Talk:The Legend of Zelda CD-i games/Archive 1

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

Content

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

I had an Idea

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

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

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

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

Sequence

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

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

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

Merge proposal

Resolved

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

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

Support - Good idea, maybe we can help get one CD-i Zelda game article to GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - They're three different games, are they not? And the statement that the articles are "pretty much the same when it comes to the context" is flat out untrue. McJeff (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Tentative Support This has been in the back of my mind for quite a while now. Think about this rationally. What would the development sections of the articles be if separate? They would all have to go into the exact same story about Philips and Nintendo and the failed CD-ROM add-on, as would this article. There isn't much to say about development that would be game-unique. Much of the reception sections would also be repetitive. The articles already have many statements about all three games ("Along with the other two CD-i Zeldas, the game was...", "Like the system they were created for, the three games were never very popular...") or sentences that specify one game but apply to all three (cf. "The Faces Of Evil is considered to be an inferior use of the Legend of Zelda title by most fans who know of the game's existence..." with "The Wand of Gamelon is considered to be an inferior use of the Legend of Zelda title by most fans who know of the game's existence..."). Granted, the plot and gameplay sections are different, but they're so painfully short that this might very well have a stronger presentation if merged. The argument "they're separate games" isn't a per se reason for separate articles—see the Oracle games, which are separate, yet stronger presented together. That article is also the example for how plot and gameplay would be presented here if merged. If the gameplay sections were greatly expanded or significant information about development was found that was game-specific, the articles should definitely be split. However, given the current state of affairs I am willing to consider the merge. Pagrashtak 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And that's why, my friend, I wish to merge all three articles to this one. Magiciandude (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Coolgamer (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Support as per Pagrashtak. Gurko (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose' there are three seperate games that have three seperate story lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.156.166 (talk)
Having different storylines doesn't mean articles can't merged. The storylines Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons are on the same page, neither OoA or OoS have separate articles. The three games' plots summaries are already shortened and summed up in this article. Magiciandude (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Provided that all three titles are redirected. 66.68.99.199 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The third game has a completely distinct gameplay and development history than the first two. FightingStreet (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That part is already mentioned in this article in the game section itself in one sentence. Magiciandude (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose They're all notable in their own right, and the first two are distinctly different from the last one. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How so? The plots are already summarized in this article, the differences is already mentioned between the first-two and the third, and the gameplays are already mentioned. The development sections for each article are the same. The reception and beginning intro paragraph for Zelda's Adventure is the same as the first-two. There isn't much written in the gameplay and plot that couldn't be summarized for the articles. This isn't much different than Zelda: Oracle of Seasons & Ages, even with the addition of Zelda's Adventure. Magiciandude (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: They're three separate games, and therefore they should have three separate articles. Really pretty simple. Wizardman 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Not all games neccessarily need their own article. As I've mentioned, Zelda: OoA and Zelda: OoS are merged into one article despite being different games. Even with Zelda's Adventure having different gameplay, the plot summary, development, and its gameplay is already summarized in this article. As a matter of fact, Zelda's Adventure's section on gameplay is barely a paragraph long. Magiciandude (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's any differences in the games, which you acknowledge there are, then it's inherently better to keep them as separate articles. Your arguments for merging remain unconvincing. Wizardman 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

And almost GA! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't bet on it. The introduction and gameplay section are too short. But don't worry. I'll take care of the gameplay. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the reception section is heavily lacking in sources from the time of the game's release. Currently there's only modern websites in the section. It would be more interesting to use magazines from the '90s. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, the only reason we "won" is because we managed to turn three messy stubs into one comprehensive, potentially-GA article. Is the situation that bad? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gee, it sure is boring round' here

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

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

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

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

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

Youtube Poop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odvious vandalism?

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

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

Making the Case for Creating an article about YTP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Great, great idea.

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

Fair use rationals

The following images do not have fair use rationals:

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

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

Added rationales to all of them, need to replace a few as they are huge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
All fixed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a potentially silly question, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAN on hold

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

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

I'm not the nominator, but I believe I've addressed these except for the confusing sentence. I'll let Judgesurreal handle that one, as I can't tell what the intent is. Pagrashtak 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I expanded two of the three plot summaries. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Rephrased the sentence, so all the GA issues should be fixed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Currency

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

You'll notice that these games use "rubies" instead of "rupees", so I don't know if such a comparison is even meaningful. Pagrashtak 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats because this is the earliest... well only Zelda game that uses voices, no one was really sure how the word Rupees is pronounced. If you say it over afew times you would noticed that the P and the B arn't very different. Not to mention that the Rupees seem to be mostly red. 86.128.33.12 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Mystic Monkey
AVGN said it was Rupees, & none of his commenters disagreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What's with the citations?

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

Yes. That's how we do it here. It's to make sure every statement is referenced and therefore believable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are other ways to do it but yes that's how we do it here. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look right, though. Isn't there some way to have an entire paragraph point to the citation, instead of every sentence in the paragaph pointing ot the same citation? I'm just saying, it looks terribly messy that way. I do know every statement needs citations, I understand that much, but surely there's a format for citing the entire paragraph at once?Errick (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's possible but I think you need to discuss it first as people may object. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Errick, there's no point in citing common knowledge. It's like a downhill spiral where in a few months, each individual word will need citation just to prove it's a real word.

