Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Anniversary

Someone could put that this game was released 20 years after the first zelda game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Unlike some games, it was never marketed as an anniversary game. igordebraga ≠ 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wii Remote and Wii Nunchuk Controls

With the very brief mention of the actual gameplay control with the Wii controllers, the wording of 'mimic' misrepresents the actual usage of the Wii Remote and Nunchuk. Also, with mention of the bow and arrow, it should be precluded by the most obvious weapon that Link uses, which is the sword. A more descriptive mention of the actual controls with the Wii Remote and Wii Nunchuk was added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmyu (talk • contribs) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations and reverting

Eisai Dekisugi and TJ Spyke, you are both skating very close to the three-revert rule. Please stop reverting and discuss your changes on the talk page. Hermione1980 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert again, but the general consensus at WP:VG (and on most game messageboards) is that VG Chartz is NOT a reliable source. They make up their sales numbers, sometimes fixing them when the real numbers get stated. Considering that they are not a reliable source and that WP:VG says to not use them if reliable sources are available, there is no reason to use their BS numbers in this article. TJ Spyke 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do VG Chartz and Zeldauniverse have numbers for the same sales figures? If so, even if VG Chartz is more recent, then the more reliable source should be used. Wikipedia's aim is not to be the most up-to-date source for sales figures (or much of anything, for that matter). Hermione1980 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Zeldauniverse's numbers are as of September 4. Zelda Universe is the official Zelda website, so they of coarse have the actual sales numbers while VG Chartz makes guesses on sales using public info. TJ Spyke 20:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Zelda Universe states "Every effort was made to consult NPD", so the sales figure of 6.33m is based on NPD. VG Chartz states "Sales figures are determined through two important methods 1. Data Sampling – VG Chartz gathers random data from a sample of the total number of retailers. 2. Shipment information – VG Chartz has contacts with publishers who give their best estimates on number of products shipped." This method is almost the same as that of NPD Group. gamasutra states "it's absolutely true that all data is an estimate - not even major services such as Media Create and NPD get it exactly right". VG Chartz is reliable. --Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, about VG Chartz: "While referenced in reliable sources, site's own methods of extrapolation and adjustment without source referral mean site is possibly unreliable by a large margin in estimates (method analysis). If possible, replace with NPD Group or Enterbrain numbers for US and Japan, respectively." Hermione1980 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"extrapolation and adjustment without source referral" This only applies to prompt reports, because they try to report sales figures more promptly than NPD, the estimates are based on a few days' samples, so they are unreliable as to prompt reports, but settled sales figures are based on enough samples, so they are reliable .--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"This only applies to prompt reports" - when is the content dated that you're using as a source? The reference list says 12-14-2008, which is today. That sounds pretty prompt to me. Hermione1980 21:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Eisai, VG Chartz asks a couple of local stores for info. NPD tracks game sales from about 75% of all retailers and not just a small sample. Please see the discussion at WP:VG, VG Chartz is not considered reliable (and this has been discussed many times). TJ Spyke 22:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
To cut to the point here, the VG project has had this discussion several times and has found VGchartz to be an unreliable source for our purposes. Eisai, the onus is on you to convince us why it should be added, not the other way around. The proper course of action is to leave the article without the source while we discuss. Please don't cite WP:BRD in your edit summaries, as you do not appear to fully understand the process. Pagrashtak 14:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Eisai Dekisugi has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Dr90s. At this point, I'd say feel free to remove VG Chartz as a source and use the figures from Zeldauniverse. Hermione1980 15:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Working on copyediting the article. Today I tried to go through the Plot section and make it clearer to non-players and more encyclopedia-appropriate. It's far from perfect, though, and could definitely use some work. I unintentionally made it a little longer, too––not by adding new sections of the game, just making sure what was there made sense. I personally think we should cut about half of that plot summary out; we're trying to summarize the game, not replace it. Oh, and I'm sorry if my edit summary seemed rude; it wasn't so much poorly written as inconsistent and jumpy. --llamapalooza87 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for pitching in. The article definitely needs the work; I might rewrite a few sections as it might be easier. I'd love to make this article featured. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I will take a whack at the pictures today (although I don't see any problem with them). This game really deserves a FA, and I think we can get it there. TJ Spyke 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the development section way back in September as part of a push to FA, but haven't been able to find a decent chunk of time to sit down and work on the rest of the article. This was the article I was planning to get to FA to keep the Zelda topic featured. Thanks for the help, everyone. Pagrashtak 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Soundtrack

