Talk:Universe of The Legend of Zelda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Timeline[edit]

It is mentioned that the gorons first appeared in OoT, however they appear in games prior to the N64 era as enemies. I don't think it would be in the best interest of the article to make the elements of this page within the universe itself, but rather from the perceptive of the individuals observing the universe. Timeline should be referenced in accordance to game release timeline not the fiction canon timeline to enable consistency. When the Zelda Universe become a stable and completely consistent chronology, then that timeline can be used to describe the individual elements of the Universe in their own pages. Till then, the article shouldn't seek complete detail but rather be a general overview. ~Arctic Stigma~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.38.144 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There may have been enemies that resembled the Gorons in games previous to OoT, but they weren't actually Gorons - same goes as the land-based Octoroks that look like Deku Scrubs. groovygower (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Tribes[edit]

The previous article was not renamed because noone ever brought it up for discussion, and moving a page specifically requires discussion.

As for Gorons - in nearly every game in which they appear, they are called "the Goron tribe". As a whole. Exactly as my header would suggest. Their current header even includes that, and multiple discussions on the Races talk page explain that as well. Maybe...participating in editing an article more than just calling for its merge would answer these questions for you.

Instead of reverting this - do people think the section should be titled:

  • Demographics
  • Races
  • Tribes

?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. Yes, they describe them as a tribe. Do they call every single Goron as a part of a tribe? If so, revert back. If not, they're the Goron race. You cite each individual game's description of the Gorons in that game as a tribe, not "the collective of all Gorons".
  2. And your proposal seems to suggest that we should discuss Zoras, Gorons, Dekus, etc. in three separate sections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
To explain, as explained over and over on the original page (as I already mentioned) - the word "tribe" is used in every other game but OoT in the exact same context as "race" is in OoT, the only game to use the word. It is a translation from the Japanese word "Zoku", roughly meaning "species, race, tribe, or group".
In the future, please actually look into previous discussions if someone says "this has already been discussed". I checked into the merge-discussion section before reverting when you said there was consensus, and I checked all of TTN's talk-page edits for the last month when you said he had agreed with the merge. It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you asserting that removing content that has been unsourced for years is bad? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure what this has to do with whether we name the section "Demographics", "Tribes", or "Races". If you are referencing the discussion higher in the page, then I will reiterate - I see no point in encouraging your continued lies and misrepresentations, and I see no point in discussion between only two editors on almost opposite sides of the point. So long as you wait to "trim" the section until other major editors for the project add input, I won't revert the merge or add more info to the section.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash." My bad - it's too high of an expectation to assume that you can remember something you said five minutes ago in this section.
And this discussion is going in circles because you refuse to acknowledge any question I've ever asked you. Act as if you have any integrity and answer me. Like I said, that you did not give any examples of content related to Twilis, Minish, etc. that needs to be here and isn't already covered elsewhere is that it doesn't exist. Give me any good reason to believe otherwise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'll reply:
...I said "five minutes ago", that "in nearly every game in which they appear, they are called "the Goron tribe". As a whole." - exactly which I reiterated, and provided a more in-depth explanation. How is that forgetting what I said five minutes ago?
I explained specifically, with the Oocca as an example, which are not "covered elsewhere" on the page you said they were. In any capacity or definition of "covered". I specifically mentioned that "they created the Hylia" was an important facet of them that needs to be covered - AND ISN'T.
I have to ask at this point, since each of these points has been fairly prominent in my replies - are you only here to troll? I find it hard to assume good faith when you constantly accuse me of violating the guidelines, acting without integrity, etc., when I've already covered your objections exactly as you demand me to. You almost refuse to participate in actually adding or modifying content to the pages you "trim", claim consensus when the other editors participating in the discussion vehemently disagree with you, and generally act like someone who is either intentionally disruptive or incredibly negligent.
So, instead of me constantly answering your objections - may I have a turn at asking you to "acknowledge" a question, and ask you to explain these actions of yours?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash.It would be nice if you could give more than superficial consideration to the content you slash. Do you read? Do you understand English? Do you understand that I am responding to something you said in THIS VERY SECTION. Are you that inept that you can't comprehend this? That a statement you made in this discussion is 100% relevant to my reply to it?
  2. Why does it matter that I was mistaken about which page covered Ooccoo? The characters of TP SAYS THIS IN THE FIRST LINE OF THE OOCCOO SECTION, a fact which would have been obvious if you went to the page (funny how you criticize ME for not looking at the pages I mention).
  3. And no, I'm not a troll. For one, calling someone's edit lazy when they spent one hour assessing which should remain and which should be deleted, cleaning up the content of multiple sections in the merged section, is going to make them react. And continuing to react to the reactions that you coerced is going to incite people. You never explained what content about Twili, Phantom, etc. needs to be mentioned here that isn't mentioned anywhere else, you answered me with an answer that does not answer the question at all. And for another, editors? I'm almost positive that you are not multiple people, and I'm 100% positive that the opposition is just you. Act like a competent person, and actually discuss this with some integrity and not throw insults around and you won't get a negative response to your comments.
