Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Four Swords/Archive 1

Comment
Is the "(GBA)" necessary? -- Zoe


 * Nope. I moved it. The only risk is confusion with The Legend of Zelda: Four Sword Adventures, the new game for the Gamecube. I don't think this will be a problem. Derrick Coetzee 00:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expanding article
Does anyone want to rewrite and add a lot more detail to the article, so it is of a decent enough length that an infobox can be added (I have never been able to play the game so don't know much about it). I have already made the infobox but had to take it off becuase it overlayed the zelda game list template at the bottom. If anyone expands it enough feel free to add the infobox back in. Oh and I am missing the name of the designer, as you can see. Ian Moody 09:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But *which* designer is the designer, or are there multiple? On this MobyGames list there's a whole heap of names. I'm assuming it's Okamoto since he was the big cheese for the Oracles, but he's down as one of several producers. So do we credit them all and pluralise "designer"? I will have to check the ingame credits themselves to see what they say. While they're FAR more reliable than MobyGames, I will have to get to that ending bit again. Good old emulation! Master Thief Garrett 10:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've padded the main page with a ridiculously wordy but complete text-dump of the opening cutscene. I made it from scratch just now, good old emulation! Therefore this now fits, so I've added it, but the designer problem has yet to be resolved. I have left the sidebar here so it can be seen side-by-side in context with your message until such time as the developer name is added. Master Thief Garrett 11:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and well done. I made a slight alteration to the sequels section, but other than that it seems fine. Ian Moody 11:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I absolutely love the fact that...
We totally omit the fact that this game came with A Link to the Past. In fact, the game was called Link to the Past, with Four Swords! Imagine that!

If you can't tell, I'm asking for a title change. 02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The game itself is called Four Swords. It resides on the same cart as A Link to the Past.  That should be noted in the article, but not in the title. 171.159.192.10 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a game? moved
This discussion was taking up a massive amount of talk article space, and consisted of only one single individual making arguments against numerous other individuals. Anyone who wants to view the argument and/or continue it can visit its page here. Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see User_talk:A_Link_to_the_Past for an older argument. --Russoc4 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The gameplay is quite similar
I'm not going to make a big deal about this ... but to a person who has never played a Zelda game before, the gameplay would appear quite similar. I believe it's more POV to say it's significantly different. You are for some reason trying to distance a game with "The Legend of Zelda" in its title. Whether or not it's a real game (mini-game, sub-game, etc.), the gameplay is quite similar. I'm not a vandal! 171.159.192.10 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A person who has "never played" a Zelda game before wouldn't, technically, know whether or not they are similar, having nothing to compare it to. However, the games play significantly differently from the general series; aside from the "Four person" aspect (which was later only duplicated in Minish cap), the game eschews the nonlinear dungeon design, the collection of rupees as a motivation of purchasing items, the entire aspect of collecting weapons in each dungeon for use later, the heart pieces (the game reverts the player back to a single set of three after the level ends), and the exploration aspects of the series as well. The fact that it's been changed on no less than five key aspects that are an intrinsic point of the Zelda series most certainly proves that it plays differently than any other mainline Zelda game before it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. To clarify, I meant for this hypothetical individual to view the games side-by-side. The overall gameplay and goals are different, but at it's core (where you spend the most time -- in dungeons) it is basically the same aside from the multiplayer element, which is, as you noted, featured in another "mainline" Zelda game. The puzzle solving & dungeon exploration, item usage (you have choices of items to use in created situations), combat & boss battles, even the controls (swing a sword, use an item, lift or push a block, step on a switch, find keys, ride platforms, etc.) show enormous similarities. Maybe we should note that while the heart of the gameplay is similar, the overall goals have changed considerably. 171.159.192.10 16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect.