As I type this, I am looking at my copy of the Twilight Princess official soundtrack, which lists

  1. The Legend of Zelda: Orchestral Piece #2
  2. Hyrule Field Main Theme
  3. Kakariko Village
  4. Death Mountain
  5. Midna's Theme
  6. Ilia's Theme

I do not have Ordon Village. Is there another release of this album that I'm unaware of, or is this a typo? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It has no reference in the article, so I cannot verify it. It was added here. If you have a reference, then use it and update the information in the article. Gary King (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there was a version released as part of a Nintendo Power offer and another with that limited edition Sword & Shield replica package; according to the soundtracks I've got on my computer, only the former has Ordon Village. I don't know any details apart from this, though. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know that the soundtrack sampler is really notable for the game's article. It's not even close to being an actual soundtrack and it was never released except as a promotional item (NP subscription), so I don't think it's notable as a CD in its own right, and it doesn't really say anything about the game. --llamapalooza87 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards agreeing with this. I don't think we need to list the tracks; it would be helpful if we could find a reliable source mentioning it, though. That would certainly be better. Gary King (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It took some effort to find a reliable source with the tracklisting (most sites would mention the soundtrack, but not the tracks on it), but found one: http://gonintendo.com/?p=8437 . TJ Spyke 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Go Nintendo is not reliable; it is a blog. And, the link that they use for Nintendo.com does not work. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So are we contemplating removing the track listing altogether for lack of reliable sources? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No; read llamapalooza87's comment. Gary King (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't add a reference at the time, as I was using the soundtrack itself as a reference and I thought that seemed like an obvious enough source. Had I known there were two different versions I probably would have gone ahead and added the ref. I do in fact have the NP promotional version. Although it may seem like it, this isn't a "sampler"; the soundtrack is just very small, for some reason. It says "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess Official Soundtrack" on the cover and back, and the Nintendo Power logo in the upper-right corner on the front and the lower-right corner of the back. I'm curious as to what the sword and shield version is labeled—does it also say "Official Soundtrack"? Pagrashtak 14:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think people are saying it's not an official soundtrack, just that it's a sampler of the actual music in the game. There are over 40 music tracks in the actual game, a shame Nintendo decided only to include a few on the official soundtrack we got. TJ Spyke 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to clear it up for anyone who didn't know. Before I got the soundtrack, I assumed it was a sample and there would be a full soundtrack available for separate purchase, only to find when I got it that this is "the" soundtrack. I'm still not sure why there isn't a "full" soundtrack. Pagrashtak 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Pagrashtak's query earlier, I have the sword and shield copy; I was unaware of a Nintendo Power copy. It's in a cardboard sleeve, not a jewel case. The front has a picture of "human" Link with "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess" in the upper right corner, and "Official Soundtrack" in the bottom right corner. The back has a picture of wolf Link with "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess" in the upper left corner, the track listing under it, the copyright info in the bottom left, and logos for Nintendo and Master Replicas (probably the company that made the sword and shield themselves) in the bottom right corner. There is no Nintendo Power logo either on the sleeve or the disc itself. Unfortunately, I can't find an ISBN either, and I don't know where one would look for that. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's annoying. Let's make two official soundtracks and leave a song off of one! It shouldn't have been that hard—there's only seven tracks to manage. The NP disc is also in a cardboard sleeve, with no ISBN or other identification number. Pagrashtak 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm just not convinced this is notable material. If the soundtrack was in any way representative of all the music in the game, or if it gained a wide release (not just as a promo item), and if it was released in multiple territories... maybe. But as it stands, it seems really insignificant and doesn't really enhance the description of the game in question. The article is too long as it is and since it doesn't facilitate understanding of the game my vote is to cut it.--llamapalooza87 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel about the same. Gary King (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

bestselling?

Is this really the bestselling of the zelda seres its sold 5.5ish mill compared to 7.5ish from ocarina of time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.192.166 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article, it only says it was the PAL Region's best-selling Zelda game; your numbers are worldwide. If that was unclear to you, you might want to reword it.--llamapalooza87 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Japanese Title?