  1. Well, answer me this - is it lazy to not clean my garbage? No, so why is it lazy for me to not clean up the Races page's garbage? You were the first person to throw any negative comment out, and the fact that you have been consistently throwing insults my way absolves you of any right to condemn my response to you. Nice try on trying to dodge my question. Now that I answered your question that you JUST asked, why don't you act like an adult and respond to my freaking question? If you are right, why can't you even prove it by answering me ONCE? I have asked this freaking question so many times, and you have not answered me - TELL ME ONE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE HERE ABOUT THE TWILI THAT ISN'T ALSO SOMEWHERE ELSE? If you can't answer me, then you are wrong - so you can either answer my damned question, or accept that you're wrong. And Hell, thank you for wasting my time in your stupid discussion. If you want to be an adult and have a legitimate discussion where you don't play roundabout with it constantly, contact me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well for one, that you're yelling at me for "not stating which info is missing from x page". That's the info that's missing from that page. It's not on that page. Yes, you did later change which page you wanted me to look at and I didn't get belligerent about the change. I went to the new page you listed, and looked again, and stated what was missing.
It was lazy. There was discussion before and after in which I explained that I thought the demographics section should have a certain focus - and you even removed a comment to that effect in order to port over a few sections about the OoT races. I have consistently explained why such a focus is idiotic.
I apologize for only giving an example for one section, of why it was missing info, when I was trying to call for other editors discussion in order to defuse the situation. If you want an extended list of the specific one's you asked for, and not a general example of why this needs to have wider discussion and not unilateral trimming, it's on your talk page.
"Editors" - I am asking about your general behavior - you have exhibited this on the Enemies page, and are even complaining about the opposing editors here. You know damn well I was talking about that.
I answered with the Oocca, answered with the Gods/Spirits, and then went and answered again in detail for the Oocca, and then in detail on your talk page for all the others. I think that should at least qualify for "once". Calling your edit "lazy" and your claims of consensus "false" was correct - your claims of TTN's support are either lies or not allowable according to wiki guidelines (if he gave support off-wiki), and Randomran did not participate in the discussion or give any explanation as to why he supported a merge - It was a "Yes" and then a run away. Furthermore, neither they nor you had contributed at all to that article, and they were not major contributors to the project as a whole. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and quite honestly, they're opinions (if TTN even voiced one, which I still doubt) didn't really have that much weight. I have similarly been laughed at for supporting merges on articles related to mythology or medicine - and I didn't bitch about it and feign surprise afterwards. Next - your edit, in which you simply copy-pasted, then removed sections you did not like, was lazy - merging involves integrating the info into the style and context of the target article, and "merging or moving" articles is mentioned over and over in the guidelines as something that needs consensus and community support, not unilateral action - which is why I asked at the beginning for an "example draft", of how this could be properly merged. Instead, you started whining at me.
I hereby apologize for any time I have called you moronic, idiotic, or similar terms - except for the above two exemptions explained above, I will go ahead and admit that I was probably wrong, in a continued attempt to defuse the situation and seek compromise. As stated several times, I don't see any possibility for you to allow compromise or consensus to occur without brute-force majority voting, so I will try to leave the article and discussion until such a thing occurs, or at the very least someone else weighs in - even someone whose not a project contributor, even TTN or Randomran.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Way to apologize and then throw out a new insult immediately afterward. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
As explained in the above comment - I apologized for where I could be wrong. I'm not going to promise to always only speak well of you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
So, case-in-point, it's not an apology, it's a thinly veiled attempt to pretend to be the good guy, when in reality you've been responsible for instigating this entire flame war. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Link, you have just as much fault as Kryten in this flame war, but it looked like at least he was being the bigger man by realize the feud would go nowhere without more input. In any case, this discussion has shifted from constructive consensus to ad hominem attacks. The dispute already looks disolved, so there no more need to insult each other. Artichoker[talk] 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That he "calls for the discussion to end" in between throwing AROUND those ad hominem attacks, I mean, I might just be crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's not being the "bigger man", but someone continuing to instigate the discussion - I'm not about to let him get a pat on the back because he decided to be the "bigger man" by calling for the flame war to end in between his flames. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I'm a jackass. To be clear, though, this:
"TN agrees, I agree, Randomman agrees, you disagree. That's a 75% consensus in favor of merging, and you're the sole dissenter, so at what point is it necessary to scream otherwise?"
Is what started the flame war - and the fact that at no point did you ever back up this claim, but continued to make fun of me for disagreeing with this. But just to make it clear - I'm not trying to be the bigger man. I was a jackass. I'm not even going to apologize for most of what I called you, because I still stand by it - so I'm an unapologetic jackass as well. But I'm willing to stop complaining about it and try to look for wider input.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least your honest about something. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Whoaho, seems like you guys are having a quite a content dispute. I won't even try to stick any comments into that dense text filled with arguing. Instead I shall respond to KrytenKoro's original question of what the section should be titled.

  • Demographics - Nope, the section is hardly demographic at all. The term "demographics" basically means statistical data of a population, including age, income, education, etc. I'm not seeing much of that in this section.
  • Races - This was the original name of the article before it was merged, and this is also the word I best believe represents the information that is said in the section. The section is simply of list of races in the Legend of Zelda series.
  • Tribes - The term "tribe" is more specific than "races", and I believe slightly inaccurate. Not all of the races mentioned in the section are tribes.

