Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

HD Reviews[edit]

Reviews for the HD version of the game have started coming in. Should we include them somehow? Here's GameSpot's review: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-princess-hd-review/1900-6416369/ --Super3588 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC) I also just performed a Google search, and there are a ton more reviews available, including IGN, Game Rant, and Metacritic. Here's the link to the search: https://www.google.com/search?q=twilight%20princess%20hd%20review#q=twilight+princess+hd+review&newwindow=1&tbm=nws --Super3588 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Super3588: Hi, again. I'm planning to read through a few reviews and other articles on Twilight Princess HD tonight to get an idea of how much remake-specific content there is available. If there's enough to write a couple of sections on the remake's development, any significant gameplay changes since the Wii and GameCube releases, etc., then I see no reason we couldn't give Twilight Princess HD its own article. Otherwise, I think the best approach would be to split the reception section into subsections on the original releases and on the Wii U release. —zziccardi (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zziccardi: Hey, here is a link to a list of reviews (some from reliable sources, but I'll let you sort those out). The linked site is not what I would call a reliable site (by Wikipedia standards, anyway), but it links to some other sites that are reliable. --Super3588 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Only like four or five of these reviews can be used for Wikipedia. And sites like IGN and GameSpot are almost always guaranteed to review a new release, so I wouldn't say them two give enough of a reason to create a separate article again. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not advocating a separate article. You'll find that left alone right above this topic. I was asking how we'll differentiate between the old version's reviews and the new one's. --Super3588 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Just add a new section with the HD specific reviews? Isn't that how other game articles do it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what they do. As far as I know, "HD re-releases" are still a little new to the industry. --Super3588 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd simply add a new subheader simply titled Wii U under the reception one. Or you could even omit this, and just have the Wii U review stuff in a new paragraph below. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
What would you think of splitting the reception section in two? —zziccardi (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean having the title "Reception" and then have "HD version" and "Original version" under that? Yeah, I think that would be okay. --Super3588 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I read a handful of reviews yesterday and, as far as I'm concerned, there's more than enough critical reception for writing a remake-specific section on reviews. Of more concern is whether it'd be possible to flesh out other sections if Twilight Princess HD gets its own article. Nintendo has been uploading a few "retrospective" videos to the game's website (also on YouTube) over the past few days; my impression is that the first three didn't provide much new content. The fourth will focus on the HD version, so it's possible that may give us something to work with. As far as non-review articles go, Eurogamer has published a few good ones (one and two; maybe this article could also be used). There hasn't been much else in-depth coverage of the remake as of today, though. —zziccardi (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
We also need to keep an eye on tomorrow afternoon's Nintendo Direct fr any more news. It's "conveniently" on the day before the game launches. --Super3588 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's likely to be any talk about Twilight Princess HD tomorrow: It wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to wait until the day before the game's release to mention any theoretical other new features; further, reviewers have already gotten their hands on copies of the game and would have noticed any unannounced changes. That said, I don't think giving Twilight Princess HD its own article is totally out of the question at this point. There isn't a notability issue with the remake as far as I'm concerned, so all that needs to be considered is whether it would benefit readers to split the HD content out. It's also possible there will be more third-party coverage once the game is released. —zziccardi (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
They did that last week in the Pokemon Direct. They said the original games' (which were released the next day) pokemon would transfer to Pokemon Sun and Moon. We already know the Wolf Link amiibo will transfer some data to Zelda U.--Super3588 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dissident93: What do you think about splitting Twilight Princess HD out? I'm concerned the remake section is already cluttering up this article, and we haven't even added its reception yet. (Is this addition really appropriate here?) As I've said above, there is more than enough critical commentary to write a significant reception section covering what the remake did and did not deliver on and discussing modern thoughts on a ten-year-old game. I also think we could create a sizable gameplay section, as there's more that could be said about Hero Mode (for example, that it flips the orientation to match the Wii version) and the like that would be superfluous here. The development section might be a bit shorter, but there's nothing wrong with well-crafted articles on the shorter side (e.g., Four Swords Adventures and The Minish Cap). —zziccardi (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm fine with it. This isn't a notability issue (never was), but rather one on if the article would be too short to stand on it's own. I don't think that should be an issue though, like you mentioned with Four Swords and Minish Cap. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Green tickY Nice. Un-redirecting now. —zziccardi (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Great! I've redirected the redirect pages TPHD and TP HD (Those are commonly used abbreviations of the title) to your new page. --Super3588 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Listed order of platforms[edit]

There needs to be consensus against the listing of GameCube being first (not the opposite), because by default we follow the guideline which states "When filling out the infobox for a multi-platform game, the platforms in the platform field should be listed in chronological order; however, if the game was released on multiple platforms on the same day, then list those certain platforms in alphabetical order.". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

But the Wii version was released first. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I originally had the sentence written differently, but didn't update the platform, fixed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, then. The Wii should come first. I also think that, after seeing an edit someone just made (which I then undid), we should form a consensus about which order the consoles should be in in the lead. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The user hadn't been properly warned on their talk page, so I gave them {{uw-ew}}. They can come here to discuss. If they don't come here and continue to revert, we can take it to WP:AN3 if necessary. (I believe their procedures call for both a warning and an attempt at discussion.) -- Gestrid (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the user's contributions and found them doing this to our VG article guidelines. (The next diff is them reverting it.) I don't particularly like that, especially since it was obviously done specifically to support his argument here. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, it appears I forgot to also revert the video game cover and its image description, which they also changed. I would do it myself, but I've already reverted twice within 24 hours and don't want to push WP:3RR. Could someone else handle it? It would probably be best to revert to this version to catch all the changes made. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Clearly we can't listen to a user who attempts to change guidelines themselves without telling anybody. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that the Wii should be mentioned first, in both the infobox and lead, per the guidelines Dissident linked to above. The cover art is also a problem not only because it was changed to the GameCube version without discussion, but also because it was uploaded at a size that is too large according to the relevant fair use guidelines (WP:VGIMAGES). I'll handle the reversion now. —zziccardi (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Zziccardi and Zziccardi: That is why I asked for someone else to change it back. I've already reverted twice and doing it a third time may get me blocked. If no one else does, I'll likely change it back in a few hours when I can do it without pushing WP:3RR. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, just realized you did that. Thanks. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternate Timeline?[edit]

Oh cripes, can we please not include things like that? It's just going to confuse people. It's not even canon, it's just something a fan invented based on a misunderstanding of a quote from Aonuma, which he later "confirmed" because he's cheeky, mercurial, and (let's face it) cruddy at story writing (see Wind Waker). And before you mention Hyrule Historia, it is A) not canon, B) incompatible with the aforementioned Aonuma statement and overall timeline theory, and C) nonsensical and incompatible with the games. You want to cite sources, you actually read those sources and don't allow something that conflicts with the content of the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)