A multiplayer mode (being an adventure does not make it a separate game) does not warrant a game. By definition, Milky Way Wishes in Kirby Super Star is more deserving of an article because Nintendo describes it as a game. But neither is deserving of an article. It does not exist outside of this game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * *groan* This again? Four Swords functions completely differently than A Link to the Past. It has its own story, different gameplay mechanics and even uses different sprites for Link. What is your alternative? Just delete information about an entire game from Wikipedia? Axem Titanium 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My solution is to redirect to an article that ALREADY has the information. It's a lesser multiplayer adventure, advertised by Nintendo as a bonus, not the main game in this. Just like New Super Mario Bros. ' Mario Partyesque single/multiplayer mode, it is just a bonus, not a separate game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "solution" was already talked about, and the entire idea of Four Swords being "lesser", being "party games" or whatnot was dismissed. Axem Titanium, be aware that yes, this is the same lone guy that kept doing this LAST time. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Solution? So doing the exact same thing that is done with all multiplayer modes is not a good solution? I never once said it was a party game. I compared it to the fact that the party mode in New Super Mario Bros. is completely different in visuals and gameplay from the main game, just like Four Swords. A Link to the Past is the first game mentioned in the title, when you begin the game it gives you an option of Four Swords or A Link to the Past, with A Link to the Past shown first. Hell, the boxart shows The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, with a smaller icon and logo for Four Swords. Four Swords is never referred to as a separate game, it's called a multiplayer adventure. It's called an adventure because it is. Would it not be an adventure if they called it a multiplayer mode? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick question, what article already has this information? Axem Titanium 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article. And what information is not covered can be added. This article should be mostly about Four Swords, but the game title is A Link to the Past/Four Swords. The ideal article is a summary of what the LttP page says, and a description of the changes exclusive to this version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the title is The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords. I think you might be trying to misconstrue a naming issue by reasoning that Four Swords isn't its own game and thus the "ALttP/FS" version can be the location of the article, rather than just Four Swords. It might not be a bad idea to have both articles, one on just Four Swords and the other on the remake/compilation itself (like Final Fantasy Anthology or something). The point is, I don't see Four Swords not having enough content to constitute its own article and thus should have one, seeing as it is its own game (story and all), despite only being released alongside ALttP. Axem Titanium 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The main game in the game is LttP. How can you argue that after countless advertisements that pretty much say "get this for LttP! It also comes with a multiplayer adventure". You are stating that it is a game. PROVE it. The only person who can declare FS its own game is Nintendo, and they have not done so. Why are the minigames in New SMB and Super Mario 64 DS not considered their own games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I was refering to the game select menu. LttP covers it initially. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what would qualify as a game, by your definition? Can I see some defining characteristics? Let's say Four Swords gets rereleased on the Wii using its Virtual Console. Would that make it enough of its own game? And "covers it initially" isn't a very sound or stable argument. Axem Titanium 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't? So there's a reason why Four Swords isn't ever treated as the dominant game in this cartridge? Also, yes, if it were rereleased outside of the cartridge, it would be a game. But give me one good reason why this multiplayer adventure is worthy of being separate from the game it belongs to, while Kirby Super Star's various games (which are actually ADVERTISED as games) are not? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not the game is dominant, or if it's advertised as a separate game. So far, you haven't given me any defining characteristics of a game which Four Swords doesn't fulfill. Am I to assume you have none? The burden of proof is on you since you are the one acting against consensus. Axem Titanium 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which said burden became infinitely heavier for A Link to the Past (talk) when he had to contend with Nintendo themselves declaring that the LTTP/FS compliation cartridge was specifically "two games in one game pak". Not "One game and one multiplayer mode"- specifically they have clearly stated that Four Swords is its own game. And giving Four Swords its own Nintendo homepage, clearly seperate from anything to do with LTTP. . Of course, this was all settled months ago. I'm not sure why the guy is trying to pop it up again- maybe he thought he could slip it in while nobody was looking? Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It exists as A Link to the Past/Four Swords. It does not exist outside of this cartridge. It is a lesser game than A Link to the Past on this cartridge. I asked YOU to show where Nintendo called it a game. A multiplayer mode is a multiplayer mode, regardless of how large it is. And Ex-Nintendo Employee, tell me - what is the title of the Nintendo page? Nintendo itself is so confident that FS is its own game that they don't give it a page? And Zelda.com is terrible evidence. The webmaster once had a timeline declaring that there is only one Link over like a thousand years. Regardless, Four Swords is 100% nonexistant out of this cartridge. There is literally NO need to keep this article separate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They classify the games together because they're TWO GAMES ON ONE GAME PAK. THEY HAVE NEVER SAID THAT FOUR SWORDS IS A LESSER GAME. EVER. You know, I feel like I've already written all this self-evident crap before. Oh wait, that's right, I HAVE. The impetus of proof is on you to provide a legitimate source that contradicts current sources. And dude, Zelda.com is the OFFICIAL Nintendo Zelda site. I don't care what you say their webmaster said or didn't say or ate for breakfast last week- they are the official word of Nintendo themselves. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so great of a source that a particular Nintendo employee demanded that the timeline be taken down, and it was.