Not that it's a particularly big deal, but I noticed the Japanese title of the game was removed on the grounds that this is an English encyclopedia and therefore the information isn't relevant. I understand that argument, but it's pretty standard practice to include the Japanese title. For every Japanese game I checked (all the ones that popped into my mind), it was present––Sonic the Hedgehog (video game), Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Pokémon, F-Zero, and Animal Crossing all include it. I'm going to revert it to be consistent with other Japanese (especially Nintendo) game articles; if consensus is reached on a larger scale to remove them from game articles in general then of course we can take it back out again. If you still think we should take it out, I'd be glad to discuss further. --llamapalooza87 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How does it benefit readers to keep it in? We can't just point to other articles and say that since it exists there, it should be in here. Gary King (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a translated work, so the title of the untranslated work is relevant, in my opinion. But that wasn't even the point; what I was suggesting is that you have a valid reason to argue it shouldn't be there, but this is not the place to make that argument. If you feel it is worth removing that information, then suggest that as a stylistic change for all articles, not just this one. --llamapalooza87 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought the VG project had decided to include the Japanese titles in games developed in Japan and exclude them from non-Japanese games (like Metroid Prime). Pagrashtak 18:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request at GOCE

Hey everyone. Back after a bit of an absence from Wiki, I noticed a copyedit request for this article over at GOCE. I'll take a stab at it tonight and see what I can do... Pax85 (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Anything that can help this article finally go from GA to FA would be appreciated. TJ Spyke 05:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I hope I don't mess up all of your hard work too much. :) I went through the intro, gameplay, and plot sections. For now, I need to take a bit of a break from copy editing (it is 11pm where I am at, and have to get up early). I will return tomorrow to take a look at the other sections. -- Pax85 (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If you ask me, the reception section is quite inadequate at the moment and will need an expansion and large rewrite. I wouldn't worry about spending too much time there. Pagrashtak 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't taken a close look at that one yet, but I will keep that in mind... -- Pax85 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI: I have finished going through all of the sections, save the one on reception, since that one may be reworked. As I mentioned below, perhaps the development section could use subheadings such as "Music", "control", and "Two Worlds", but I figured I would get a feel from the other editors on that one before doing a large change like that. :) -- Pax85 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sub sections in development?

As I am going through the development section, perhaps there can be sub sections added? Any thoughts on what those might be if that is decided? It just seems that the section is a bit cumbersome, and may be helped with the sub-headings. Just a thought anyway... -- Pax85 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead, add sections. I think it needs them, I just don't know what to name them. Gary King (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're wondering about names, I have some ideas. The first two paragraphs (assuming current paragraphs) could be called "Early Development". The next three could be restructured and called "Transition to the Wii", talking about the development of the Wii version, and "Technical Difficulties" or something, detailing the technical hurdles that they had to jump into transitioning to the Wii. The last paragraph, that talks about the music, can be called "Music" or "Audio". Just a thought. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you for the suggestions. Unfortunately, I need to sign off for the night. If they aren't done when I get home tomorrow, I will take a stab at it. :) Pax85 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added some sections. Gary King (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Eventual FAC...

One of the things that I noticed during my copy editing of the article last week is that it is a very good article, and capable of being an FA, but the plot section needs work. It seems awfully long and unwieldy. What do you all think? Pax85 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reception section needs to be expanded, as we mentioned earlier. Gary King (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can take a look at the story tonight. If all goes well, I'll have a condensed version by tommorrow night that meets all neccessary criteria of non-suckage. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, make it less than 700 words please. Ideally, it will be even less than that though; 700 is just the typical maximum. Gary King (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished. I've posted it to my sandbox to reduce the probability that it is reverted, just in case it sucks and I don't know it. Final word count is 520. There are some parts of this (like the end of the first paragraph) that seem to be kinda clunky. I'm relying on a talented copyeditor to fix these problems. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very nice. I've moved it to the article as I think it's far superior to what we had before. Don't worry about copyediting for now; the most important thing is accuracy in the plot, which after reading it and trying to remember the game from a few years ago, I believe it's accurate. Gary King (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

USK Rating

The USK rating in the infobox is non-notable according to {{Infobox VG}}.

The game's censorship rating most widely accepted in the game's country of origin (and any English-language censorship ratings).