In conclusion, I believe naming it Races would be the most appropriate. Artichoker[talk] 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Aritchoker: races probably makes the most sense, of the ones suggested. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Races it is.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If were going to ruin the page by merging we might as well keep up with eveything that was established in the old article. Races should be the overall name and tribes should be used in the article which is what has been setup. however i think the pages should be unmerged. (see next article)LegendLiver (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythology[edit]

The "formation" section, the God's and spirits section, and the Triforce, Master Sword, and other holy item sections would probably do better at the top, or in some way near each other, as ALTTP earlier suggested. I have tried to collect and clean up the main myths and legends on documents on my PC - ranging from the creation myth to the "Dark Rites of the Gerudo". If anyone else thinks it's a good idea to have a main-section for mythology, I can post up what I have.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I Protest[edit]

There is no way that these pages are joining i fought to hard last time.I dont even care what happens im making a new races page and i like to see someone stop me.LegendLiver (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been posted. Races within the Legend of Zelda series. Please dont rule this out. The article will not benefit from being merged. The Universe page is already loaded with information and the former Races page will become neglected. I hope that those of you who still want a seperate Races page will join me in my cause and give citations. (my most recent page version, which i uploaded in case anything was lost in transition, does not have citations).LegendLiver (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask why, after many years, the article would magically gain sources? The sources simply do NOT exist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
What? The races article already has 36 separate citations. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
i personally dont have any of the sources previously listed if anyone knows which ones were listed feel free to post them.LegendLiver (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Instead of attempting to be disruptive, why not prove that the article needs to be reinstated, by addressing the sourcing problems at the last one? At that link, I have a copy of the page in its last state that I saved before the deletion - if you'd like to work on it until you feel it is in good shape, and then ask others to rate it, that would be more constructive than remaking and un-redirecting the situation we're at now. For assistance, there is a list of references in the archive here - if you could add those to the draft, that would be a good start towards making the page viable on its own.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, Gordon, clarification - there aren't adequate sources. Quotes from the games are not adequate by any mean. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Google News search:
Highlighted results:
Best in use for Minish section. This kind of sourcing would be best for Twili, Phantoms, and the OoT races.
This would be more appropriate for a lead-in, summarizing how races interact.
Also more appropriate for a lead-in, about how Link can sometimes join these races.
Google search:
  • Game Design as Cultural Practice: a blog post specifically focusing on the races at one point that seems almost professional enough to use for notability. At the very least, for sourcing, or as a springboard for our own summaries.
The rest of the results seem to be fansites, and anything useful would be one in a hundred. If anyone finds anything, great, but I think that ign/1up/etc. articles or excerpts from player's guides would be the only other places to find sources outside of the games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Link, what do you mean by "The sources simply do NOT exist." and "Quotes from the games are not adequate by any mean."? Are you claiming that the cited sources are inadequate to establish notability, or are you claiming that video game quotes are not acceptable for any purposes? In the latter case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games and the existance and widespread use of Template:Cite video game would indicate that many editors do not share your views. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Having dealt with this complaint many times in AfD's - the solution is not to quibble about sources, alone. The most important thing to do is to find as many usable sources as you can, and then it's up to the opponent to demonstrate they are unacceptable. The Races article might actually have some of this in previous AfD's. However, ALttP is right that the article needs a substantial amount of independent sources to establish notability - take what I listed above, and try to go further with it.

To throw in my two cents, the problem with an independent article is that it will not meet WP:V and WP:N. According to WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And according to WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Basically, we need sources on the races that don't come from instruction manuals, game guides, and the game itself. It has to be covered by some independent video game journalists or scholars. That's the same standard we hold for all our articles. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...yeah...eight or so independent sources above that could almost certainly be used to help demonstrate notability. I'm really having trouble understanding this pervasive mentality in fiction articles that independent sources almost never exist - especially for international brands like this, they most certainly do, and the problem is only in looking.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Map[edit]

I think we should use a more official map at the top of the article, such as the one from Ocarina of Time. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If we can find one. Don't forget, it's probably copyrighted. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.68.234 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a map in A Link to the Past. 68.4.214.54 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Trimming the Races section[edit]

Well, the page is getting pretty big, so we need to reopen discussion.

My proposal of what to trim...

  1. Anouki tribe - Should be covered in PH's plot summary.
  2. Cobble - Same as above.
  3. Fishman - Only relevance is in gameplay for TWW.
  4. Goblins - Very few goblins act as characters or in a tribal function, and are covered in the enemies page.
  5. Golden Frogs - Only relevance is in gameplay for PH.
  6. Ho Ho Tribe - Minor appearances in only two games.
  7. Wind Tribe - Adequately covered in plot of TMC and characters of TMC.
  8. Koroks - Should be mentioned in characters of TWW article and in the plot for TMC, but could be mentioned shortly in Kokiri's section.
  9. Merfolk - Pure original research. It attempts to make a connection that does not seem to exist, making reference to someone who isn't even a mermaid to establish that merfolk recur.
  10. Oocca - Covered in characters of TP and the plot of TP.
  11. Rito - Should be in TWW's characters list and plot section, but could be mentioned in Zora's section.
  12. Spirits - It's not really a race. It should be covered somewhere else in the article.
  13. Subrosians and Salona - The connection between the two is speculative.
  14. Tokay - Only one game.
  15. Twili - Covered in TP's plot.
  16. Yamatami tribe - Only one game.
  17. Yeti and Yook tribe - Only one game for each.
  18. Zuna - Only one game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Minor tribe with no real impact in the story, sure.
  2. Slightly less minor, but not much more.
  3. Sure.
  4. In TWW they are given a lot of screen-time as a functioning culture, it's just they aren't shown talking to Link. I think this should be kept.
  5. Sure
  6. Sure
  7. The Wind Tribe are a fairly major part of the backstory in TMC, and I feel they should be kept here. They're not really "characters" anyway.
  8. Same as above - they should be combined with the Kokiri, though
  9. Sure
  10. Oocca - very important in the series universe. Should be kept.
  11. Unfortunately, the link to Zora still isn't accepted by everyone, and it's only strong evidence - never an outright claim. So it should stay separate, with some mention of the evidence.
  12. Sure.
  13. Subrosians are quite important, having their own world, and a huge part of the Oracle plots.
  14. Sure
  15. But they should be covered here, since they are a huge part of the Triforce backstory
  16. Sure
  17. Sure
  18. Sure

