Talk:The Legend of Zelda/Archive 6

Revision 374721850
Ryulong, you really are starting to take the project to a hurtful limit. This is the English Wikipedia and there is no reason to include Japanese katakana versions for mere descriptive words in English – the word "series" is not part of the article's subject. And, as I have mentioned to you before, there is still no consensus about providing romanizations of such terms. Stop enforcing your personal opinion while blatantly disregarding current guidelines and help the discussion come to a satisfactory end for everyone involved there. Prime Blue (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with my edits to any pages. I am following the guidelines of the Japanese manual of style, which should have overridden the insular WP:VG manual of style. This is what the series of video games is called in Japan, and that is what all of the video games are called in Japan. There is nothing wrong with adding romaji.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. The Japanese MOS isn't for that scope.  It simply covers their proper usage *when they are used*, it does not govern whether or not they should be used.  The WP:VG manual of style does however govern this, and is not "insular" in any shape or form.  It *is* a content guideline as clearly stated, carrying significant weight because it is a guideline, and representing the consensus of the many editors of WikiProject Video games. Going against consensus by  forceful editing is not the proper response and can in fact backfire on you by getting you blocked or banned.  The proper recourse is to try and change consensus and therefore change the related guideline, which as Prime Blue pointed out is already being discussed to form a consensus.  Normally there is a moratorium on related edits until such a discussion is completed, and I suggest you take a step back from your edits and help reach consensus.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Marty Goldberg summed it up before I had the chance to.
 * As to the topic at hand: The series is called Zelda no Densetsu in Japan, not Zelda no Densetsu Series. Analogously, the series is called The Legend of Zelda in Western countries, and not The Legend of Zelda Series. That considered, your current revision is not using proper English. If you think the article's subject is the "The Legend of Zelda series", request a potentially controversial move and edit the article if the proposal succeeded, but don't change the article so it does not comply with WP:LEAD, WP:BOLDTITLE in particular. Prime Blue (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Japanese MOS has a wider scope than just WP:VG/GL. There should be no reason to exclude the word "series" in any of its incarnations in the subject portion of the article. There is no consensus to go against currently, but it will certainly be easy to fix things should the consensus go either way currently. None of my edits are harmful to the project, all are made in good faith, and all intend to improve the articles on which they are made. Saying I should be banned for doing such an act would be deleterious to the project as a whole.
 * And on the use of "series" in the first line, I suggest you take a look here.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are editing a video game article, and as such, it falls under the guidelines employed by the WikiProject Video games. I have linked to the respective discussions several times in the past days, and you should actively participate there if you feel the guidelines on Wikipedia should be changed.
 * As you linked to the Japanese Wikipedia: Note how their article on the series is called "ゼルダの伝説シリーズ" while the title of the first game's article is simply "ゼルダの伝説". On the English Wikipedia, this is currently the opposite. I already explained how your revision does not comply with WP:BOLDTITLE and how the article should be moved before this edit is made. Prime Blue (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also editing an article on Japanese media, and as such it falls under WP:MOS-JA. Perhaps I will suggest that this page be moved to The Legend of Zelda (series) and The Legend of Zelda (video game) be moved to The Legend of Zelda.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:VG/GL: "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."
 * In any case, I can only advise you again to abide by the rules established by community consensus, or to constructively participate in discussions at the project to establish new guidelines. Just enforcing your personal opinion is considered disruptive editing and will result in you being reported. Prime Blue (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys do a good job to inform us thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.209.2 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Chronology is a mess!
The Chronology section is very confusing. It's not placed in any order. Can someone make it less confusing? Thanks! (You better not sign, SineBot!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.216.184 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in particular you would like to have cleared up? I read it again and it seemed fine to me. Prime Blue (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where do the original games fit in relation to newer games like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess? It's made clear that Skyward Sword and the Four Swords saga preceed all the other games, and that Ocarina of Time preceeds the original Legend of Zelda.  However, with the continuity split at Ocarina of Time, the article doesn't make it clear whether the original games fit between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess or after Twilight Princess.  It's made clear enough that they don't fit between Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker in the latter's introduction, so it's just that one bit of confusion that remains in the Timeline.  207.216.208.68 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It cannot be explicitly explained yet because there have been no official statements about how the older games relate to the post-OoT ones. We do however mention this: "There have been no statements about the placement of the Oracle titles, or about which timeline branch some of the earlier installments are meant to be set in." Prime Blue (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The four swords saga can't come before OoT. The timeline splits after oot, and the master sword is destroyed (my understanding is that the picori blade and the master sword are the same) and reforged as the four sword, and the master sword appears in oot. --Chaos of Air, ONLINE (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are mistaken. While the Picori Blade does indeed become the Four Sword, it is not the Master Sword, and the Master Sword is not destroyed, as it is still present in both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, both of which take place centuries after Ocarina of Time. 173.180.75.13 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis problems?
In spite of being chock full of citations, I feel as though there is some OR/Synthesis on in the chronology section. I had an edit reverted earlier on the grounds that the supporting citation is elsewhere in the paragraph. I'm not really willing to go through the headache of disputing the particular revert, but, concretely, the entire section is written with the presumption of the popular fan theory of "split timelines", with one handwavey response from miyamoto from one interview backing the assumption up. While this isn't exactly a high crime, it does come accross to me as pet-theory injection. I think it would do a better job of informing the reader if it focused more on known direct sequels and major statements about the chronology as made by the authors(including mentioning the multiple timeline thing once).