 * Regardless - slippery slope. So can I get a reason why Four Swords deserves an article more so than, say, the Clubhouse Games version of Darts? Or Go? According to the European version, these are 42 games in one. Or individual portions of Kirby Super Stars - states that the various portions of the game are games as well. Is there a dire need for Four Swords to exist as its own article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you've managed to still avoid the question. I'll pose it again, if you forgot. What are the defining characteristics of a video game which would warrant separate articles (in your opinion)? Obviously, Four Swords is considerably more developed than each of those 42 games (which are all games in their own right and have their own pages, since before Clubhouse Games was released). For one thing, it has a story. I highly doubt Solitaire has a storyline, even in the context of that game. Also, you're always trying to put the burden of proof on us (which it isn't, since it's actually on you), and then when we cite sources, you simply reject them and turn around to bring up the Kirby Super Stars example every time. I see a pattern that doesn't look like it'll end until you decide to admit defeat. Axem Titanium 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I bring up Super Star because it makes my point. Fine, Four Swords is a game. Like Milky Way Wishes. Now you can explain why it MUST be separate from the only cartridge it's available on. There is no problems with clutter, so there needs to be a reason for it to be separate, no? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're half right about how this will eventually get resolved, Axem Titanium. At least, if it happens like last time; A Link to the Past (talk) will continue to do nothing but avoid answering the tough questions and keep going back to his circular straw arguments (while ignoring the legitimate evidence against him), and eventually each individual arguing with him just gives up in digust until he's the only one left. That means he might "get the last word", so to speak, but he's only convinced his own mind of his argument so the article does not get changed in his favor. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I didn't just say it was a game? I like how you talk about avoiding answering tough questions when you've done exactly that. Stop being so cowardly and answer MY question. Does it need an article? Is it a bad idea to list it here? Is it there a pressing need for the Four Swords portion of the article to be split from the main game that it is available on? If you don't answer, I don't acknowledge you're right to accuse me of ignoring either one of you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs an article for the same reason why Adventure of Link and Ocarina of Time have articles. They were both released in the The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition thing but since that article deals specifically with issues concerning the port, so should this article, with stuff like "Quality of the ports" and etc. That way, this article can focus on the qualities of being a collection and the Four Swords article can focus on being a game article like any other Zelda installment. Axem Titanium 02:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They get their own articles because they both existed before the collector's edition and because they EXIST outside of it. Four Swords exists only in this cartridge. Without this being the main article for Four Swords, it is - at most - seven paragraphs. To put that into contrast, Katamari Damacy is more than 30 paragraphs. Split apart both articles cannot become long enough, put together, they can be plenty long without being too long. There is no pressing need for them to be separated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "They get their own articles because they both existed before the collector's edition and because they EXIST outside of it." Where is your proof that this is the reason they get their own articles? Merely being on a compliation cartridge is absolutely no indication that a game is somehow undeserving of an article whatsoever. In fact, it being on a compliation cartridge, if anything, is even more reason for seperate articles- that way, as Axem said, issues that only are dedicated to the individual items, and not the collection as a whole, are within their individual articles. "Four Swords exists only in this cartridge." Again, irrelevant. The game is a legitimate, FULL game, one that has not only recieved canon in the Zelda timeline AND importance in the series, but also a sequel as well. More straws you're pulling from your hat. As well, the viewpoint that OPPOSES yours has precedence, as other compliation cartridges, such as Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt also have both articles dedicated to the individual games themselves AND to the compliation cartridges. Why do you keep humoring this guy, Axem? He's just going to try to circular-argue you until you give up in disgust. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're responding to my question with "OMG WHY DONT U ANSWER MAH QUESTION", hoping that I'll get tired of you ignoring my argument while arguing that everyone who disagrees with you is ignoring it and will leave.
 * Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt having an article does not show that Four Swords should, too. It would be an argument for the COLLECTION of A Link to the Past/Four Swords, NOT Four Swords. And, you argued that Zelda and OoT may not have articles based on their actual games? Yes, well, that's a great argument until you realize which came first, the collection or the LOZ/OOT ARTICLES. The only argument you've made as to WHY it should be split is that it deserves to be split. But that does not = NEEDING to be split. The only thing that can be discusses is the reception, criticism and development. The thing you keep ignoring is that there is no need to have na article solely about it. There is no reason for it to be outside of the cartridge it exists on. SMB/Duck Hunt was made after Duck Hunt and SMB. SMB/Duck Hunt exists because it is of great importance, as decided in the AfD. Four Swords may be a complete game, but it is not only advertised as a multiplayer adventure and as a bonus in addition to the port of A Link to the Past, but there is absolutely no NEED for it to be an article (no, wanting it to be acknowledged by itself is not a need). In fact, there is a need FOR it to be in this article - it's too small when separated, unnecessarily small. Both articles can only be so many paragraphs. But one article can be big - I would imagine gameplay for Four Swords would be 2-3 paragraphs long, two paragraphs for sales reception and consumer reception, three paragraphs for A Link to the Past - one for a summary of the story, one for a summary of gameplay and one for a summary of new content, three paragraphs of lead, etc. Obviously, it cannot have as much as Katamari Damacy, but there is no good reason to have two small articles instead of one larger article if possible. If this were put up for an FA and voters knew that it could be made bigger by being in the article about the game cartridge it is on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging two articles
This is a dispute about whether or not The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords should be merged into The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords should be merged into The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords on the grounds that the former game does not exist outside of the cartridge of the latter game's and because not merging them means we'll have two small articles as opposed to one right-sized article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  Strong Oppose This is no less than the third time A Link to the Past (talk) has attempted to diminish The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords, each time using straw-man arguments that were quickly dismissed by other editors. See Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_A_Link_to_the_Past/Four_Swords and Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_A_Link_to_the_Past/Four_Swords/Argument_about_the_name_of_this_article for his repetitions of the same arguments. The game is noteable- it is canon and has spawned a sequel on the GameCube (as well as a prequel in Minish Cap). He is attempting to "erase" the game from standalone status because he merely considers it to be "a lesser subgame". There is no Wikipedia policy that states the article should be merged; on the contrary, there are prior game compliations (such as Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt) that are noteable enough that both the compliation cartridge and the main game articles themselves are included. Furthermore, A Link to the Past (talk) is the only one who has repeatedly attempted to erase this article; numerous others have attempted to discuss the issue with him, with him refusing to discuss the issue in a calm, rational manner. Ex-Nintendo Employee 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What? SMB/Duck Hunt existing alongside two games that both exist outside of it and predate it is not an argument that a game that exists only in this cartridge deserves its own article. And yes, your constant, paranoid accusations are completely rational. Throughout this discussion, your input is that I am working against Four Swords by not wanting it to have its own article. You also forgot to mention that I pointed out it does not NEED to be separate. By separating them, you are choosing two lesser quality, shorter articles instead of one long, good article. So are you saying that it needing to be one article is less important than you wanting it not to be? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with merging The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords into The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords as having the former article is rather pointless when The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past already exists. &mdash; Ian Moody (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Sonic Mega Collection, Sonic Mega Collection Plus, The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest, Super Mario All-Stars and more. There can not be any sales section in a Four Swords article, because Four Swords sold no copies. A Link to the Past/Four Swords did, however. There is no point in having two separate articles. Doing so merely makes two short articles. Ask any Wikipedian whether quality should be a factor and they'll agree. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the nominator doesn't want to do that- the guy wants to completely erase The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords and only keep The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords. Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a genius! Of course, it is nothing more than vindication towards Four Swords. It's not that it's just making two redunant articles and making them BOTH unnecessarily short, it's the I just hate the existence of Four Swords. Good job! - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your own words are your own motivation. "It is not a game, it is a subgame" "Being an adventure does not make it a game", words that indicate you have a motivation to remove Four Swords as something less than other games in the series. Furthermore, in the prior argument, your own statement again comes back, to prove my point; in that previous argument, it was suggested that the Four Swords article be created and the LTTP port information be included in it, but you once again chimed in- "By including ALttP as a note somewhere in the article and Four Swords as the main game, you're contradicting that A Link to the Past is the main game and Four Swords is a lesser game in the package", indicating your opposition to even the suggested compromise of using the Four Swords article and including mention of ALTTP in it. Oh, and by including sarcastic remarks you're violating Wikipedia's policies on civility. Ex-Nintendo Employee 20:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. The best idea is to focus on what I once said, instead of my current opinion, which I've constantly stated to you is that it is a game. There is no reason why Four Swords should be separate, and it definitely makes no sense to have Four Swords as the primary article. A Link to the Past is the main game in the collection. A Link to the Past's new content needs more discussion than a blurb in the article. A Link to the Past/Four Swords is an actual game cartridge, and is more known than the multiplayer game, Four Swords. So if we were to merge anywhere, it would make sense to merge to the more notable article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you've constantly stated that it is NOT a game. You couldn't win the previous argument with your straw man attempts, so you left. You waited until the Four Swords article was created and other people had added significant substance to it, then you popped back in, pretending to have a vested interest in the article- when all you really want to do is get rid of the Four Swords article to make sure it's permanantly tied as "lesser" to the LTTP port. A Link to the Past is ONE game in the two-game collection- and the only "new content" added to the collection that concerns LTTP are the additions of Link's yell and a Four Swords dungeon. Certainly not enough to warrant more than just a blurb. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I bring up Super Star because it makes my point. Fine, Four Swords is a game. Like Milky Way Wishes. Now you can explain why it MUST be separate from the only cartridge it's available on. There is no problems with clutter, so there needs to be a reason for it to be separate, no? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)"
 * So either you're wrong or my eyes are wrong. Also, you forgot to mention the sidequest involving Bumpkin Q. and the Hurricane Slashesque technique, and the minor problems such as the GBA's inferiorities to the SNES in both audio and visual capability and the screen ratio. Additionally, you understate the Four Swords dungeon by emphasizing that it's based on it. It's only based on it in the sense that it's unlocked and has four mini-bosses based on the first four bosses in LttP's Dark World. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is really lame. Why do we have two separate articles for one single game? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two games. One Game Pak. At least, as stated by Nintendo. A compliation cartridge containing LTTP and Four Swords. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that. It seems like the logical solution, no matter where you put the content (I don't care about the title), is to devote the bulk of the article to 4S, then have a single paragraph describing LttP in brief and linking to LTTP with main. Having two articles describing one single game is madness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So why don't we retain the Four Swords article and have the ALLTP/FS article redirect to this one, including mention of the LTTP port on it? I'd be agreeable to that. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. It seems like the English-language name was The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords; would you object to having all of the content from 4S merged here from the 4S article while simultaneously reducing the redundant LTTP content? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear we need to merge SOMETHING -- having a Four Swords article and a separate LTTP/Four Swords article is just silly. It makes more sense to have them both at the LTTP/Four Swords article, since they were only ever distributed as one cartridge. Andre (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The name of the compliation catridge itself was ALLTP/FS, but Nintendo does consider the two titles to be distinct seperate entities. That's why there were two articles in the first place, of course- the FS article was dedicated to FS, and the LTTP was dedicated to LTTP, and the ALTTP/FS article was dedicated to the cartridge itself and the connections between the games, as the Duck Hunt/Super Mario Brothers article discusses the compliation cartridge itself and connections between it, with short paragraphs dedicated to each game. How do you suggest we retain the distinctions? Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember, Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt were also released separately. There's no reason we shouldn't economize regarding redundancy; the bulk of this article will be about Four Swords, as there's no need to go over LTTP a second time (the wikilink covers that).