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way - the Animal Tribe was first "united" in Link's Awakening, so it's not OR. It is also a reoccuring part of the setting. If the animal's do end up removed, though, the Monkey's should get a split section, as they're even shown with a monarchy-ish.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The Minish are also incredibly important to the backstory.
Animal Tribe is only in one game, though. And the Minish are already covered adequately in the characters for TMC page and TMC itself. If Minish needs to be covered, it shouldn't be as a race. By the sheer fact that Minish's character section on the TMC character list is very similar, keeping it on the Races section is too redundant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that I don't think they should be on the character lists, especially if they're a major story-important race. I can see it as somewhere to put the one-off minor races we don't want to cover here, but the ones that set up the cosmology, though only appearing in one game, are often used to explain mysteries in other games, or otherwise effect the setting of the other games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of Moblins, it's already covered in almost the same capacity on the enemies page, which means we have to remove this one or that one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd remove it from there, since the way things are looking, that one's going to be ganked anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
If, ah, if we're going to nuke the character articles, specifically their coverage of the less-primary races, we probably need to bring that coverage back here. Why was this suddenly done, actually?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Which characters, exactly, do you make reference to? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The Cobble and Anouki on the PH page, for example. As I understood it, we removed them from here because they weren't integral to the overall series plot, and so could be left in the individual game character lists.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Or we could seperate the pages again and create a new page that way the information could all be in one place! (like it was before)LegendLiver (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a page for ALL the races of the LoZ universe, not just a select few. Go ahead and cover the single-game characters in their own games, maybe add some wikilinks, but still leave the entries here. There's always Ctrl-F if you've got trouble finding a specific.Supernerd11 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Excess images[edit]

I kind of get why we have several Hyrule Castle images, since the article discusses the stylistic changes, even though 3 for one landmark seems slightly excessive. However, the Lost Woods image really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article. Is there anything we can replace it with?

Also, can we get a Death Mountain image, possibly the long-view one from OoT, with smoke around the peak? Especially if we could get a child and adult version, we could justify that as depicting the changes Ganondorf wrought.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we even really need an image for the Lost Woods? I'm hard pressed to think of a shot (in-game) that would show anything but some trees. I would tend to disagree with removing the picture for Spectacle Rock, at least until we can get better shots of Death Mountain from OoT. Hermione1980 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The Spectacle Rock image is of little use to this article, and doesn't depict Death Mountain very well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
True, but it's what we have at this point. That's the only reason I said what I said. If it's going to be removed from this article, it probably needs to be deleted, as it is a fair-use image not being used currently in any article. Hermione1980 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminans?[edit]

I don't mean to go on a rant here, so don't take it that way. I realize now that, since the term "Terminans" isn't used by reliable sources, according to the policies, it shouldn't be included. However, I feel there should be some mention, as many people call them Terminans and think it silly to call them Hylians, as "HYlian" sounds like "HYrule" and hence, is assumed to mean someone in Hyrule. Zeldapedia has an article for Terminans, and though I understand Wikipedia is broader, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any trace of the term (inans, LOL) on the site. I checked a MM text dump, and they aren't ever called Terminans OR Hylians. Fans that look in this article will have no idea what to call them still.

Do you get what I'm saying? If you don't want to have any mention, however, that's fine with me, as long as you have a better reason to counter mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.68.234 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the revert comment, the prologues (especially in Twilight Princess) make it clear that Hyrule is named after the race, not before. Thus, there is no reason to call the MM version "Terminans" after their kingdom, when their Hyrulian counterparts are named after, well, themselves. The only reasoning behind using "Terminan" would apply to every character in MM, including the Goron's, Gerudo's, Zora's, and Deku. Zeldapedia is simply wrong on this account.
On a further note - whether or note this explanation had been given, it is an iron-clad policy that information is not made up on wikipedia, no matter how many people like it. If it cannot be sourced to a stable, reliable source, it simply does not get added to an article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The entiere land itself is called termina so you are right in saying they all are.  rdunnPLIB  11:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to go against Wikipedia's policies on this, but on a side note, why does that policy exist anyway if Wikipedia itself isn't considered reliable? Is it the hope that it will be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.68.234 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you got it. Just because all the academics in the world think Wikipedia's crap, doesn't mean we can't strive for better. Hermione1980 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gerudo Valley[edit]

Should this be renamed to something generic, like "Desert"? The name "Gerudo Valley" is only actually used in one game. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is never refered to as "Desert" either so it would not be a correct name. The location usually corresponds to the Gerudos and it has close to the same geography so if you think about "Gerudo Valley" is a generic name for that location. LegendLiver (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet... the name's never used outside Ocarina of Time. "Desert" seems like a generic enough name to me, although it seems somewhat assumptive to classify all desert regions in the series. The section's very undernourished, anyway, in terms of sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the desert areas in the game are named for or involve the gerudos. Since there is no definitive name we should leave it the same until a name can be desided upon that isnt desert.LegendLiver (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Keaton[edit]