BOVINEBOY2008 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing that one is fine, and so I will do that now. However, I disagree with removing the text in brackets when they clarify what the rating means, as not everyone knows what they indicate. Gary King (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese cover art needed

If anyone can upload the Japanese cover art for the video game and use it in this box, we would appreciate it. Just like We Started Nothing and Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned and albums, showing alternate covers, this article may also need an alternate cover, showing its origins in addition to changes in America. example image from Play-Asia.com SolanaRanger (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Always Outnumbered had no image at all when I looked at it; you may want to fix that. Just sayin'. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not gonna happen. It's a violation of WP:FU (yes those examples you stated violate it) and a violation of the Video game project guideline. TJ Spyke 04:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section Rewrite

The reception section of the article is terrible. I believe its too condensed, which makes the number of references draw your attention from the text. Also, the section is basically a bunch of lists. The games deserves better. Metalb (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracklist

Is there any tracklist available for the game's soundtrack? Why do we not include it? OboeCrack (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See here. Gary King (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Save File Exploit

I think there should be something to do with the save file exploit, or the "Twilight Hack" in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdEars (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there exists an article on Wii Homebrew stuff like the Twilight Hack. In fact, the Twilight Hack itself even has its own article. As such, the best you could probably hope for is a link to these articles as a "see also" somewhere in the article; otherwise, there would be a problem with duplication of information. I have no idea where such a thing would go, if it would even be allowed. You may need to ask the wise ones. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Created a Buffer overflow vulnerability subsection under Development. Mainly a stub section to link out to Twilight hack and Wii Homebrew, but contains a decent gist of the vulnerability, exploit, and subsequent patching of the "Twilight hack."
I mentioned in my edit comment that this should probably stick since it's somewhat significant (the only software method of homebrew loading) and has been covered in relatively mainstream gaming Web sites. Regarding legality/policy: the information in this section (and those two linked articles) should be allowed no less than the information in the buffer overflow article, which really goes into how you'd accomplish nasty exploits.Indeed, it's now patched and it is already widely known on the internet. —Mike Tigas (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Links to sites that explain how to do should not be used, nor should it be explained here (meaning Wikipedia) how to do it since it enables illegal activities. Also, "other stuff exists" is a BS argument and one that gets shot down in AFD articles for that reason. Just because one article does something does not mean another can. TJ Spyke 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's reasonable to have this as a compromise. However, I still am against giving it its own section; if possible, I'd prefer to see it merged into somewhere else (logically, of course). If there are other software issues with the game, then that could help expand the section. Gary King (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Split Midna out?

I believe this version of the Midna article, User:New Age Retro Hippie/Midna, should be its own article. It has both sections required to form its own article, and it's somewhat well-written. It may have been merged once, but I believe it was merged for lack of notability, not the character itself being unworthy of being separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Character list

Somebody needs to make a small character list using this page. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; if readers understand the plot as it is, then we should only add additional information on main characters if that information is sourced and it furthers the reader's understanding of the story. Gary King (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would the game on a Wii disc work on gamecube?

I am hearing a rumor that the game in a Wii disc work on the gamecube? Is that true?

I would argue no, as a Wii disc would not fit in a Gamecube. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well atleast it works the other way around. But yes you are probably right :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.185.210 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The alternate timeline is a lie.

Yes. Can somebody please explain to me where this "other" timeline comes from? Those two kids telling the king "Ganondorf's a bad man". They didn't believe them before...97.118.63.76 (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article or the game itself? Gary King (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Aonuma and Miyamoto have stated that when Link went back in time at the end of Ocarina of Time, he alerted child-Zelda of Ganondorf's plan and she was able to convince her father of the truth. Ganondorf was arrested, tried, unsuccessfully executed, and banished to the Twilight Realm, leading to the events of Twilight Princess. In the adult half of Ocarina of Time, Ganondorf's seal broke and he escaped, but since Link had been sent back there was no-one to fight him and he took over until the gods flooded Hyrule, leading to the events of Wind Waker. As Aonuma himself said about Twilight Princess: "It is a world 100 and something years after Ocarina of Time. ... The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link leaps to a world seven years later, defeats Ganon, and then returns to the child era, right? Twilight Princess is the world 100 and something years after peace is restored in the child era." Therefore, the alternate timeline is not a lie. 207.216.208.68 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ages

Where does it say that TP's Link is 17 and Zelda is 20? While both are in their late teens, the game never reveals their ages, so that is just speculation and original research. I will delete it until it is proven with verifiable sources that they are indeed 17 and 20. 207.216.208.68 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference material

I found this in the Wayback Machine: Play Magazine review. Hope it's useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wii controller support for GC version?