that came out as a jumble of disconnected thoughts, but the point is I think the tone of the section could be a lot better. i kan reed (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the tone could be a little better, in so far as it is such a mash-up of quick sentences that it seems rushed, but the facts are there. I wouldn't call this OR/Synthesis at all. Vyselink (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not be popular with some, but as Vyselink said, the two different endings of Ocarina of Time leading into different games is a confirmed fact, as supported by the two references in the article. Prime Blue (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On Skyward Sword
Please remember that Skyward Sword is not intended to be the first Zelda of all Zeldas: the entire idea is that "certain games come before or after others" so that Nintendo can keep building on the whole thing. Aonuma specifically mentioned this in the same paragraph he mentioned SS being a prequel to Ocarina of Time (the Official Nintendo Magazine entry, which is currently source #37); here's a scan of that page. Despatche (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. While I do believe that Skyward Sword does current fall at the beginning of the series (currently), it is true that it is not the be-all, end-all beginning of the series. Nevertheless, please see my comment below about rewriting the entire chronology. MAGZine (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
I do think that the chrono needs a rewrite, perhaps split in two: part a being 'direct sequels' and part b being 'split timeline theory'. The chronology as it stands right now, while it makes sense, does not answer the question of "what is the chronology?" fluently. Instead, it's a mish-mash of edits and changes that does not read well at all. While there is some debate, I do think that the chronology could be based on this timeline (http://i.imgur.com/vh9gf.jpg), although it is necessary to mention that nobody is entirely sure where Oracles fit in. Obviously the rewriting is a large task -- is there anyone who wants to take it on? MAGZine (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How the chronology is written
I think that the problem with the fictional chronology section (which still looks pretty confusing to me) is that the chronology is explained by stating when the games came out and then mentioning their place in the timeline. A better way to explain it would be to explain it in the order of the timeline, starting with Skyward Sword down to Ocarina of Time, followed by explaining the three split timelines. I'll do it if there's no problem with that change. User: Smear-Gel 2:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"__ is the #th installment in The Legend of Zelda series."
What exactly defines "The Legend of Zelda series"? The current numbering system is somewhat confusing, and isn't explained, or sourced. I removed it from the Skyward Sword article, but then discovered it is in many more articles. What is counted in the series? Tingle's game? "Master Quest"? Why should these be considered in the numbering system when they are spinoffs and ports? I propose only counting main series games, or completely removing the numbering which is somewhat WP:OR Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it has been stated somewhat directly by the developers (like in the Mortal Kombat developer interviews about the numbering and titling of the recent games), it most certainly is OR. It is much worse with the Legend of Zelda series as we only really know one of the titles as being for a fact in a numbered position (the first one). It's really free game if Wiki editors want to go completely OR and ignore all rules or begin a mass removal. Or the third, more work option, looking for references to numberings. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)0
 * A bit wrong. We know 2. The second one has as part of its title Zelda II. Also this one has some issues with not even mentioning the ones for cd-i anywehere in the games section. You'd have to add those to any numbering scheme somehow. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The more games are released, the more problematic the numbering gets. No one would dispute that The Legend of Zelda or Zelda II are first and second, and sources exist up to Majora's Mask as the sixth game. The Oracle titles still seem to show signs of numbering in their product codes, but that's where the problem starts. After that, it is almost impossible to determine which game is which installment. Dropping the numbering from the lead after MM seems like the best solution. Prime Blue (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The games listed on their official website perhaps? http://www.zelda.com/universe/games/index.jsp Or the Wikipedia template already separates the main games in the series from the spin-offs. Why not just use that?   D r e a m Focus  09:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have accepted that, but right now, it counts at least two games that aren't main series games, and I was trying to figure out whether it was side series games or ports. The numbering system isn't sourced or explained. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't even counting Seasons and Ages to be different games in the number count. Which is weird cause I mainly edit Pokemon articles, which are released as duos. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well they are different games; the Pokemon games are very similar to each other when released, but those games aren't. Just because there in one article doesn't mean we count them as one. Anyway, I think going by any numbering scheme that isn't backed up by RSes is not a good idea. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since no one outside wikipedia "numbers" them, I don't believe it should be refered that way in the articles either. Someone tried doing that to the "Sonic the Hedgehog" game articles, but not only does it confusing at times (like that Sonic 4 would be like the 16th installment or something crazy like that.), but ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It's not like anyone ever calls Ocarina of Time "Legend of Zelda 5" or anything, so the distinction doesn't really need to be made. Sergecross73  msg me   20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fire Emblem, unfortunately, has caught this idiotic bug. Despatche (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing the numbering. People aren't stupid; they can count on their own, if they want to. Jonathan Hardin&#39; (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Legend movie
It's like widely known that Zelda is based off the movie Legend, so why ain't it in here? It has to be included since it was based off that movie!!!--76.216.124.208 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely because reliable sources have not been found to support that statement. Without them this can't be added. Thought if it is that widely know good quality sources should be quite easy to find.--76.66.180.175 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Video game series vs. Franchise
Wouldn't Legend of Zelda be considered a franchise, now that it has entered many other areas of media rather than video gaming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.84.52 (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean by "now that". Most of the non-game entries in the series were made a relatively long time ago and only the comic adaptations are still being produced. It's certainly not on the level of, say, Pokemon and also certainly heading in the direction away from multimedia franchise, rather than towards it, IMO. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wii U?
I haven't heard of a Zelda game being released for the Wii U, which is itself not being released until 2012 (I would assume holiday season) last I heard. So should "Wii U" really be included in the Platforms section of the infobox yet? Vyselink (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Miso Ghostpatrol Zelda Melbourne.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
.

Wow, does this need to be rewritten
I'd do it, but I'm not sure of the facts involved.