Keaton redirects here, but I can't find anywhere a entry of it. OboeCrack (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the word doesn't appear anywhere in the article according to Firefox's find function. Would you consider it notable? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. They are a race in the game, after all... but then, they appear all of, what, three times? In only one game (Majora's Mask)? And otherwise only get a cameo as a mask in Ocarina (albeit a cameo mandatory to complete the game - that guard won't let you into Death Mountain unless you give them the mask). There's not much information to go by with them.
I mean, I'd support their addition, but their role is incredibly marginal, so I don't know if other people would feel the same way. Either way, I've beaten Ocarina, but not played Majora's far enough to see this fox guy, so somebody else is better off doing the addition. --Shadow Hog (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

-- They also are the name of an enemy in Minish Cap which looks loosely based on the dark world thieves of Link to the Past though the latter doesn't harm you the way they do in Minish Cap--98.233.221.217 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article mentions Minish Cap and Ocarina of Time, but it makes it sound like Ocarina of Time is older in the storyline, when really Minish Cap is currently the game which happens the earliest in the series (See The Legend of Zelda Chronology, last couple of sentences). Kilshin (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deku[edit]

It's inaccurate to say the Deku originated in Ocarina of Time. The *name* may have been derived by then, however the race was shown in one occurrence in A Link to the Past. It's in the dark world; sprites for the scrub are here: http://spriters-resource.com/snes/zeldalinkpast/lttp_NPCs.png (upper right hand corner; 6 sprites to the right, 1 sprite down) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.165.147 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a hermit, not a deku, see http://zeldawiki.org/Characters_in_A_Link_to_the_Past 76.226.120.128 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Overall, Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series is largely unnecessary. Most of the information is pretty trivial, and I don't think anything good can really be built out of it. Instead, there should be a single section in this article that sums up the more important creatures within three or four paragraphs. TTN (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Which would be what? The heavily sourced and trimmed Dodongo section already takes up three paragraphs, and Moblins, which have a huge role in the series, take up two alone (ignoring their subspecies). Also, how would we go about determining which ones are the most important?
The article uses plenty of source, and though it needs more (which can be easily added if someone has time to get to it - the Hyrule Encyclopedia is a useful source), it pretty fairly stands on its own feet.
Could you provide an example of what the merged section would look like, first?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the information in the list is completely useless in the first place. Anything pertaining to specific game appearances and in-game information needs to be removed. It doesn't have to go into paragraph for straight away. It can still remain as a mini-list similar to how the geography section is currently laid out. TTN (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Recurring Enemies in The Legend of Zelda has already passed one AfD as keep based on arguments that enough reliable sourcing exists to justify it as a notable spinout topic. McJEFF (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And yet there is not one good source in the article (not counting primary information, which is useless in gauging anything), so I don't really see your point. TTN (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use hyperbole, TTN. There are at least six third-party sources used to assert notability for the article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Where? Stuff like "you can kill the enemies using items" and "they have been portrayed using sprites and 3D models" is complete filler that cannot establish or assert notability. If that's all it takes to make an article, we could have enemy lists for any series that has been switched from sprites to 3D. TTN (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
...if the article took the time to point those changes out, yes, you could. That's kind of the wikipedia policy on citations and verifiability.
Some quotes from the sources that are there:
  • ""The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" uses a unique targeting method for battling enemies. "
  • ""Ocarina of Time" also introduces a new gameplay element. Navi, the main character's guardian fairy and travelling companion, will assist by giving you information, warning of danger and giving combat hints when battling enemies."
  • "Like all of Miyamoto's creations, the gameplay is superior. The new 3D fighting system is very impressive. A targeting mechanism lets you select and lock on to an enemy and attack with tremendous accuracy while moving around in a full 360-degrees. "
  • "What?s been enhanced? The camera has an Auto mode and a Free mode so you can pan the camera around, above, and below the Hero with the C Stick should the current angle not be to your liking. Combat combos are formed by tapping B in combination with different analog stick directions, and powerful counter moves are performed by tapping A when an enemy?s about to strike (your sword will flash green). Enemy weapons can be picked up (by you or by other enemies), pieces of armor can be knocked off, and key items can be yanked away with your grappling hook. "
  • "You Shall Make a Very Fine Companion Indeed

The Wind Waker will also be one of the first games to really, truly support the GameCube-GBA link in the form of Tingle, a fairy creature who?ll essentially play the ?mobile information kiosk? role that Navi played in Ocarina of Time. Once the GameCube-GBA link is established, a map of the area will appear on the GBA screen representing the action on the TV screen, and you?ll be able to use Tingle?s ?cursor? to get hints, factoids about enemies, and even uncover the occasional treasure. "

  • "The backgrounds are just a lot prettier, for starters, and character/enemy animations are really quite superb. Enemies die in very animated puffs of smoke, and the boss featured in the demo dungeon features a good amount of sprite-scaling. One of the coolest visual treats, though, is just having the opportunity to see new 2D enemy designs in the Four Swords art style. Enemy designs have been pretty much identical in both style and type in every 2D Zelda game since Link to the Past, even including Four Swords Adventures on the GameCube. The Minish Cap enemies are delightfully original, looking much more detailed and animated."
  • " But our priority was to give the gamer the feeling that he was actually there in the game. Like just being able to see the horizon. For example: going into a cave. From a top view you can already see well into the cave. You just wont get the same presence. Players want the experience of gradually exploring their way inside, and using their own feet to traverse new ground. Enemy positions are obvious from a single glance in top view, while in reality you couldn’t see enemies that are above or behind you. We wanted to emphasize this."