I was reading in the Wii Transition section that

...NGC Magazine claimed that when a GameCube copy of Twilight Princess played on the Revolution would give the player the option of using the Revolution controller. Miyamoto confirmed the Revolution controller-functionality in an interview with Nintendo of Europe....

It wasn't clear to me if this functionality is, in fact, incorporated into the final release of the GameCube disc, as the whole paragraph seems to be derived from sources available prior to the launch of the Wii (in fact, prior to it getting the name "Wii"). Can anyone clarify this? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The GameCube version can only be played with the GameCube controller. Either the magazine originally misquoted Miyamoto or Nintendo changed their minds. When a GameCube game is played on the Wii, it basically turns into a GameCube (you can't use any Wii controllers, use the Nintendo WFC, access the flash memory or SD card slot, etc.) TJ Spyke 18:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also noticed that some of the songs-when playing the gamecube version on the Wii-change slightly...Including when fighting enemies, the main Hyrule Field theme, along with a few other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystal447 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

--75.11.157.255 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)This doesn't support GameCube controllers because it's a WII game PORTED to GameCube because it came out FIRST ON WII!! It's a Wii game NOT a GameCube game! Get your facts right!!!

Uhh

Wasn't the GC version released in Dec in NA? 156.34.246.182 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


Links to wikis

Relevant guideline: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.". So, do the two links proposed have a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors? --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the other, but Zeldapedia is. It's been around for 4 1/2 years, is stable, a lot of regular editors, and does not rely on Wikipedia for anything. They do seem to pass the guideline to me. TJ Spyke 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you an editor of the Wiki? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, the only Wikis I edit on are Wikipedia, Super Mario Wiki, and Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia. TJ Spyke 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So, discounting IDONTLIKEIT, what are the objections to adding a link to Zeldapedia? --NeilN talk to me 00:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who deleted the external links all together. So I personally "don't like it". But if we must have them, its not hard to see that Zeldapedia is the better of the two. --HMKJ (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't *have* to have them but they are allowed under the conditions mentioned above. Is the site content useful and does it contain info that wouldn't be incorporated here? --NeilN talk to me 03:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess. --HMKJ (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Versions

I saw that this game was a GameCube game, and it's NOT. It's a Wii game that was ported over to GameCube so Nintendo could squeeze out a few more sales of the Cube before they killed it. Also, because most players couldn't handle how the controller is set up, Nintendo flipped the game on the Cube version, so it would be easier to play for most players. Why is this information not in the article? A section that talks about it being ported over to the GameCube needs to be in this article!!!--75.11.157.255 (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The sources we have state that it was originally developed for the Gamecube and ported to the Wii. This is discussed in the Development section. I invite you to read over the sources if you don't believe me. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, just... WOW. I don't think I've ever read someone being so wrong yet appearing so certain. I mean no offence... but can I ask where you got this idea from?
For one thing, TP was announced before the Wii was! Link has always been a left-handed character - this is reflected in the GC game, however as production was taking so long and the Wii launch was approaching, they thought it a good idea to adapt a version to the Wii; but as most people are right-handed, they flipped the game due to the use of the remote swinging to do a sword-swipe as it felt unintuitive to wave your right hand and see a left-handed attack - so they made him right-handed on the Wii and flipped everything the other way around because a game layout identical to the GC version could have caused all sorts of interaction/collision problems. If it had been primarily designed for the Wii they wouldn't have needed to flip it to make the game easier to use with a GC pad. The geographical layout is also more similar to Ocarina in the GC version, whereas the Wii version has it back-to-front. Also, the layout of the Triforce on the Wii version has the wisdom and courage Triforce pieces the wrong way around because of the flip.
And why would they even bother having a GC version if it was being designed for the Wii, given the excitement around the Wii and the fact that the GC was dying? It wouldn't have been economically viable.
Also, if the game was designed to primarily be on the Wii, it's doubtful that the GC could have handled it nor would there have been a viable control scheme; in fact most people who've played the GC version agree that it handles better. Now imagine how they could map the controls for Skyward Sword (a game made for Wii) to a GC pad, plus how badly the game would handle on the GC's more limited hardware! I think this goes to show how important sources are on Wikipedia, there could be all sorts of crazy misinformation flying around! 82.32.11.95 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is for Wii

it's not for gamecube

This was discussed in the above section. You are invited to read over the Development section of this article and check the sources if you doubt us.Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Princess Twilight

MLP:FiM has nothing to do with this page and yet it says that "'Twilight Princess' redirects here. It is not to be confused with Princess Twilight Sparkle." I'm confident in the idea that if people were truly looking for My Little Pony content, they would instead type "Princess Twilight". I feel like it's here only because of an imposition of "brony" culture. Could we perhaps remove this? Ursonano (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Separate Page for HD?