'In addition, Nintendo plans to celebrate the 25th anniversary of The Legend of Zelda game by releasing a Zelda game for all its current consoles in 2011: Link's Awakening in the 3DS's Virtual Console on June 7, Ocarina of Time 3D for the 3DS on mid-June, Four Swords Anniversary Edition[79] on September 28 as a free DSiWare download (later become the paid download starting February 20 and Skyward Sword for the Wii, which confirmed by Nintendo and be released on November 18, 2011 in Europe and November 20, 2011 in the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyselink (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems questionable to me. I have little doubt about the free four swords game (especially since anniversary is part of the title) but the other games seem more doubious. Have any sources said that the releases of the other games was connected to the anniversary or is there any evidence at all that these games would not have been released this year if it was not the 25th anniversary? In my view just because the games in question were released in the same year of anniversary is not in itself evidence that the anniversary was the cause of the games being released it should not be mentioned unless reliable sources have made the connection.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I call for the re-writing of the 'Zelda in other series' section of the article. It feels messy and some of the information is questionable. for instance the statement 'In the Metroid series, the Goron's ruby appears in some rooms and the Gyorg enemy appears frozen and eaten by the space pirates.', as a huge metroid fan it surprised me that I didn't know about this but upon searching using terms like 'Goron Ruby Metroid' or 'Gyorg in Metroid' no result relating to the subject were found. In fact this article was the only one to combine the two together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.187.171 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ura Zelda
"Prior to the release of The Wind Waker, a bonus disc called The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest was released, containing a port of Ocarina of Time and a GameCube-modified version of Ocarina of Time Ura."

The bonus disc was released with the release of The Wind Waker, not before it: it came in the same box.

Also, the "Master Quest" version of Ocarina of Time was not Ura Zelda - Ura Zelda was supposed to be, if you will, an "expansion" to OoT, with new dungeons, new items, new tunics, etc., whereas Master Quest was just a reconfiguration of the game's dungeons. The whole reason Ura needed to be released for the N64DD was because it needed a lot more data than a cartridge could hold, whereas Master Quest has the exact same amount of data as the original Ocarina of Time, meaning they are not the same game. I'll try and find sources to verify this, but what's written there just now is definitely false. The article actually makes the same claim again, when it says: "It includes a previously unreleased 64DD expansion known as Ura Zelda in Japan and Ocarina of Time Master Quest in North America.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.85.24 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zelda timeline picture
I reverted the newer version of the Zelda timeline picture because the replacement contained non-free images and was wrongly placed under public domain. The older version however, seems to have been taken and translated from another website as indicated on the picture itself. Anyway to make a make more free image of the timeline? Erick (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

YouTube Feminist criticism
I am concerned that the criticism is not notable. It's not that the references included YouTube and Tumblr, it's that it was not written up of covered by a reliable third party. So it seems to stand on tenuous ground, and if there are not reliable sources covering the woman's beliefs and people's responses, it should be removed as not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If there were maybe multiple criticism from women's rights group or something similar, then it'd be one thing, but it's one just one person here, and one person does not represent the feminist movement. It should be removed ASAP. Erick (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least it should not have its own section and should be merged into the main reception section if it is decided that the info should stay.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? What I don't understand is what readers are supposed to get from this? One person on YouTube makes a feminist criticism, how does that help the reader understand the article at all? What is the purpose of placing it on the article? Erick (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it per WP:BRD. We can discuss it here and come to consensus before adding it back. Quoting here:

{{quotation|1=

Feminist Criticism
The Legend of Zelda series has recently been put under scrutiny by the somewhat controversial feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian, in her YouTube video “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games.” The video discusses the issues of representation of women in video games, specifically in the trope of the damsel in distress. She brings up the representation of Zelda as a simple princess who needs a man to save her. Many fans agree that Sarkeeshian is downplaying Zelda and that Zelda is more relevant to the series.

Fans have had mixed opinions about whether this criticism is fact or opinion. Many YouTube users have made response videos containing their own counterpoints. A notable example would be a YouTube user under the username of kite tales .Some fans liked her criticism. For example, on tumblr, a fan posted a concept for a future game. It was posted by the user Aaron Diaz, known as dresdencodak, on April 11, 2013, in which Zelda is the hero who needs to save Link. The art piece has had mixed reviews by fans on tumblr. The game suggests that it would be a continuation of the series. However it appears to look not unlike a gender swap. This is assumed because Zelda is a commoner, not a princess, and Link is a prince in distress.. }}
 * The section adds undue weight. Once Sarkeesian's Zelda critique is mentioned by other RS (and the critical commentary isn't limited to "kite tales" on YouTube), it'll become notable enough for its own subsection. It's fringe without that. (Also what's up with this talk page? It's appearing blank although it doesn't show that in the diff. Weird bug?) czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Czar on this one. Not only does it violate the WP:NPOV policy, specifically the undue weight part of it, I also think Sarkeesian's Zelda critique should be mentioned by other reliable, third party sources. Therefore, it's my contention that the video is not notable enough to be included in the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also believe this needs to be removed. It's an WP:UNDUE problem. It'd be one thing if its a major, mainstream criticism, like about GTA: San Andreas and its "Hot Coffee" situation, or Manhunt (video game) and its sheer brutality, but this is such a minor viewpoint, about a series that spans decades.  Sergecross73   msg me   00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The number of main games in the series
For example Skyward Sword article claims that the game is the 16th entry in the series. If I count the games I get 17 games. I guess either one of the Oracle games or Four Swords is not taken into account. That's weird since they are listed in Template:The Legend of Zelda as main series games. --Mika1h (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the template and counting the entries I get Skyward sword as the 16th game with the two oracle games and both of the 4 swords games counted. Is it possible that you are accidentally counting the unreleased Link to the Past sequel when you came up with the 17 games number because when I checked I did not see 17 games before Skyward Sword nor notice any main games missing from the template?--174.95.111.89 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, nevermind I miscalculated. --Mika1h (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Link's Blacklist?
Should this art collaboration http://www.game-art-hq.com/links-blacklist-a-tribute-to-the-dark-side-of-hyrule/ about the Zelda Monsters and Bosses by Game-Art-HQ be mentioned here somewhere maybe? I saw that it got promoted by relative many websites like destructoid, kotaku, zeldadungeon etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.247.199 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiplayer section
This section is far too long and detailed and contains absolutely no reliable sources. I invite PiEditor314 and Smuckola to discuss here rather than revert each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well literally speaking, the whole problem is that there is no discussion with him; there is the prospect of PiEditor314 getting banned for WP:3RR, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and blatantly defying an admin (having been put on notice for abuse multiple times already) and all his other grotesque behavior or something along those lines. As you said, that content is completely wrong and is simply not happening. Thank you for your conscientiously diligent concern! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is already massive. I believe it would just be best to discuss the multiplayer in the respective articles instead. (Which I imagine is already done on most all articles.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Names are all wrong in the second paragraph
hey, im new to this so I dont know how to fix something i see myself, so i was hoping someone with more knowledge would be able to do it for me. I noticed *quote* The series centers on Zelda, the main, green-clad character who carries the Master Sword. Zelda is often given the task of rescuing Princess Peach and Hyrule from K. Rool, who is the primary antagonist of the series.*endquote* was changed to this at some point last year? from what it used to say. could someone just go through the article and see if theres any more trolling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.92.197 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sergecross73   msg me  01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 2.0
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 2.0 sequel to The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game), The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess 2.0 gameplay and trailer in E3 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.73.210 (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fake, please don't add hoaxes to Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection?
To avoid unnecessary changes. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This page has only been edited 4 times this month, so will not be protected - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - but we don't protect pages "in case"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/nintendo.aspx