With the sources used in the article, we are shown that the targeting system was considered a unique and superior addition, that the Navi/Tingle enemy hints are also applauded, and that the enemies were in fact the main reason for the switch to 3D. While the article should use more of the reception info from these sources, notability clearly exists, and is demonstrated by the sources used in the article.

Again, please do not use hyperbole to ignore those sources.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not come just from reliable sources. It comes from reliable sources used in a proper context to show the importance of a subject. As I said, the parts that are cited are completely trivial. The sources themselves are perfectly fine, but they are not being used in a way to actually show anything. Real information based around those two topics would be "The transition from 2D to 3D forced us to redesign a number of the enemy creatures Link has to battle. Portraying realistic motions and battles blah blah blah" rather than generic statements that have no barring on the actual design of the enemies. TTN (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
...Yes, I said that. The article does need to use the sources more fully; however, there are plenty of good sources that can be used to provide notability, and which are already cited. The article merely needs cleanup, not merging.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing there that can actually build an article. It'll still just be a bunch of loose ideas strung together with absolutely nothing to hold it up besides the hope that it could actually amount to something. These enemies are not iconic in any way. Mario enemies, which maybe one out of thirty people walking down the street could probably identify, don't even have a specific list anymore, despite having the potential to establish the flimsy notability that you're thinking about. The top ones were merged to the character list, while the rest were dumped. The same thing needs to be done with these, but here rather than a character list. If you want opinions, ask the video game project, and I'm sure most people would agree with me. TTN (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
As an unencyclopedic list of minor characters (enemies in this case), I don't know why the article even exists. It should definitely be merged, if not deleted.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the above examples is that they are not focused on the subject of the article, just snippets of not-a-lot within that general aspect of the games. For instance: "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" uses a unique targeting method for battling enemies." What's that got to do with moblins and wizzrobes? What does it tell us about deku babas? Sod all, you can't build an article without strong sources focusing on the subject itself. If you at least have some, then it's possible to feather-in less substantial sources, but without that base you're knackered. Take this article on Sander Cohen from BioShock, a non-player character from a single game. Compare the level of analysis of that character in a single source to the wisps of irrelevant, indirect text you're trying to build an article from here. If the sources don't exist to build an article in the spirit of WP's policies and guidelines then an external wiki would be a far better place, where questions of undue weight etc. don't get asked. Someoneanother 09:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I say to set a time limit for anyone who wants to to search for sources. Maybe a week. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the sources, with the exception of 1 or 2, are from the game or Nintendo's site. Those don't qualify as secondary sources.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm against merging it over, since it'd just be a redirect there, all the information lost. If an AFD ended in Keep, it should be kept. I noticed this merger discussion mentioned at The video games WikiProject. Some don't like character, enemy, and episode list, so try to destroy them, others want them kept. The suggested guidelines of notability were never decided by a vote, just a dozen or so deletionist campers who argue constantly to get what they want, using that as an excuse to destroy pages all over the Wikipedia. If enough people want the article to stay, it will be kept, regardless of any references added. Dream Focus 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't get what you're talking about, "Information lost". If it's merged, the information is still in the article history. And Wikipedia isn't mob rule, it won't be kept without reason "if enough people want it to stay", accusing people of being deletionist campers just makes YOU look like the Inclusionist camper with no knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The article isn't there. People that search for it, get forwarded to a new area. The information is lost. Most people aren't going to go digging around the history to read something. And yes, in AFD, if something is kept or destroyed, depends on the opinions of whoever is around to discuss it at the time and the opinions of the closing administrator. I see the exact same types of articles kept or destroyed, all the time, it all left up to chance, there no absolute standard enforced. And a camper is someone who camps out at a location, keeping it forever at their watchlist, refusing to let up until others give up and let them have their way. See the history of Wikipedia:Notability and see how few people actually decided those guidelines. If there is no general vote, then no reasonable person can take them seriously. They have been used as an excuse to destroy vast numbers of articles already, this still ongoing. And one of the people you discuss your next series of merge/deletes/redirects with on the WikiProject for Video games, have even nominated Princess Zelda for merger to a character list! No one is safe with you guys. Dream Focus 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because apparently not screaming into the usual deletionist echo chamber is considered giving up and/or conceding, I will post here again. No one has to date brought up any arguments that were not mentioned in the AfD, you know, the one that was closed as keep. It was closed as keep because the article met sourcing requirements (despite the claims to the contrary in this discussion) and all the objections raised turned out to be dressed up IDONTLIKEIT and WEDONTNEEDIT. There is nothing even resembling consensus to merge here. McJEFF (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That it was closed as keep isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, as a) it was a year ago, b) consensus can change, and c) the article still doesn't have the sourcing it needs to which goes into each and every species that it should. In the end, it makes this article much stronger, because we can access all the information without clicking through, as well as putting the list in proper context. --Izno (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Consensus changes if you believe you have enough people around to say delete, and not enough around to notice and say Keep. If it was fine a year ago, and it'll be fine forever. Dream Focus 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well looking at the mentioned article, aside from being inproperly formatted and being too in-universe, it doesn't give much independantt reliably sourced information on any character specifically. Hyrule itself seems the best sourced of all. The rest are all primary sources (which is fine for meeting WP:V, but fails WP:N or the rest appear to be questionalably reliable as a bunch of fansites (excluding IGN and Nintendo of America). In addition the quotes above reveal with maybe the exception of the fairy (as it's signled out) as being better represented as game development/gameplay enhancements overall; even the fairy could be linked there though with just that one quote. Even the paysites don't appear to meet WP:SPS.Jinnai 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Improperly formatted? I find that claim dubious - especially since improper formatting isn't a valid reason to even be proposing merging/deleting, since it's one of the most easily fixed issues any article can have. Care to point to any style guidelines backing that up? McJEFF (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Basically it would be considered to fall under WP:INUNIVERSE. See Characters of Kingdom Hearts talk history including FAC looks like i can't find their old talk pages from when it was "list of" - i didn't really cite that as a reason for merging, just yet another problem with the article.Jinnai 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep article rather than merge. After a quick search, article can easily be expanded in regards to out of universe content. Notable series of games for which interviews, previews, and reviews actually do cover the development and reception of these characters in detail. The article serves both a navigational function and illustrative purpose that aids readers' understanding of the main game articles, just as would a list of Academy Award winners help our article on that award. Bosses in these games are familiar to millions of people around the world. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Article has been axed again[edit]