After release, there are bound to be many, many reviews, as well as other things that may constitute a new page. Should there be a new page, or should there just be a separate section for the HD reviews? After all, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD got its own page, and Nintendo has done basically the same sort of thing with TPHD, porting it to the Wii U as an HD remake years after (10 years, actually) its original release. --Super3588 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Super3588. When the HD port was announced, there was some discussion about whether the game should have its own article; at the time, the general agreement was that there wasn't enough information to warrant a page for itself. I think we should continue waiting to see whether the enhanced port, remake, or whatever you'd like to call it receives enough coverage. —zziccardi (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. How much would you say "enough coverage" is? --Super3588 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, there needs to be a significant amount of material specifically about the HD version. If, for example, no new information regarding the port's development is discussed at length in articles by the WikiProject Video games reliable sources, it would be rather challenging to write a development section in a separate article. Reviews would be a good place to start, though. —zziccardi (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Consensus for splitting Twilight Princess HD out into its own article was achieved in the following section. —zziccardi (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

HD Reviews

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)

checkY 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

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?

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research, editorializing, and unreliable sources

To the IP to keeps making these long additions like this or this - it’s hard to know where to contact you since you change your editing IP address so frequently, but I assume you’ll come to the talk page to complain that your edits were removed yet again.

This has been going on for weeks. You need to stop adding these long rambling editorials to Zelda articles. They violate WP:OR, and they go off topic. And they frequently use unreliable sources.

We’ve discussed this for weeks, and many editors have opposed the edits, both through various discussions and through reverting your edits. So no more chances. If you keep doing this, I’m going to start locking pages from editing. Enough is enough. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross73 the Admin strikes again