...your face the GREATEST in Koridai!

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

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

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


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

My Boy?

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

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

Wording

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

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

I don't like them because:

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

Number of Fair use images

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

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

The images are copyrighted, and the more we include, the less free our encyclopedia becomes. Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content for a better explanation. Pagrashtak 05:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
What worries me is the suggestion that it takes $6 millin dolars to run this website. Someone please linch the greedy host company.

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

I wish that were true, but anyone who posts on YouTube will tell you otherwise. As a rebuttle, all this copyrighteousness is actually increasing torrent piracy as a sort of one-finger-salute to the companies tossing lawsuits left & right. & these companies own so many other companies that you don't even know if the company boycott you agreed to parrticipate in is effective or not.
Whoh, where the fuck did you get that idea? Copyright laws apply. Go study your copyright laws. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Contact User:MGodwin and ask him, he's the Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) attorney. Also, ask one of your teachers about the copyright thing. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Moleman, you need to calm down. I'm not sure where you got the idea that copyright doesn't apply to the internet. Are you familiar with the legal battles Napster and Kazaa has fought? Heard of a program by the name of Scrabulous that was removed for copyright infringement? One of your own edits references the removal of videos on the internet for copyright infringement. I don't know if you're familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License, but it is the license under which Wikipedia content is released. That license ensures that Wikipedia is free to distribute and reproduce. You may have noticed in the upper-left over there that we are "the free encyclopedia"—that's free as in free speech (libre), not free as in free of charge (gratis). Part of that means using free images when absolutely possible, and restricting our use of non-free images when having no image is the only other option. This is why Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is official policy on the English Wikipedia, governed by the licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. Pagrashtak 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of such issues with copyright and the internet, what what I'm trying to say is that is SHOULDN'T have to apply to the internet. I am strongly detestant of copyright complaints directed at the internet, especially with Youtube. I guess that I could understand if one company complained about a website owned by another trademarked by another company who put stuff up on it without permission, but as for user-generated content, I am 100% against copyright and the internet.Moleman 9000 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You want to destroy copyright incentives by making the Internet copyright-free? What do you have against the production of content?! And the Internet, for that matter! You're 100% against it? But you're ON IT.64.111.153.16 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that Wikipedia isn't "The Internet", and mainly because of the word in the top-left hand corner of the page you're looking at - "Free". Copyrighted works are not free content by their very nature. See m:mission - "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain..." Black Kite 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that it is part of wikipedia's "policy" to not use stuff without permission, and if it didn't have that policy, we could put whatever we want without question?Moleman 9000 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the law. Copyright law says you cannot use copyrighted material without explicit permission from the copyright holder. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia "policy". As someone else already pointed out, Napster and countless others, had no "policy" against copyrighted material, and look at what happened to them. It's very simple, what part of copyright law don't you understand? Gutenberg has a good explanation of what is, and what isn't permissible. [1]. And, by the way, Particleman, please start using proper threading to your comments. I'm going to re-thread this discussion to make it easier to follow.
Simple really. This is an article about multiple titles, one box art cover is enough under minimal fair use. The screenshots similarly don't individually provide anything extra under WP:NFCC#1, one is enough here. I leave it to editors more experienced with the subject matter to decide which ones should stay and which should go, but seven NF images for a minor article like this is clearly too many. Black Kite 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can call a trio of games with such a large Internet cult following "minor". Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It may be your opinion that seven non-free images is excessive, but it's certainly not "clear". I'm not sure how we could get away with just one screenshot. Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure look very different—one is side-scrolling, the other is (mostly) top-down, the art styles and the use of color are different. For which two games would you suggest that we have no representation of the graphical style? Or would you have us ditch the gameplay screenshots and keep the FMV shot instead, which looks completely different from the style of the rest of the games? Pagrashtak 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
All the screenshots show is that two games are side scrolling and one is top-down. That could be (and actually is) mentioned in the text. The FMV shot is reasonable because it was an unusual point at the time. I'm don't see what the multiple box art images add, though. Black Kite 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into box art. Do you really think that the perspective is the only thing shown in those screenshots? They don't tell the user anything about the graphical capabilities of the games, or the palette choice, or the art style? I think most readers are getting more out of the images than you do. Pagrashtak 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there should be no screenshots at all, but I'm not sure these are particularly illustrative of anything notable about the games. Black Kite 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So you're OK with four screenshots, just not these four in particular? Pagrashtak 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4 - doesn't matter as long as each image passes every criteria in WP:NFCC - at the moment, I'm not convinced that these do. Black Kite 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Under NFCC8, I guess? Pagrashtak 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and #1. The box art probably fails #3a, as well. Black Kite 07:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
3a says "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." - How do we convey all three box arts while using as few images as possible; all three box arts need to be represented somehow. Could we make a group image where all three are in the same box art? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As the 'Reception' part mentions the Zelda's Adventure cover, it should be pictured. Glutko (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fari the Spaniard

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

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

The Voice cast

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

Unfortunately, I don't think the voice cast was credited, which really sucks in my opinion. I wanna know who's the legend who did King Harkinian. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
At the ending credits screen you can find the voice cast. It doesn't say specifically who voiced who though.Overlord Xenu (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Any voice actors we've heard of in that cast? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's the voice cast for Wand of Gamelon:

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

Image of the animated sequences?