Again, I don't want to start an edit war by reverting this, but this must be put up for discussion. Would all editors on the project discuss this, please.

[1].Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes the article look much better. Seriously, locations aren't very notable. They don't need paragraphs describing each place. I agree with the trim. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hōjō clan and Triforce[edit]

Don't know if it's linked (and I don't really think so), but the Triforce design looks like the Hōjō clan mon. Lacrymocéphale 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's probably not a coincidence, but without some sort of reliable source, mentioning it would be original research. Arrowned (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sierpiński Triangle, as well. It is quite likely that one of the two was the inspiration for the Triforce. --Izno (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images[edit]

Isn't 7 fair-use images too many? -sesuPRIME 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The image of the Triforce is definitely replaceable by a free image. --Izno (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Done! But that still leaves six non-frees. -sesuPRIME 07:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the article is long enough to probably have two non-free images and would suggest to keep the OoT map of Hyrule and to add one image that shows several tribes of the series. A Deku, a Goron and a Zora, for example. Prime Blue (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an image like that with all three races together? Note that photoshopping three non-free images together into one file still counts as three separate non-free images as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -sesuPRIME 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The removal of spirits and skull kid sections[edit]

[2] Two editors have undid the removal of one editor. Let us discuss it here, and hear what everyone thinks.

Recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series

I think you miss the point... those characters have been sitting there on nothing more than "how many times they have appeared", completely taking the importance of their appearances into question. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the point of the article. To show recurring characters, no matter how important or not they are. The list isn't complete without showing everyone. If they aren't important, then a lesser mention perhaps, but not an outright elimination. Dream Focus 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We can't erase Wikipedia guidelines and policies by making our own rules. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The characters are notable because they are recurring in various series, a key point in the games. Shows how the creative or development process goes perhaps. It doesn't list all characters, only those who have been in multiple games, so it isn't indiscriminate. Dream Focus 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
So if I make a list of every Zelda character but one, it's discriminate? Being notable to the Zelda series means nothing, whatsoever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Every character there is notable to the Zelda series, that the reason the list exists. That's how the Universe articles normally work. Dream Focus 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Split this article[edit]

There's more which is missing in this article which we could add but before, I think this needs a split. We keep this article to explain about the lands, the master sword, the triforce and etc whilst we create an article just for the races since there are more races we can explain about which arn't here. In the Universe of the Legend of Zelda article, we further talk about the lands. Of course you've got the two realms: The Light World and the Dark World. Although the games all take place Light World whilst we only ever got to visit the Dark World in A Link to the Past. Now in the Light World, you've got Hyrule, Holodrum, Labrynna, Termina and Subrosia. Even though Termina takes place in a paralel universe and Subrosia is underground. Also you've got the different dimensions in the Light World like Koholint Island, World of the Ocean King and the Twilight Realm (although another realm like the Ligh and Dark worlds, it connects to the Light World). Also the Great Sea which takes place in the future and the land of New Hyrule from Spirit Tracks. Also we can have a small section explaining about the instruments since they affect the Zelda games.

I believe trimming is in order before that. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay then trim first and then split. --Victory93 (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I do think that the article only supports statements of the universe in certain games, but we can't make articles like Universe of The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks. It would be too much. Most of the articles would contain similar information to other Universe articles. Even if we did do that, you would have to reference the article fully from articles on IGN and whatnot describing the universe from reviews and giving reception on it. If you can make userspace articles like that, then sure, we will think doing that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
As I undestand it, secondary sources are generally preferred, however they are only necessary to establish notability, or to support claims when the accuracy or neutrality of primary sources is questionable. Citations of primary sources are quite common in FA-Class television articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes. I did say that sort of wrong. The body of the article can be referenced by game handbooks and other material, but there needs to be some notability of what people thought of that incarnation of the universe. Although I doubt you could find enough of that for each world. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The Races were already part of a separate article, which New Age Retro Hippie already trimmed and merged. It did look better the old way. There was some debate on whether consensus to do this had been established. [3] Dream Focus 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for my edit[edit]