Removing my sourced, factual edits, personally insulting me in the edit summary, then locking the page with your admin priviledges. Of fucking course. Anyone else who you stalk this relentlessly and bully over harmless edits, or is it just me? Seriously, can you direct me to where I can make an official complaint about you? If that's at all possible? And don't refuse me, because I'm sick of this shit. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:60F2:CBDC:BD3:BF88 (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You overtly have called me an “asshat” four times now, across multiple edit summaries I’ve had to go and delete, and you’re accusing me of personal attacks and bullying? Also, no one is “stalking” you. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of a WP:WATCHLIST. People get automatically alerted to certain changes to certain articles. Sergecross73 msg me 09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought wikipedia had a rule against using the "other people do it so it's okay" excuse? Or does that only apply to other people, and not yourself? The thing is, if the stuff I was doing was really so problamatic, you would have gotten me blocked already, which, remarkably has not happened. Also seems incredibly strange that, generally speaking, it is only such specific edits on Zelda articles that are gaining attention. You; "you" meaning Wikipedia as a whole, couldn't give a thought to any of the similiar edits I've made on other articles. None of this adds up, and smells suspiciously like the actions of a rogue admin. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:60F2:CBDC:BD3:BF88 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
At no point have I called you any names like “asshat”. Or any names at all. (And even if I had, that’s completely incorrect application of WP:OSE.) You haven’t been blocked because you keep changing your IP adresss all the time. That’s why the page is locked instead. You can still propose changes on the talk page, and the changes can be added if there is WP:CONSENSUS to add it. You know, the way you’re supposed to do it, not the way you’re continually re-adding material without consensus or agreement. Sergecross73 msg me 09:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Patently untrue. For starters, my IP "changes" automatically. Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about IP addresses, so I cannot pinpoint the exact cause and name it for you, but I'm fairly confident that this must be a fiarly common thing, since if not, I have no idea how in the world it's happening. I have an ordinary internet connection, from an ordinary provider, through an ordinary router. In fact, I have been blocked on other websites before, so I know that blocking me would be possible. I know enough about IP addresses to at least say, in vague terms, that I keep switching between IP addresses that are part of a group, it wouldn't take much effort to block me. Again, other sites manage it just fine; yes I know I'm admitting other sites have blocked me. You have no right to comment on those cases, you don't know anything about them. Please, don't treat me like an idiot who'll swallow your garbage excuses. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:60F2:CBDC:BD3:BF88 (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure where you’re going with all this...? Would you like me to block your IP address too or something? I can, but page protection works better with people who edit through constantly changing IP address. Sergecross73 msg me 10:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I know your favorite rationalization for all your edits being rejected is that I’m some big bad admin, but seriously, think back: there has not been a single editor who has supported your edits. There’s been 3 or 4 who have outright opposed or reverted your changes, and one who only supported a dramatically trimmed down and reworked version of it. Stop blaming others and do some serious reflection on what you’re doing here. Sergecross73 msg me 10:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So your excuse for treating an IP editer like he's dirt on your shoe is "no one's on your side"? How is that a valid argument, in any which way? And how is this generalized argument applicable to any specific scenario, especially when applied to the context of my recent edit on, for example, Twilight Princess? 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:60F2:CBDC:BD3:BF88 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Your edits are against policy and guidelines. Every person you’ve interacted with has agreed they’re inappropriate. If you don’t have policy or consensus on your side, you’re not to make the edits. If you don’t stop of your own accord, you are stopped through blocks or page protection. Sergecross73 msg me 10:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
You keep changing the issue everytime I bring something up. You didn't address my point in my first comment. You didn't address my point about the IP address (granted, you did address my points regarding blocking, ect). You move the discussion away from issues that have been brought up, when you have no answers for them any more. All you do right now is just bring up something unrelated to say "I'm right and you're wrong" in the most generalised way possible, without making any legitimate counterarguments. Nor does anything you've said actually relate to a justification or reason for any specific action on your part. All you've done is used general points to discredit me, while not addressing most issues I bring up, particularly those relating to your handling of basic civil conduct; which you have just handwaved by stating that it's "not as bad as" other things, or that it does not break the rules, which is sort of like justifying intermarital affair by saying that it's not illegal. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:60F2:CBDC:BD3:BF88 (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Did you miss the edit summary? I explained it. Your edit was yet again a rambling editorial with unreliable sources and OR. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The rest of your complaints are unfounded accusations of you being bullied. No one is bullying you. It’s not a personal attack to tell you that you’re not following the rules. I’m not being a bully when I cite policies/guidelines you’re not following. You either need to make a better effort to follow the rules, or find a websites that allows you to write whatever you want without you getting your feelings hurt every time someone tells you you’re doing it wrong. Maybe a blog or social media account where you’re the sole person in charge. Because you can’t jist do whatever you want on Wikipedia, especially on high traffic articles like Legend of Zelda, where there’s always going to be a lot of other active editors. I’m not telling you to leave, I’m just saying you can’t keep doing what you’re doing here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

About note concerning Midna?

So, I didn't want to remove a perfectly good bit of disambiguation without making sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment, but about that note clarifying at the top that "Twilight Princess" the person is Midna; I feel like that should be removed given that a) I highly doubt anyone searches for the character Midna by searching "Twilight Princess"; b) if they do, it should be easy to find Midna in the article body; c) the fact that Midna is the Twilight Princess is... kind of a major plot point that's only revealed most of the way through the game. Obviously I'm not suggesting we avoid spoilers on a game from 2006 and on a wiki that doesn't seem to care about spoiler tags in the first place, but speaking from experience, I generally trust that spoilers will be confined to the "Plot" section or similar, and seeing one at the very top of the article would annoy me had I not already played the game. Thoughts? Whirligig231 (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER on how to handle spoilers. Sergecross73 msg me 11:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that this should be removed. It is UNHELPFUL to keep that information there as a disambiguation. Anyone who already knows that plot detail would look up Midna directly if they wanted to read more about her, and anyone who *doesn't* know who "the Twilight Princess" refers to would expect (and prefer!) to find out in the plot summary, not a disambiguation. WP:SPOILER has been mentioned, but we shouldn't keep an unhelpful disambiguation around only *because* it's a spoiler rather than because it's actually useful. 76.167.106.227 (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Usually I wouldn't argue against WP:SPOILER but who exactly would be searching for Midna based on an uncommonly used in-universe title of hers that is only revealed near the end of the game? I agree with the others here and am going to WP:BEBOLD here and remove it due to its seemingly un-usefulness. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess/Archive_7&oldid=1137237091"