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

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

Article's locked, but I need a cite

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

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

Mah boi

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

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

Stop vandalizing

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

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

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

Contradiction

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

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

Retro Gamer reception

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

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

Dale DeSharon(e) / Disharoon

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

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

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

Restructuring

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

E.g. - Rather than the current structure:

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


we would have something more like:

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

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

OK well that took a lot longer than I'd hoped. I'm close to making this change now and I'm looking for feedback on the mockup I have in my sandbox. Among other things I've also modified the emphasis on the "overwhelming negative reception" since every printed contemporary review I can find praises the games and gives them good scores. The negative reviews seem to be restricted to post-2000 internet critics. Any thoughts on the proposed change? -Thibbs (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing no objections to this plan, and considering that it's been proposed since 2011, I've boldly implemented it. I think it makes the most sense with regard consistency with the other multi-game spin-off Zelda articles as discussed above. Along with a general restructuring, I've also corrected a number of problematic refs (most notably in the reception section) and I've made efforts to dig up proper contemporary sourcing for the games because as it was the article read like a hit piece on the games when in fact history shows that a more nuanced reception section was required. I hope everyone likes my changes, but I'm open to further discussions if there are any problems that need addressing. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Since Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil are almost identical except in the plot and the hero (Zelda and Link respectively), is it possible for their gameplay sections (and possibly their reception sections) to be merged? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The reception for those two are actually rather distinct. Although some reviewers discuss do them together, others discuss them separately or only review one and not the other. Wand of Gamelon, for example, was reviewed on its own (apart from Faces of Evil) by EGM, GameTrailers, and Star Tribune among others. Faces of Evil, meanwhile, was reviewed separately from Wand of Gamelon by GamesRadar and in 1993 by Joystick. I've tried to provide some contemporary reviews, but I know for certain that there are more out there and I think it would be unlikely that they'd have been reviewed together in the early 1990s. So I'd be against merging those simply due to the differing receptions the games have received.
As for the gameplay, you have a point that they are largely identical. As you can see from this version of the page from 3 days ago (prior to the restructure) the gameplay sections are actually very close right now to how they've appeared for the last several years. They have only been shifted to a new position. They are certainly repetitive, though, and I think that under the previous (partially merged) version of the page it would have made sense to merge these subsections too. But I'm not really sure how merging them would be accomplished given the current structure of the page... I suppose one option would be to create a "Gameplay of Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil" subsection just below the "History of the Zelda CD-i franchise" subsection, but that seems a bit awkward to me. Did you have a specific idea for how this would best be accomplished? -Thibbs (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Another option could be to simply reword the sections so they are not as obviously just copy&paste jobs. That would at least keep the reader engaged while retaining the overall structure which I believe is a good one. I may tackle this in the next few days unless someone beats me to it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Memes?

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

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

Mah boi

Should we add that in there as well for the memes part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.9.130 (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Zelda's Adventure ref

There are claims online that CDi Magazine scored Zelda's Adventure a 84% in their Issue 17 (April 1996). I haven't been able to confirm this yet so I don't want to add the claim to the article, but if anyone can confirm this then I think we should add it to the reception section. -Thibbs (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