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Legend of Zelda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426070944/http://gamecrunch.co/2011/12/22/official-legend-of-zelda-timeline-revealed/ to http://gamecrunch.co/2011/12/22/official-legend-of-zelda-timeline-revealed/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What about DRAWN TOGETHER in the parodies section?
Xandir from Drawn Together was an obvious parody of Legend of Zelda with slight tweaks to the characters. (Video game character questing to save his girlfriend from a dark wizard - sound familiar?) - 58.179.241.253 (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source discussing this? To show its a notable aspect of the series? Sergecross73   msg me  05:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

similar ?
Want list of similar games. For example, TibiaME is probably inspired by Zelda. Has anyone found more ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.106.9 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not the place for asking personal questions, its for improving the writing in the article. If you want to search for similar games, try Google or Gamefaqs or something. Sergecross73   msg me  14:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This is useful to add to "See also" section. There is probably more games "inspired" by Zelda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.71.130 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is a question you ask on Google or Gamefaqs. Wikipedia is not a place to help people find games influenced by Zelda. We’re not some sort of gameguide or game catalogue. Sergecross73   msg me  02:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012120133/http://www.landofthelegend.net/Hyrule/?grab=int-noa-eiji-tmc to http://www.nintendo-europe.com/NOE/en/GB/editorial/article.do?elementId=tsSRlh1e8PvXMtWScR8tLxG9BXLNxXCM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-canon does not mean non-notable
Even though they're God-awful video games and are non-canon, the CDI games are still encyclopedically notable. They have Wikipedia Articles of their own. There are 2 reasons why their notability justifies inclusion in the visualized Timeline: A. Unlike fan-made games, they had some albeit very little involvement of Nintendo (in a supervising role, mostly approving character designs for cutscenes). B. Unlike Hyrule Warriors, Super Smash Brothers, and Link's appearance in Mario Kart 8, they maintain the same genre as the canon games, namely as action-adventure RPGs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason they're not included in the timeline here is because Nintendo doesn't consider them to be in the timeline at all, according to Hyrule Historia. They do, however, have their own article section here.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 01:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Release Timeline, not In-Universe Timeline. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about the chronological timeline. But El Wistro, you are mistaken - "canon" has nothing to do with it. It's that they're spinoffs It's pretty standard that spinoffs are not shown on these main timelines. You'll note that Hyrule Warriors and Links Crossbow Training aren't on there either. Sonic the Hedgehog and Final Fantasy do the same thing - list main entries, but not all the side games.  Sergecross73   msg me  02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a special case because they're the only "side games" in the same genre. Hyrule Warriors is a strategic war game, not an action-adventure RPG. Link's Crossbow Training is a shooter, not an action-adventure RPG. The same out-of-genre argument applies to the Smash Brothers series and Link's appearance at least once in Mario Kart. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can show a source that Nintendo considers them as part of the main series, they can go on the timeline, but everything I've ever read shows that they see it as a spinoff/side game, which in case would mean it doesn't belong on the timeline. Even spinoffs of the same genre are usually listed. Again, see Final Fantasy, Sonic, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  10:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They are just considered spin-offs, meaning they don't belong here. Its developer and canonicality doesn't matter here. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 18:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when does Wikipedia allow corporations to dictate what they want to be acknowledged about their history? See WP:PROMOTION. We do not advocate public relations perspectives. Nintendo's wish to distance themselves from these games is not a valid reason for their exclusion. Ozdarka (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read the discussion, or just read the section title and start typing? I can't stress enough: No one is using "canon" or "Nintendo's influence" as a methodology of inclusion here. Its a very simple "Main games go on, spin-offs stay off" stance that applied across many "series" articles on Wikipedia. (Gestrid's response was about a different timeline - a separate fictional in-universe one, of which they do not go on because it's literally not known where they fall. But even that is due to WP:V, not cannon or any other nonsense.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my response had to do with this timeline. Most Legend of Zelda enthusiasts don't consider the three games being discussed (or Hyrule Warriors, for that matter) canon at all.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 16:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, the subjective claim that these games "don't count" is an attempt to preserve the image of a company, which is advocacy. The concept of these games as "spin-offs" has no basis on anything but negative critical reception. Same genre, same franchise. The argument that that these games are not among the "main games" because they're spin-offs, and they're spin-offs because they're not main games, is a circular argument. Here are the approaches we have to choose from:


 * The CDi games are bad. True Zelda fans don't count them.