The Lost Woods link linked to a nonexistent section of this article. 68.4.214.54 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oocca[edit]

The page for Oocca redirects to this one, but helpfully someone has removed all references to them from the article. I'm not sure what the policy is, but I can't help but think that either there should be a mention of them here, or the redirect should be removed. As is it's just confusing. --75.205.198.224 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Subrosians[edit]

I cleaned up the language on this section so it would read better. The previous entry was poorly structured from a grammar standpoint. Segdae22 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Light Force[edit]

Light Force used to redirect here, now it's pointing to the old game of that name. If this is an important feature of this game I'll make that into a disambiguation page. 2fort5r (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Triforce[edit]

This article was redirected here without discussion and without a proper merge. This version of the article contains a lot of relevant content. I suggest undoing the redirect and adding a {{main}} link from this article but I'll let you guys discuss it, I just wanted to make others aware that this article exists. I also added a link to the talk page as there is a wealth of related discussion. -- œ 02:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Deku Scrubs[edit]

The article states that deku scrubs were introduced in the legend of zelda ocarina of time. This isn't true, as their first appearance was in the original Legend of Zelda. Anyone who has played the original game could tell you that the red enemies are the original deku scrubs. Here's an image: http://ctrlaltkill.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/legend_of_zelda_nes.png Ncboy2010 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are Octorok, not Deku Scrubs. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I thought Octorok were only aquatic, my bad. Ncboy2010 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Zoras and salt water[edit]

From the article - "...the only known sea-dwelling Zora appear in Majora's Mask in Termina, typically considered a parallel universe to Hyrule. This could explain the Zora's absence from Hyrule after it was engulfed by the Great Sea."

Am I wrong, or weren't the Zoras in the rather brilliant Oracle of Ages also sea dwellers? :s groovygower (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page one rewrite[edit]

My apologies if this seems harsh, but 90% of this article needs to be deleted. There is nothing notable about the races, there is almost no information how any of this was created, of what people think of the zelda universe. I think we need to draft a rewrite from scratch and then replace this article. It's an excellent Zeldia article for wikia, but not at all what we need.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Zuna[edit]

There isn't a whole lot known about them, but the Zuna should probably be mentioned in the race section. They appeared in the Gamecube game The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures. 74.83.46.103 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

the major races should get their own articles.[edit]

the gorons appear in enough games to get their own article. one reason for only male goron appearing is the general lack of clothes. as a result female gorons would likely give the game a mature rating so it makes perfect sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

The list is largely game guide material peppered with a few trivial bits of reception here and there. It is already mostly covered in the Creatures section, so it is also pretty redundant. The few relevant things can easily be added without bloating this article, so there is really no reason to keep the list. TTN (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures has some of the enemies listed in it, in much shorter details, so perhaps that section should be eliminated and just redirect to the enemies list page. Both articles have enough valid content to justify their existence. One is 46k the other 70k, so too long to merge together. Having the enemies and the character list on separate pages, are valid content forks. Dream Focus 23:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The sizes of the articles are irrelevant when most of the details need to be cut. The shorter detail in this article is the better of the two. The point is to detail them enough so that the reader can get a general idea when they are referenced. There is no need for details like variations between games and minor gameplay odds and ends. That's the definition of game guide material. Remove that, and you basically have what's here, minus a few things that can be merged. TTN (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not a game guide, it just showing proper encyclopedic detail to understand an important aspect of this notable series. If you want to delete an article, why not send it to AFD? Replacing it with a redirect with little or no information merged over, is about the same is deletion. Dream Focus 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Quick descriptions of "enemy does x, reacts by y" can be considered encyclopedic coverage. Detailing game by game variations is going to in-depth for general readers. I think there are some details that can be merged, so it should be merged. TTN (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Both the list of races and enemies can be cut down only to those which are reoccurring or maybe otherwise significant. We don't need to list every single one, only the important ones. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • By the way, I found it hilarious that you two should be the only ones in this discussion as you are both extreme deletionist/inclusionist. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Support. I know this is 8 months late, but I agree with Blake about the major races being cut down. Maybe some major reoccurring items as well, such as the swords and/or the various types of potions and how they differed over the generations, excluding irrelevant ones such as the Shadow Crystal or the Beetle (item from Skyward Sword) as they are only in one game, so they're not reoccurring. But we should not have an extra page for everything that reoccurs. GameditorTalk 22:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to this page[edit]

How come Rupee (The Legend of Zelda) redirects to this page if there is no mention at all of the Rupee currency in the article? Sekkuar (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm because there is? It's a whole paragraph located right above the "geography" in the Hyrule section. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Recurring Items?[edit]

Since we have lists of recurring characters and recurring enemies, I think we should also have a list of recurring items. It could include a brief description of each item as it has eveolved over the years, such as the Master Sword or the Big Key. Thoughts? GameditorTalk 18:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are instruction manuals a reliable source?[edit]

In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not it is stated that Wikipedia is not a game manual or instruction booklet. I guess it is alright for the plot. But I mean, this looks lake a circular reference: the information in this article about the game comes from the references in the game such as text and the game itself makes the article relevant. Doblecaña (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Universe of The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 14:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bokoblins mentioned under 'races' and 'creatures'[edit]

Since the Bokoblins are already extensively covered in the 'races' section, I'd argue that the Bokoblin description in the 'creatures' section is redundant and should therefore be removed. Does anyone disagree with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvsupreme (talkcontribs) 18:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Universe of The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Universe of The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)