I think that we should do some image tweaking. To me, the most important thing to do is to implement one cover and only one cover in the lead, and feature a screenshot of Wand of Gamelon's infamous cutscenes. I don't think that the gameplay shot is nearly as noteworthy. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view the three games wouldn't adequately be represented by a single cover. There are three games in total. Which one would we select to represent all three? The purpose of a covershot is to serve as the primary visual image associated with the work, to help the reader quickly identify the work and to assure the reader that they have reached the article they were looking for. If we have an article about three different works, it stands to reason that 3 different covers should be represented. Currently links like Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure serve as redirect to the section of the larger article that discusses them in isolation. The reader clicking such a link currently gets instant identification and assurance that she is in the right place. If we randomly removed two covershots then only one in three redirect will provide covershot benefits to the reader.
Regarding the screenshots, I think they are effectively used to illustrate the significant differences between the first and second games created by Animation Magic and the notably dissimilar third game made by Viridis. If you were to play all three games back to back the gameplay aspect would be one of the most dramatic differences between them.
As for the cutcenes,... it's probably true that they represent a notable aspect of the first two games and that they could possibly be added as well, however I do worry that it would encourage more of the same infantile vandalism this article and especially its talk page has suffered from for ages. Images of the cutscenes may be necessary for a complete understanding of the modern CD-i Zelda memes, but I'm not sure they're necessary to a full and encyclopedic understanding of the games themselves. -Thibbs (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since we have to limit the images that we use, we can't afford to feature three covers in one article, for the same reason why we don't feature more than one cover image in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons. Otherwise, we would have articles such as the LCD games article for Mario games featuring more images than pretty much any article on Wikipedia. As for vandalism, that's just an unfortunate byproduct; if an image is necessary to understand - and considering some of the most famous criticisms surround the poor quality of its cutscenes - we need to include it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There are already a limited number of images in this article. There's no pressing need to further limit them because they currently comply with WP:FAIRUSE. I understand that there is some criticism about the cutscenes, but if we have to decide between showing goofy cutscenes to delight the meme aficionados and demonstrating meaningful differences between the games like the side-scrolling versus top-down difference between the first two and the third game, then I'd go with the one that is more significant to the game itself since that's the topic of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Featuring three cover arts is not acceptable, as I've said. The point of a cover art - and the reason it gets a pass - is to provide visualization for the subject of the article. That the three games don't have their own article tells us that their notability is collective, meaning that they are one subject. The simple act of being a video game does not entitle a game to have a cover art - and as for the cutscenes, it has nothing to do with the meme aficionados and everything to do with the fact that the first major criticisms anyone ever heard of the game were related to the cutscenes. Being meme-related is also not a good reason to keep something off Wikipedia. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Their notability is also individual. Look at the references. The three games are covered in one article for practical reasons and for consistency with other similar Zelda topics like LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series. But if we wanted to, we could easily split the article into 3 individual articles. There are sufficient sources to demonstrate individual notability. As for the idea that the cutscenes were the target of the first major criticisms anyone ever heard of the game... I think the references in this article demonstrate that you're wrong. Re-read the various "Reception" sections of the article. Contemporary critics praised the artwork and complained about gameplay and plot. The huge attention that was paid to the cutscenes in modern times is due in large part to the YouTube Poop meme which is excluded from this article by consensus. See the top of the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Seanbaby was a vocal critic of the game long before YouTube itself existed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article even states that the change in reception occurred in large part due to the cutscenes. How can readers understand the flaws of purely visual screenshots of the games without anything visual to work off of? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The current screenshots illustrate major differences in gameplay between the games. Goofy screenshots of King Harkonian and Ganon wouldn't do much to illustrate the writhing animation style of the cutscenes and it seems dangerously close to introducing Youtube Poop elements into this article again contrary to consensus. It's generally very hard to illustrate animated clips through static screenshots whereas it's pretty easy to highlight the differing gameplay styles between sidescroller and top-down games. It wasn't a good idea to dwell needlessly on the cutscenes in the past and I doubt it would be a good idea now either. There is already a place for thorough documentation of the silly animation and that's here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"The game's art assets" are not YouTube Poop elements. Space Channel 5 has had a YouTube poop featuring gameplay footage; does this mean that a screenshot of the game is unacceptable on Wikipedia, because it risks attracting the attention of the YouTube Poop community? I'm afraid not. Wikipedia is not censored. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And different art assets (painted backdrops, cartoony sprites, etc.) can already be seen in the current non-YTP screenshots. Again, I don't deny that the animation scenes for the first two games have become notable but I think it would be a mistake to use them to replace perfectly illustratory images that aren't so influenced by recentism. I think it's very difficult to illustrate the curious Russian animation style through motionless images, and I think that use of these images gives an improper impression that the notability of the games has always centered on their "hilarious" cutscenes. It's not out of the question to add additional images to illustrate the cutscenes, but I have misgivings about it. -Thibbs (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Your argument lives and dies by the idea that visual representation of video games is important. What guideline exists that says this? On the contrary, all we have is a guideline which states that visual representation of the article is important. For what reason do you propose doing something that is not supported by any guideline and in fact goes against one of the most significant?