 * Nintendo doesn't want us to talk about them in the same sentence as the other games, so we won't.


 * They're adventure games. They have Zelda and Link in the titles. As much as it hurts people's stomachs, they're no different from the other games.


 * Ozdarka (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To that, I'll quote what said earlier in this same discussion: If you can show a source that Nintendo considers them as part of the main series, they can go on the timeline.  That's all you have to do: find a reliable source that states that Nintendo considers them part of the main series.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 09:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Identifying and using independent sources. We don't give corporations the final say. Commercial entities deny their failures. It's a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires independent, third party sources. Ozdarka (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what we're asking for.  Show us a or (more preferably) two or three reliable, third party source that is completely independent from Nintendo that says that Nintendo has said these games are part of the main series.  That is all that we are asking for.  We're not asking for more guidelines for you to show us.  Show us what we've continued to ask for since very near the beginning of this conversation.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 10:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this concept of "main games" is a construct that is being invented right here on Wikipedia. You're asking for proof of something you're making up. And you're still looking for statements originating from Nintendo. Any statements from Nintendo are inadmissible because we don't go by corporations' claims about their own products. They have a vested interest in their own reputation and will deny black spots on their history. If you really want to exclude these games from the timeline, then it has to be made clear that it's purely because they're not published by Nintendo. Withholding them out of some intent to falsely portray the series as consistent in quality is not an acceptable reason. Ozdarka (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's where you're fundamentally wrong. Third party reliable sources frequently and directly cite this sort of thing independently.
 * 1) USGamer clearly calls the CD-i games, Tingle, Hyrule Warriors and others "spinoffs".
 * 2) The Verge calls Hyrule Warriors a spinoff.
 * 3) RPGSite calls Triforce Heroes a spinoff. So does GameSpot.
 * 4) The Escapist calls Link's Crossbow Training a spinoff.

If you doubt particular entries and their status, then by all means start up new discussions on them, but to claim that third party sources don't cover it in a general sense objectively false, as is any ludicrous accusations that we're doing Nintendo's bidding to cover up unpopular entries in the series or picking our favorites or any other nonsense you've been rambling on about. Its according to sources. Sergecross73  msg me  13:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion isn't about Hyrule Warriors, Link's Crossbow Training or Triforce Heroes; if you read the first comment in this thread, you'll see it was intended to be about about the CDi games. Nor did I mention them, as their genres' resemblance with The Legend of Zelda games is clearly more tenuous. The only one of those sources that mentions the CDi games is the first one, which also calls Zelda for the Game & Watch a spin-off, which can only be because the hardware it appears on is less advanced. This and the fact that the entire "bottom tier" category on that list uses the term "spin offs" to collectively dismiss certain games reinforces my point that the term is used more as a label to downplay the poorly received games in the franchise than it is to describe their genre, title or protagonists. In any event I have to defer to whatever consensus is reached and stop reading this thread as I have used more time on it than I intended to. Ozdarka (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, I'm just showing its applied throughout the entire series, CDi titles included. My point is that third party reliable sources delineate which games are spinoff throughout the entire series, CDi games included (note the USGamer source, which discusses the CDi games.) You keep making these unfounded accusations about the CDi games classification being based on quality, Nintendo's marketing motivations, and/or which games are popular/unpopular with the fanbase, and that's fundamentally unfounded and untrue.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If this article's classification was based off of quality, Nintendo's marketing motivations, and which games are or are not popular with the fanbase, as you presume, we would not have Hyrule Warrior in the spin-off section.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this compromise
All of the CD-i games were released after Link's Awakening but before Ocarina of Time. I just wanted a visual aid to show this fact. So, I made one at the Article specifically pertaining to the CDI games. That Timeline graphic is just meant to illustrate that the CDI games postdate the first 4 games in the series but predate Ocarina of Time, which it does quite nicely. To remind the reader of that is to provide the context Phillips was working with when it published those games, although of course it doesn't excuse the awful control schemes. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is more relevant to that article at least. I'm indifferent. Sergecross73   msg me  15:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Reception
In a 2017 special edition of Edge magazine, listing their 100 top videogames of all-time, the Zelda series had the most entries, with 5 games on the list, including Breath of the Wild (1st) and Ocarina of Time (9th). - The 100 Greatest video games, Edge special edition, Future Publishing, page 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.72.144 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=7&cId=3140040
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619113453/http://nindb.net/game/legend-of-zelda.html to http://www.nindb.net/game/legend-of-zelda.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129184014/http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/ds/12.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/ds/12.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oldnintendogames.info/top-selling-old-nintendo-games/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326064241/http://zelda.com/universe/pedia/k.jsp to http://www.zelda.com/universe/pedia/k.jsp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430172315/http://zelda.com/universe/game/phantomhourglass/ to http://zelda.com/universe/game/phantomhourglass/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425165642/http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2007/ds/25.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2007/ds/25.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cameos in television shows like Jeopardy
Could we have a mention of Jeopardy's latest cameo in video gaming that they had on February 21, 2017. It was about Link's Crossbow Training and they had to name the series it appeared in. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really more WP:TRIVIA than anything of importance... Sergecross73   msg me  14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Breathe of the Wild game timeline.
Since the game has been released, I was wondering when this game sits on. My theory is perhaps a sequel to Skyward Sword, explaining the Hyrule apocalypse or dystopia (whatever you call it). Well judging by the expansion of the cel shading since the Gamecube version of The Windwaker. Anyway, I'm just asking for an opinion that's all.

Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't place it anywhere unless Nintendo directly states where it falls. Adding it anywhere based on our own personal speculation is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  13:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep waiting then. Thanks anyway. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Title used in websites for Japan. Fix.
Every website that lists The Legend of Zelda games in Japan are named Zelda no Densetsu not Zeruda no Densetsu. Either somebody made an obvious mistake and forgot to fix it, or they didn't follow the name used in numerous websites. Could someone fix every page and the right name in there? I'd appreciate it! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you confident your change is in line with Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles? This is not meant to be "The official title" per say, but the romanization of the actual Japanese title. I don't have the expertise to make that determination but you may need to revert. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Very Good Article!
There are no things that I see wring with this article. It is incredibly informative and makes the game seem important to the video game community. Thank you everyone for their contributions and sharing your knowledge on the subject.

The one thing that I think should be added to this article is more on the controversy over the timeline. That was a very big deal in the Zelda community!

Ethan harris11 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)ethan_harris11
 * Hi there. Thanks for the input! FYI, the reason the article doesn't go into the "timeline controversy" stuff is because that's mostly just casual arguments among fans - which Wikipedia doesn't usually document really. Wikipedia is supposed to be written by what reliable sources - like by websites with professional writers and journalists - and they don't usually go very deep into all of that. They mention it, but they don't go into all the crazy fan theories and arguments.
 * But that's just my casual observation, feel free to prove me wrong. WP:VG/S is a great resource for approved sources, and sources to stay away from, when writing video game-related content on Wikipedia. Perhaps with some research you can find some information on this by usable sources. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of release years: Consistency with other major Nintendo series' pages
The "Timeline of release years" section on the other long-running series pages for Nintendo (Metroid & Super Mario) include entries for re-mastered releases, and make use of bold font to highlight major releases in the respective series. Since these standards are already being followed on other relevant pages, is anyone aware of Wikipedia standards that would prevent their implementation here?

Wiki.Alkaline.Unique (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is no specific guideline that says to do this. Including games that are already apart of the list is silly, should we add every single game with Mario in the title next? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a clear set of games discussed in the article for "The Legend of Zelda" series (and included in Nintendo's offical timeline for the series as defined in the article itself). I propose including all of them, as is already done for Nintendo's other primary game series.  The Super Mario "Timeline of release years" is limited to North American releases bearing the specific words "Super Mario", so I don't think your example is a good counter argument. Wiki.Alkaline.Unique (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also against this. As Dissident stated, there's no established standard, so there's no need to standardize. The articles you've alluded to, like Super Mario, aren't especially well written articles. It's not particularly a standard to aspire to. I also object to your random assertion that handheld games like the DS entries were not "major games". That's getting into murky, subjective, WP:OR territory. Sergecross73   msg me  00:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never really liked this template anyway. Takes up a lot of space for something that is discussed in prose anyway. I've just removed the bolding and remakes/releases from the template, as they didn't use to be like this. ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, just as well, Super Mario's prior state wasn't representative of the most recent talk page discussion a few months back anyways. Passerby's tweak and change things all the time. All the more reason not to standardize to the Super Mario article. Sergecross73   msg me  13:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Breath of the Wild Timeline misinformation.
It says in the fictional chronology section that BotW is at the end of all three timelines, but the latest interview had Hidemaro say nothing about there being a convergence; instead, he said that it's up to the player. On the timeline on the Zelda JP site, BotW isn't attached to any timeline.Kholdstare93 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was my reasoning when I first removed it a few days ago. If it's not being directly attributed to a certain timeline, it doesn't belong (either in one timeline or all three). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Historically, That has been pretty much been their approach for all Zelda games that weren't direct sequels. They make separate games, let the fans make up timelines, and then say "Sure. That one." ApLundell (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Excalibur
I can't edit this because the page is protected, but the article should just say the master sword is "inspired by Excalibur". We don't need a fairly confusing reference to the origins of the Excalibur story in Welsh mythology as that has nothing to do with the inspiration for the sword in the game. This is something that happens quite often on Wikipedia - someone has their own niche interest in a topic and adds overly detailed information which undermines readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.136.45.202 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, condensed. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
I AM A HUGE HUGE HUGE FAN AND I WOULD LIKE TO EDIT ON THE WINDWAKER AND TWILIGHT PRINCESS ONLY. I HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS AND WOULD LOVE TO BE PART OF YOUR GROUP. WITH LOTS OF HOPE-SETH Seth ryaob (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bold text in release timeline
I understand that most of the non-bolded games in the release timeline are either a) re-releases or b) multiplayer games, but what is the criteria for not bolding Oracles, Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks? I'm not saying I disagree I'm just curious what the reasoning is. Hussar1956 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bold titles are meant to be main series games only. However, I personally disagree with doing this because of how debatable that can be, and thus open to edit wars. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 10:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah there was an editor/IP doing the same thing at some Mario series timelines too, and I kept reverting him due to similar reasons - there was no explanation/criteria for the bolding, and there were some weird choices made that again, made it hard to understand what exactly was being portrayed. I believe all of the bolding should be removed. Sergecross73   msg me  13:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request, 1 Jan 2020
There is a misplaced apostrophe after series in this sentence: "Though the games contain many role-playing elements (Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is the only one to include an experience system), they emphasize straightforward hack and slash-style combat over the strategic, turn-based or active time combat of series' like Final Fantasy."

