sraan 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the major ones with alot of backstory. Even though connected, they are totally different characters. Bly1993 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the Links are major in some way or another; they wouldn't be a Link otherwise.
Like I said, all the Zeldas are completely different but related characters - heck, one is a pirate and one's a ninja, but we don't have a seperate article for Tetra/Wind Waker Zelda or one for Sheik/Ocarina Zelda. All the Pikachu are unique characters as well; you have the Pikachu from Hey You Pikachu!, Ash's Pikachu from the anime, Red's Pikachu from Pokémon Yellow, assorted random wild Pikachu, and so forth, but for obvious reasons they're all lumped together at the Pikachu article.
The Links are in a similar situation. The ones who do have backstories really don't have much more of one besides what's currently described in the article; much else and you get into the overall plot of the games rather than what's directly related to that particular Link himself. A split would get you several articles at lengths not much more than two paragraphs apiece, plus you'd have to duplicate all the stuff about common attributes among the Links to each article. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2D ---> 3D

"The character's first appearance took place in the 1986 video game The Legend of Zelda, where it was portrayed by a two-dimensional sprite; in later releases Link's appearance has been conveyed by a computer-generated image (CGI)."

Wait, in Zelda II and ALttP, not to mention MC, FSA, OoS, and OoA, wasn't Link protrayed by a 2D sprite? And aren't all Links made by CGI? It's not link The Legend of Zelda was drawn on paper. Scepia 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Handed/Right-Handed

The article states that link is left-handed except in the Wii version of Twillight Princess, which is true EXCEPT for a graphical glitch in the game A Link to the Past, in which he appeared right-handed when facing right. Should that be mentioned?

KLink-NiN10col/Neotendo123 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the thing about Link being right handed in the Wii version should be mentioned either since it's so trivial, just like the memory saving technique that they used in ALttP so he would be right-handed when facing a certain direction (they flip the sprite to save space on the cartridge). I think that stuff should just be moved to the individual game articles. Axem Titanium 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll edit the other articles if it's not already there, but leave the fact in here. Why not. -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a source for the old in-universe explanation for the sprite flipping, in that Link always keeps his shield towards death mountain and as such swaps hands when facing east. I -think- it was stated in the old Link to the Past players guide, but as I no longer have access to it, can't check. Could someone look for me, if you have it? Fieari 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that trivial, really. If you've ever tried to make a game, it's easier to make a sprite facing one way (for instance, left), then simply mirror it. So, if Link was holding his sword in his left hand, and your mirror it, he's suddenly holding it in his right. Hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. Kuro Yoake 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the first line of the article

The first sentence in the article states that Link is a flaming homosexual. Why hasn't anyone else addressed this? Where is it written or said that Link is homosexual? Not that I have anything against homosexuals, but the individuals responsible for this article should remove such a remark considering it has no basis for being stated.

signed, Aaron Ni. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.116.55 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It was vandalism by a blocked user. You can fix it yourself by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top, although it seems to be already done. Axem Titanium 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I just had to delete a line of vandalism where someone had added...

== Headline text == LINK IS AWSOME..<ref name="staff">{{cite web | url=http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/0898.shtml | title=Miyamoto Interview| date=[[1998-08-01]] | publisher=Nintendo Power | author=Nintendo Power Editorial Staff| accessdate=2006-09-23}}</ref>

...in the middle of the Actor portrayal section. Seriously people... Is nothing sacred anymore?

Thanks for your help. Keep up the good work. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lost souls get some sort of sick pleasure from vandalizing Wikipedia. It's the same with telemarketers and people who send spam messages by e-mail. Axem Titanium 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog or not?

The wikiproject dogs banner was removed because (rv not a dog?) I belive the person who put it there meant his werewolf form. Should that be placed here or on the TP page? -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because his wolf form is so tangentially related to his character that it amounts to nothing at all. Axem Titanium 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad footnote in cameo section

The footnote after this text:

Also, some of Link's weapons and items have shown up in different games, such as the Master Sword appearing in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and Animal Crossing. He is also parodied in World of Warcraft as a gnome named Linken.

is highly unuseful, as it ONLY references Link's appearance in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. No mention of his appearance in WoW or Animal Crossing is mentioned here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)&oldid=96000446"