As for the cutscenes, yet again, all of that doesn't matter. The text explicitly states that the cutscenes were significant to the game's reception. The idea that the original reviews of the game should carry more weight than the people who judged the game to be poor later on in its life is entirely biased. Looking at the reception, the vast majority is from modern gamers, so of course more weight should be given to them. I also have to ask, since so much of the reception and development of Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil are the same? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's easy to see how inappropriate your proposal would be for any collective topic. Let's say we were talking about an article on the musical group "The Beatles". Imagine how well it would go over if you proposed to remove all images and instead represent the group with an image of just Ringo Starr. Its just as inappropriate to represent the three games in this collective topic with a covershot of only one of them. The NFURs given for these covershots is to identify individual games and assure readers that they are in the correct place. If your proposal was implemented, a reader clicking on the redirect "Zelda's Adventure" would not be able to visually identify that she was at the right article and if she went to the top she would not likely be assured to see the covershot of a completely different game. Which of the three covershots did you think would correctly identify all three games and assure all readers? Again, three images is not excessive and the standard NFURs clearly fall within acceptable bounds of WP:FAIRUSE just as they do at all other articles where identification of individual games and assurance to readers is considered important. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the cutscenes, nobody said that the original reviews of the game carry more weight than modern reviews but it's equally true that the idea that modern reception of the game should carry more weight than the critics who reviewed the game within its time of release and against other contemporary games earlier on in its life is also entirely biased. The modern popularity of the cutscenes in places like YouTubePoop and Seanbaby doesn't provide any argument for replacing gameplay images with stillshots of an animated sequence. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous comparison. Are you suggesting that the rationale to include pictures of The Beatles is the same as including pictures of multiple images that fulfill the same visual identification? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly not the same visual identification. One visually identifies Wand of Gamelon. Another identifies Zelda's Adventure. The third identifies Faces of Evil. If someone is using the covershots as intended by the NFUR (note - this is the same covershot/boxart NFUR used on the vast majority of WP:VG articles) then how would an image of the Wand of Gamelon's coverart serve to identify the completely different Zelda's Adventure? How would it reassure a readers arriving at this article after clicking on Zelda's Adventure? You'd be stretching its NFUR far beyond what it is intended for and by diluting it so much you'd be rendering it little more than a lede paragraph decoration - a use no longer within WP:FAIRUSE. -Thibbs (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What does visual identification of a product have to do with anything? Why are you constantly making this argument without even once backing it up with a guideline or policy that would suggest that we ever do anything like that? The confusion that people would experience at not seeing Zelda's Adventure is so minimal that appropriately, no guideline exists to prevent it. Because there is no guideline that encourages what you're suggesting, please either prove me wrong and show me one, or stop suggesting it. What you need to show is that the subject of the CD-i Zelda games requires that all three cover images have three different purposes - purposes that do not include "showing you this one video game's cover". As it stands, their purposes are at best redundant, or at worst nonexistent. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the standard use for the vast majority of box/cover art in all of WP:VG's articles. Look at the NFUR for the coverart used in today's Featured Article. The use for this image is to visually identify the topic and to assure readers that they are in the correct place. Visual identification of a game through a primary visual image associated with the game as well as assuring readers that they have found what they are looking for in the context of critical commentary on a game is definitely relevant as it's the only rationale behind the overwhelming majority of our coverart images. There is longstanding consensus that this is sufficient rationale to include coverart at the top of nearly every video game article. It falls well within the bounds of Fair Use and it provides exactly the save service to the readership as do all of WP:VG's other infobox coverart images. If visual identification and assurance is not the primary reason for a coverart image then please explain what it is. What is the purpose of the coverart at Bastion (video game)? Why do we have coverart at Doom 3? Clearly the images in this article serve exactly the same purpose that all other WP:VG infobox coverart images are serving. As Dream Focus correctly points out, this is an article on 3 games. It has 3 infoboxes and requires 3 primary visual images to actually accomplish the stated NFUR goals of identification and reader assurance. -Thibbs (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If its fine for the articles if they were separate game articles, then its fine when they are altogether like this. The article is about each game, not just some vague category in general. Dream Focus 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • They would have their own cover images because having their own articles would identify them as independently notable from each other. They aren't. As such, by Wikipedia standards, the subject is one article, not three video games. No guideline exists that even remotely defends your stance on the matter. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Are there not enough references in each section to justify their own separate articles? And guidelines don't include every single thing, but you can easily add that if necessary to clarify it for you. Dream Focus 22:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, "being helpful" has never been a fair use rationale. Otherwise, this page would be loaded with tons of "helpful" images. PS: Do you mind if I condense the reception and development of the two games together, since it's largely the same? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There are three games not two, and their reception sections are different obviously. Dream Focus 22:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between the development is that one game had more voice actors. The only difference in reception for Wand of Gamelon are four sources; almost everything in these two sections is the same content. It's repetitive, and frankly if it isn't fixed I can't in good conscious not bring it to GAR. The entire development section for the two games is almost word-for-word the same. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (extended table on a tangential topic collapsed by Thibbs (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