Also, in this sentence: "In later games, the series includes a special "big key" that will unlock the door to battle the dungeon's boss enemy and open the item chest." the word series makes no sense and should clearly be dungeon. 2.24.117.117 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, done. Stefvanschie (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sales Numbers
The sales chart, which is outdated for one, features one source for many items - the Nintendo Everything article - but then uses other archived sources that contradict the Nintendo Everything article. For example, the archived RPGamer article about GDC 2004 has sales figures for Link's Awakening *and* Link's Awakening DX that put it at over 6 million sales for that particular version of the game. They are not substantially different enough to count as separate games, but the DX sales numbers are not reflected anywhere in the page. This is true in several different instances - the Oracle games sold 3.96 million *each*, which is also not reflected accurately. That Nintendo Everything article is also a pretty shoddy source. It just links to a different blog. --Passerby 16 February 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.173.70 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Zelda HoT" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zelda HoT. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh  17:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Genre(s)
Since this is the overall series article rather than a game-specific article, should the genres in the infobox be expanded to reflect games with elements respective to other genres? e.g. Zelda II was classified as an RPG over an action-adventure game due to the presence of experience levels, and spin-off titles such as Tingle might fall under the classification of puzzle games. I believe Hyrule Warriors would be classified as a hack-and-slash in the same vein as Gauntlet or Dynasty Warriors.

I can't submit any edits myself since I lack an account. 104.15.63.185 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda Encyclodia
I see the book is sourced, and it is published by Nintendo, but not mentioned in print media. Anyone with a copy care to include a description?02:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It just lists different mechanics, items, characters, and locations from all different games up to Triforce heroes. Joebiggy (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ganondorf
though Ganon is usually the bad guy in ocarina of time, twilight princess, and wind waker Ganondorf is the main bad guy. though his name is similar, Gannondorf is Gerudo well Ganon is the essence of Demise sent out to destroy Hyrule after Demise was traped in the Master Sword

https://www.reddit.com/r/botw/comments/c982ra/whats_the_difference_between_ganon_calamity_ganon/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool gy 123 (talk • contribs)
 * Not really sure where you’re going with this, but Reddit isn’t a usable source on Wikipedia, per WP:USERG, so you’ll probably want to adjust your approach according. Sergecross73   msg me  23:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2020
"Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity" should be added to the Release timeline table. It should appear between "Link's Awakening" and "Untitled Breath of the Wild sequel". The year should be 2020 and the text can link to the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrule_Warriors:_Age_of_Calamity Andalu30 (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Timeline Zelda" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Timeline Zelda. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh  18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021
Grammar fix: In second full paragraph, last sentence " three people who's hearts embody the required virtue" change "who's" to "whose" SJ408Techie (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 03:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error first paragraph
First paragraph of the page says:  "...gathered together, the power of the Triforce can grant any wish it's user desires."

"it's" should be "its"


 * ) 83.82.112.90 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021
Under the reception and legacy section, change the game system for Zelda: Four Swords + A Link to the Past from the DS to be on the GBA, considering how that is the system that it initially released on. Gyarados422 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Somebody doublecheck that I did that right.  I copied the references from the main article for that game. ApLundell (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Should the sales and reception emulate the Super Mario Article and show sales per platform?
I feel that would be more informative to the reader instead of just lumping say the n64 version of ocarina of time with the 3DS version despite both games releasing more than a decade apart. The Reception is already split so I think having the sales split as well would make it uniform Gemini.skywalker (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per-platform sales are listed here, you just have to hover over (or click on) the footnotes.TheHumanIntersect (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MLCforLING150C1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022
Mainline games’ font should be changed to bold to differentiate from remakes in the timeline release history. 95.102.48.0 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ - This is not necessary, nor is it intuitive for readers to understand. Sergecross73   msg me  19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the potential edit warring that would result with certain games (see Sonic 3D Blast). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, also that. I'm sure there's some odd Zelda title where there will be back and forth arguing over whether or not it's "mainline". Sergecross73   msg me  20:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

BotW sequel release date
On the last line of the History section, it says that the BotW sequel is set for release in 2022. Recently, it has been delayed, with the new time frame given as 'Spring 2023'. This can be seen at the end of the opening paragraph on the game's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Breath_of_the_Wild_sequel And on the original source, the Nintendo of America twitter page: https://twitter.com/NintendoAmerica/status/1508806409797963784 The line should be edited to say: "An untitled Breath of the Wild sequel was announced during the Nintendo Direct E3 2019 presentation on June 11, set for release in 2022 but delayed until Spring 2023." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopla (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi You are correct. This has been updated on other pages, but must have been missed here. Thanks for pointing it out. Fieryninja (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Fieryninja (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SEASON, we shouldn't be using "Spring" though. It should be something like "Q1/Q2 2023", "first half of 2023", etc. Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pet peeve but using "Q1/Q2" is nerdy and makes no sense to somebody who doesn't know what a financial quarter is. Is this common for films and other media too? We should just be saying early/mid/late instead. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm personally open to anything that doesn't violate SEASON. Sergecross73   msg me  01:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, but financial quarters are not much better. They aren't even standardized as Japanese fiscal years begin on April 1. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked it up and, on https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/The-sequel-to-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Breath-of-the-Wild-1576884.html (the official Nintendo UK website) the first paragraph reads: 'The sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is aiming for a spring 2023 release on Nintendo Switch'
 * So spring time is the given release window by Nintendo Zoopla (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but be aware of WP:SEASON. Sergecross73   msg me  15:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We also have to avoid using seasons as timeframes per WP:SEASON like Serge brought up. An easy solution to this would be Q1/pre-spring Winter = early, Q2/Q3/Spring/Summer = mid, and Q4/Fall/Winter = late. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 10:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding a reference to Casimir Libersli ReTRio's project on June 18, 2022
Hi. I added a paragraph about the Zelda Project Suite which was removed with comment "So? Fan project, unofficial, no secondary reliable coverage.". Slefff (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No secondary reliable coverage: The paragraph cited an interview on BX1, an official TV station in Belgium. This is secondary coverage, and it is reliable. Is there some way I should tag this to make it appear more clearly?
 * Fan project: Casimir Liberski is a renown world class jazz musician. This new album is being premiered live for three days at one of the main Jazz venues in Brussels where he is Artist-in-residence. I do not think this can be qualified as a fan project.
 * Unofficial: I cannot tell how official this is from the online information I see but I don't think this is relevant. These works seem perfectly noteworthy to me.