Why are you still responding to me if you won't even read what I'm saying? Why am I still asking for this mythical guideline that would state that an article about multiple video games warrants multiple cover arts for each game? How is using three cover arts okay when the only guidelines in this discussion specifically state that cover arts should be used at the top of the article to represent the subject? And why is it okay for an article with three games to have three covers, but not an article with 15? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of things in this article that represent editorial discretion instead of guideline dictates. Under your argument it would be possible to remove anything from the article. Anybody could say "show me the policy that states that this article must mention Zelda! You can't? Well then we'll just cut out all reference to this character." No, the question isn't whether a guideline mandates the content in the article but rather whether the article violates any guidelines. It doesn't. This is a proper Fair Use inclusion and it isn't excessive like your example of 15 images. The topic of this article is 3 different games. There is no way to represent that in a single image in a single infobox at the top like we see at articles written on individual games. The 3 images' NFURs clearly state that the reason for their inclusion is identification and assurance and indeed we notice that this is the very same reason for the inclusion of coverart/boxart images on the vast majority of WP:VG's articles. These images clearly fall within the boundaries of Fair Use. They provide the same benefits in this articles as all boxart/coverart images do in all other articles. I see no reason to remove them. -Thibbs (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Your argument is quite ridiculous. The obvious difference is that the inclusion of free text is not something that must be worried about, unless the text is irredeemably terrible or simply irrelevant to the subject at hand. You continue to fail at grasping the point - there NEEDS to be an argument for including these images because images are copyrighted material. The argument that free use text doesn't have a policy defending it - and it actually does since the project encourages free use text over anything - is that if an image is not explicitly needed it's in the project's best interest to not have it on this website. More important than this invented quality guideline that cover arts should be included to represent the individual games discussed in this article is the guideline that suggests that cover arts should only be used to visually identify the subject of the article. Any more than one cover art, there must be a valid reason to include them to the point where the images rather than the video games that the images are about must be noteworthy. Every article you've mentioned is absolutely unrelated to what's going on here. Doom 3 uses one image at the top of the article. The Simpsons Hit & Run uses one image at the top of the article. Bastion uses one image at the top of the article. CD-i games in The legend of Zelda series uses three cover arts throughout the article. How many articles do that that are GA/FA? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
You have yet to link "the guideline that suggests that cover arts should only be used to visually identify the subject of the article", but from this description of it I'd say that is precisely what these images are doing. They are visually identifying the subject of the article. It is very clearly a collective subject for which an image of a single game to represent all three would be as ridiculous as using Ringo Starr to represent The Beatles. Except by cobbling together some kind of collage shot there is no way to find an image to represent all three games in one image. The justification for each image is that it visually identifies a third of the topic. Together all 3 are explicitly needed to visually identify the entire topic just as the single images at Doom 3 and Bastion visually identify their entire topics. That is the valid reason to include all 3 rather than just arbitrarily selecting one. The justification for using one Viridis-copyrighted image and two Animation-Magic-copyrighted images is the Fair Use Doctrine. What would be the rationale for including only your favorite coverart as the only representative of 3 different games? How could anyone justify using a single Beatle to represent the group? -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note also: I've collapsed the very long block of evidence above that WoG and FoE share similarities. Save your effort - I'll gladly concede the point. They were both developed by Animation Magic and were both released at the same time. Coverage of them in the RSes (especially modern sources) may occur in the same source for this reason although as Dream Focus points out they usually received individualized criticism and different review scores. And of course their plots are completely different. The article does indeed have repetitive sections and its structure could certainly be reviewed and possibly improved but let's start a new thread for that discussion. Assuming this isn't really a backdoor effort to get some of the boxcover/coverarts deleted, the structure of the article really has next to nothing to do with images. -Thibbs (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • How would it be a backdoor effort? The effort to split the article would actually result in one fewer image being deleted. It's also not your place to determine the value of others' posts. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • If you try to force the three different games into the common template used for individual games then the individual game redirects will be broken and this would reduce the capacity for the images to identify and assure. Coincidentally that would seem to strengthen your push to delete all but one of the coverarts. That's what I mean by a backdoor effort. And I don't understand what you mean by saying that it's not my place to determine the value of others' posts. I evaluate and consider the arguments of my peers all the time. Are you saying that I've assumed bad faith in your motives? I think I was pretty explicit above in saying that I assumed you were not making a backdoor effort. I certainly hope you're not. Why don't we start a new thread to discuss the issue? -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Breaking discussion out of the block of text. First off, Thibbs, how could I be going for a backdoor effort to remove the images when my suggestion works to remove one fewer image than the alternative? Why would having two articles constitute only having one image? Anyway, let's go into the subject of necessity versus utility. It's -nice- to be able to have three box arts to show each game equally, but it's not a necessity, it's simply useful, which has never been a good reason in and of itself to feature a copyrighted image (which Wikipedia wants fewer of if possible). The decision gathered by a consensus during an RfC on the matter of cover arts is that if a subject is noteworthy enough to have its own article, featuring the cover art in the article's infobox/lead is justifiable due to the fact that it is the primary image to be used to identify the subject. Cover arts, with exceptions, exist ONLY to provide an image to help the readers understand the -subject-. That the subject being notable entails that the image is noteworthy for use. That isn't the case here. Zelda's Adventure, Link: The Faces of Evil, and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon were put together because they weren't notable enough to stand on their own as articles. As a result, the EXCEPTION made for cover arts doesn't apply here, because the individual games are not the subject of the article, the games collectively are part of a greater single subject. Going back, you once stated that if there were say, eight games discussed in this article, it may be inappropriate to give them each a cover art. Why though? The argument used by you is that people would be confused if they searched for Zelda's Adventure and it didn't have its own cover art. Wouldn't confusion exist for people searching for those eight games with only one cover art being shown? Why is three okay? What justifies this rule of three? The fact is that cover arts period were at one time in dispute for use and had an RfC to determine whether cover arts actually fulfilled WP:NFCC. It was determined that it succeeded at fulfilling the eighth criteria. The result was that the image and article work together to determine notability. Not the image and the video game or album or movie or TV show or comic book, but the article. Why is it that you only cite examples where the articles explicitly only use one cover art? Doom 3 has Resurrection of Evil expansion pack, but it doesn't give it an image in the article itself because covers are explicitly used for the lead infobox. Ico uses two cover arts because the second cover art is famous for its poor quality. Mega Man has two for the very same reason. The logic of having three images is that the three games would have to be notable enough that people being confused by the lack of an image would be a big enough problem to discuss. If they do not have an article, it stands to reason that this is an assumed problem. If that logic is enough - people might be confused by the lack of a cover art - numerous games have numerous different cover arts. Let's say that Ico wasn't famous for its bad cover art so that the article didn't have it. Wouldn't people in America be confused by the European cover art, which shows two very distant people walking versus a close-up of the protagonist? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly didn't get the impression you were suggesting splitting them. It sounded above like you were arguing to merge them because "That the three games don't have their own article tells us that their notability is collective". I don't see any reason to split them up really. As I said above I do think they are notable enough to stand alone, but this is the way all non-main-series Zelda games have been handled. Splitting isn't really necessary for size reasons and the benefits of keeping them as one article is that it's easier for readers to compare and contrast them. I don't think this is the only way to justify keeping the covershots. Could you link the RfC you mentioned? -Thibbs (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting

I've taken the initiative (with another person) to split the three games into two articles. At this stage, I think this article would be best served if it was basically stripped down. I assume a GAR would be necessary? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Three articles might've made sense. Why group two of them together? They were sold as separate games, and have separate reviews. I notice of course in your new article for two games, you don't have an infobox or image for one of the games. The concerns expressed in the talk page section above seemed to have been valid. Dream Focus 08:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • They were three separate pages once, but do to lack of references they merged all three articles into one. There is enough coverage of each to justify their own separate articles. I have thus done that. There is no possible reason to have two of the games stuck together, simply because they were released at the same time. Dream Focus 08:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I have already explained in excruciating detail why the two games are grouped together. Do you really not understand the problem of the fact that two articles are almost identical? Do I need to indicate the flaws of there being two articles that have more content shared between them than original content? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I read both of them and they have ample difference between them. I won't bother trying to argue with you, since no chance of either of us convincing the other. I'll just wait for future input from others so a proper consensus can be formed. Dream Focus 09:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Why is it okay to just say "well they're obviously different, it's not my fault you don't see them". The gameplay is literally the same. Same sword and shield mechanics, same health mechanics. Word-for-word. The development has ONE difference and it's that Gamelon has more voice actors. The developer and publisher is the same. The entire last paragraph of reception is the same. It's actual lying to say otherwise because one can actually see that numerous parts of the two articles have content that is word-for-word the same. THAT is why they were merged in the first place. Not a lack of sourcing, the problem was that the two games were notable as a pair, not as two single articles, because their notability is almost exclusively paired together. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
          • A lot of games have the same gameplay. A lot of games have the same developer and publisher. Not valid reasons to combine them together. Dream Focus 09:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Can you cite a game that has the same developer, publisher, release date, development history, characters, staff, (mostly) same reception, and genre as another game that isn't grouped with it in the same article? Why do we need two articles where one would suffice? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
              • One featured Link and the other had the player controlling Zelda. So not really the same characters, unless you count the cutscenes at the beginning and end. And yes, I can name quite a number of games that had the same developer, publisher, staff. Most game series come from the same people working on them. Some might leave the development team or new people might join at times, but they use the same game designer more often than not. And why do we need three or four articles when just this one article did suffice? Dream Focus 09:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
                • Playing as Link and playing as Zelda is plot elements. And sorry, but when did I ask for "same developer, publisher, and staff"? I asked for "same gameplay, development, reception, publisher, developer, staff, characters, and release date". Why won't you do such an evidently simple task? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • Why would I bother answering such stupidity? What does the release date have to do with anything? The staff is the same in many games, as I have mentioned. Most Zelda games have Link and Zelda and Ganon in them, so the same characters are there. Dream Focus 09:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • For the love of god why are you ignoring my request. I specifically asked for an example that has the same of EVERYTHING I MENTIONED. The release date matters because two games releasing on the same day is an addition to the stack of intentional similarities between the two games. Either you provide an example of what I'm asking for - and protip I'm NOT asking for something that does one or two things the same, but two articles where the content has more similarities than differences (as Link and Zelda very obviously have) or you concede that these games having their articles would make them the ONLY articles on Wikipedia where this is the case. Are you suggesting that an exception exists that only applies to two video games ever? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Perhaps if you could explain what the combined article fails to accomplish that having two articles fulfills? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you can explain what this one article fails to accomplish that having separate articles fulfills? Dream Focus 09:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that the original merge discussion to put three game articles together as one in this article, had most people participating opposed to it. Just one guy argued everyone else to death to get what he wanted, and ignored consensus. [2] Dream Focus 09:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: As a reader, do you prefer that if you wanted to learn about the three CD-i Zeldas that you would have to re-read five paragraphs of content that are almost word-for-word the same? What benefit to uninformed readers exists to have these games separate? I hate to repeat my earlier question, but my, will you please give me an example of two games that are as similar to each other as these two CD-i games are, since you're implying that there is? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Having them grouped together doesn't cause any size-related problems and helps the reader to compare them. For example, the gameplay screenshots showing that the first two games were sidescrollers and the third was a top-down game could easily be referenced and compared within the single article. This is an important difference between them that many modern readers only familiar with the YTP treatment of the games would fail to grasp. Retro Gamer did a whole article on how fans think the third one is just like the first two and how they are wrong. If there are two separate articles a reader would have to be linked to the other article to compare gameplay differences and this would detract from her ability to compare them. I assume that your next step will be to replace the one from FoE and WoG with stillshots of the hilarious animation FMVs anyway, correct?
Anyway it looks like you've performed a wonderful example of WP:FAITACCOMPLI in your efforts here. I don't really understand why you failed to mention in talk here that you were having quiet one-sided discussions in the background at WT:VG or why you completely ignored my objections of 23:31, 17 September 2013 before making your against-consensus split here. But as with any good fait accompli, reversing your executive decision would now be difficult and I guess the best move would be to simply step aside and let you have your own way. The end result is worse in my view, but not entirely unworkable. I just wish you'd treated the editors here as peers and collaborators whose views mattered to you instead of as obstacles to your ownership of the article. Pretty shabby behavior in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Note also: I also don't agree at all that "this article would be best served if it was basically stripped down". Please show the guideline that would state that a properly-sourced article about multiple video games warrants stripping down. -Thibbs (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you want me to explain why an article should not literally say the same thing twice? Why having two paragraphs that are word-for-word the exact same is - amazingly enough - very very bad? I didn't think "elementary writing" was something I would have to explain, but whatever. I would suggest that you quit editing Wikipedia if your contributions to discussions are back-biting, willfully misinterpretations of the opposition's argument. To assume that I would remove the gameplay images in favour of FMVs because I think that the article should adhere to fair use guidelines is the same thing as me assuming that you wanting to keep the article the way it was and keep all three cover images means that your goal is to make the worst article on Wikipedia. Which is a lot more likely considering that the way you want it set up is the factually worse idea provided in any of these discussions. By the way, free text is a perfectly viable option to a screenshot of Zelda's Adventure. If readers are told that Zelda's Adventure is not a sidescrolling game and has live action FMVs, wherein lies this supposed confusion? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The way to solve problems with the prose is not to make the executive decision to split when you clearly know that there is unanswered opposition to the action. Rather than even bothering to answer the objections you went ahead with your own decision because you didn't want to discuss it. Now it's a completed act and it's difficult to reverse so you've de facto won the argument by taking executive actions despite all objections. That is a very poor way to work with your peers. That's not a misrepresentation in any way. Can you explain why you failed to mention that you were having discussions on this topic in another forum? -Thibbs (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Your only objection to the split has been the claim that Wikipedian readers are very, very stupid and do not comprehend information through free use text. What reason is there to oppose a non-controversial split? And yes, it is non-controversial, because your earlier opposition (as it turned out to be apparently) was "this is how Zelda compilation articles are done". Well, first off, in this situation you were the only one against splitting. Secondly, you stated that they were notable enough to stand on their own. Thirdly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The LCD games article is the way it is because the games are so small and niche that none of them have enough discussion about the game or things to say about the game to stand on their own. The Satellaview games don't stand on their own because they are Japan-only, released through a service that makes importing markedly harder or even impossible, and as such haven't the reception to make them worthwhile articles. The CD-i games have enough development and reception to justify being split apart (well, Zelda's Adventure is different enough from the other two anyway). Each game has its own story that are actually quite lengthy. And Zelda's Adventure has distinctly different gameplay, where all three have a lot to say about how their games play (again, at least in ZA's case). Beyond all that, you are perfectly able to undo the edits made to this main article. It is literally accomplished by maybe four or five clicks. I will say though that much worse than my being bold and taking the initiative to split the article up into two articles which both had very different content from one another is being in a discussion with someone who was stonewalling any progress rather intently at fixing the image problem. It's pretty frustrating throwing guideline after guideline that explicitly states the purpose of cover arts being different than how they were being used in this case, only to be responded to with a statement that the images should stay so that people can see what the games' covers look like (a rationale not suggested by any fair use guideline). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs to where I said that "Wikipedian readers are very, very stupid"? I can't remember making that claim. I do remember making the claim that the rationale for coverart images across all of WP:VG is to identify the topic and assure to assure readers that they are in the right place. I also remember saying that for a collective topic like this or The Beatles, it's an unworkable solution to depict one member of the group as a representative of the entire group. I understand that you've become concerned about Wikipedia's legal liability recently but I can give you my complete assurance that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Your executive decision to split the article may have been acceptable under WP:BOLD had it come out of the blue, but we were in the middle of a discussion and you knew there were objections to it. Rather than addressing the objections you started a separate thread at WT:VG without informing anyone at the talk page here. I was amazed to wake up this morning to find that the deed has already been accomplished during the evening. My last objection dangles above unanswered. Do you not see how contributors who were editing here might have been interested in expressing their contrary views at WT:VG just as you had a chance to, New Age Retro Hippie? Maybe it was just a coincidental oversight on your part but wow what an unfortunate coincidence for those who had expressed objections. -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Reviewers said different things about the different games, they didn't all just group them together. One reference to Wired was just a video of two guys talking about all of the games released on the CD-i, the three Zelda games and a Mario Hotel, but each section said something different about it. They did mention that the second game, where you played as Zelda, you didn't have one attack that you had in the first. So there were differences. There is different information to be written about them. The original articles that existed before the original merge had different information. The creator of the games did a 3 page interview [3] and mentioned each game got a separate 600,000 budget. Dream Focus 14:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the Zelda and Link game together. They are effectively companion games, equivalent in nature to the dual Pokemon releases. Yes, they have different plot and different reception, but the gameplay and development are essentially equal, and normally both games are spoken of in the same breath. Yes, both could be standalone articles per notability guidelines, but this is a case where a more comprehensive article is obtained by talking about both games at the same time. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Zelda and link games have been released on the same day, have the exact same gameplay, and the same reception or at least both are covered together. The only differences are plot, in which pokemon games tend to have the subtlest of differences when it comes to plot. Unless you can find information other than plot that doesn't apply to the other game aswell, it shouldn't be separated.Lucia Black (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No evidence for statement

"this is attributable to the reaction of many gamers to the obscure games' full motion video cutscenes when they first became widely available through video-sharing websites like YouTube. Because the aging early 1990s visual effects of the titles failed to live up to the graphic effects of the 2000s, and because for many fans this was their first experience of the games"

I doubt this is true - it is attributable to awful production value on a time crunch, and truly awful gameplay (a problem endemic to the CD-i across the board). - superβεεcat  04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is a casual observation, not evidence. I understand how the cutscenes wouldn't hold up 10 years later, but the gameplay was clunky even for 1993. 96.244.187.173 (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda_CD-i_games/Archive_1&oldid=1137237118"