 * I would have removed it too. It's not officially related to the game, and being merely published on YouTube doesn't say much about its importance either. It felt more like an effort to promote the concerts that are apparently happening this weekend... Sergecross73   msg me  14:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Promotion of concerts is usually done before, not after. I just noticed the works because of the concerts. I looked here for similar things and thought is would be good to have pointers to professional derivative works such as these. Being officially sanctioned by the publishers of the game does not seem to be required to be mentioned on a Wikipedia page. For example the Space Invaders contains many links to unofficial derivative works, there are many more examples. Slefff (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your initial add was on June 17th, and your addition mentioned it happening June 17-19, so you was added before/during the concerts. Regardless, I think you're missing the point. This is a huge, massively influential game, selling tens of millions of copies. It's an WP:UNDUE issue if we add a paragraph for every fan project that gets uploaded to YouTube or social media. This is getting relatively little coverage from reliable sources in the video game or music world (I read extensively in both, and I've seen nothing about it outside of this very discussion.) Thus just isn't that important of a thing to include. Sergecross73   msg me  15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews on local TV stations are generally not considered independent either, and that's the only present source. Besides that, I'm doubtful Casimir Liberski is truly notable, that article has no sources currently that represent independent secondary SIGCOV. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, my edit was on June 18th at 1:20AM local time, (23:20 UTC). I mistakenly wrote June 17-19 in the paragraph, the concerts were June 16-18. WP:UNDUE is not relevant here as it pertains to conflicting points of view, not related works.
 * It does not seem like the notability of this jazz musician is in question on the Casimir Liberski wikipedia page so I don't see the point of bringing this up here.
 * The Notability says nothing about local TV stations being not independent.
 * I agree that it would be better to have more references to these works and these might appear in time. Other than this, I do not see the other objections as valid. Adding such material would be consistent with the opinions expressed in "In_popular_culture"_content.
 * Slefff (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * UNDUE isn't just about different sides, it's about whether or not things are worth mentioning at all. We're not compelled to add anything and everything that has a source. Sergecross73   msg me  22:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just looked at WP:UNDUE, it only talks about viewpoints. Any other references that might support your claim? Slefff (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not reading it right - you're thinking of the term "viewpoint" too narrowly. Here, it's the viewpoint of whether or not he's worth mentioning. Whether or not he should be mentioned over something else similar. That sort of thing. It's not specific as to be merely referring to positive or negative sentiments or two sides of a conflict. WP:FRINGE is another similar sentiment, again backing what I was saying before - sources are required for inclusion, but sources don't mean we're required to add it. It's the bare minimum barrier to overcome. Sergecross73   msg me  19:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Argubly, as UNDUE is on NPOV, it is more geared towards viewpoints and not general information. However policies like WP:NOT and WP:V give the reason to exclude in absence of available sources: we are meant to summarize what RSes say, and not every sourcable data point need to be included for a topic. Thus is exactly such a case. Additionally, the "in popular culture" sections are being frowned upon per WP:TRIVIA, unless there is significant sourcing to support.  --M asem  (t) 21:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, I literally just questioned the notability of the musician, lol. That's why it's quite relevant. I'm still pondering whether I want to send it to AFD or not. Also, it's interviews (being non-independent) that I was talking about. Local coverage also is, generally speaking, weaker, though. -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wondering if Tears of the Kingdom could be added in the chronology section
Exactly what it says on the tin—since Tears of the Kingdom is the sequel to Breath of the Wild, and it has a title now, I think it should be added into the section detailing the series' fictional chronology, right below Breath of the Wild 's placement in the timeline. However, I don't know how to properly make this edit, nor am I sure whether or not it's reasonable to do so at this point in time. Is it? Mount-lanayru (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We have no idea if it takes place chronologically to Breath. We need to wait for more details. M asem (t) 21:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, considering how convoluted the timeline is. Sergecross73   msg me  21:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Understandable. While it more-likely-than-not takes place after Breath of the Wild, seeing as how it features the same Hyrule, the same Link and Zelda, etc., it'll prolly be best to wait until official sources confirm its placement in the timeline. Mount-lanayru (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Rumored animated film from Illumination
There are rumors that Illumination is making an animated film based on The Legend of Zelda video games. I am not sure if this will be Illumination and Nintendo's next collaborative project after The Super Mario Bros. Movie. 108.175.226.244 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Release info source
Pretty great source for release and platform info. Nothing new really, especially to the average Zelda fan, but could be very helpful for sourcing various info. Sergecross73  msg me  21:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/zelda/23564352/where-to-play-legend-of-zelda-games-nintendo-switch-wii-u-ds-virtual-console-online-service

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023
Please italicize The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass in the Fictional chronology section. 69.165.155.61 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ small jars 16:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023
Please add a space between the 60th citation and Skyward Sword. 69.165.155.61 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)