 * You're arguing for an arbitrary distinction that I'm reasonably sure doesn't exist and that it benefits this encyclopedia in no way to make. Even if you're right on the first point, it's not reason enough to have two articles about the single cart/SKU that Four Swords appears in. In general, Wikipedia gives every game release its own article (and sometimes not even then; see Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil (video game)), not every single discrete game mode its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reasonably sure doesn't exist? Nintendo themselves have made the distinction; their own statements, which are sourced, clearly states that ALTTP/FS are "Two Games in one Game Pak" and "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past / Four Swords is really two games in one." As well, they say "Four Swords is a multiplayer game for two to four players." (note the distinct use of the singular title when referring to FS) "Two legendary games- one Game Pak" (Note that they directly call FS specifically an actual game, not a mode, and they clearly state that the compliation cartridge contains two distinct seperate games on one cartridge, not one game and a mode.) The specific evidence demonstrates that Nintendo has made a specific effort to identify both games individually, with each one being contained on the single ALLTP/FS cartridge. I know you have an opposition to fancruft, Man in Black, which is why the claim has been sourced. [] [] [] Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed the bit where I said that it benefits this encyclopedia in no way to make this difference even if the difference does indeed exist. (It's semantics, to be honest.) Consider Metal Gear Solid 3, which not only includes Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence in a single article with the main game, but also includes Metal Gear Online, an entirely separate multiplayer game on a separate disc that is included with Subsistence, in that single article.

Additionally, the only thing that could go into a Four Swords article separate from this one would be direct observation of the game itself: gameplay description and plot summary. That's the least encyclopedic part of any game article. Instead, we should cover this multiplayer game (or game mode or minigame or whatever, it's all semantics) in the article on the single video-game-in-the-traditional-sense (meaning a video game release), which will also hopefully have info on development, critical reception, and so on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not in opposition to that, or the merge in general, I'm merely stressing that, if the two articles are recombined, that it should be made clear somewhere in the article that Four Swords is its own distinct game in the compliation, and not merely a mode, or a lesser addition, or a "sub"game. A Link to the Past (talk) was pushing for Four Swords to be defined as one of those. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need to stress that. We can simply let the facts stand for themselves, and I've been using "the (single/multi)-player portion of this title" when editing this article.
 * If you'd like an example of this tone, look at MegaMan Battle Network 5; instead of repeating marketing gobbledygook like "Two games in one!" when referring to Double Team DS, I've used terms like "the content from both GBA versions of this title" and such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And if A Link to the Past attempts to delete the LTTP/FS article itself again and redirect it so that is simply links to Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past? This is the source of my suspicions; he's trying to remove "Four Swords" piece by piece- first by eliminating the FS article so it leaves only ALLTP/FS, and then pushing for deletion of ALLTP/FS itself, so he can include FS as a small one paragraph blurb in the LTTP article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll hit him with a wiffle ball bat. It may become necessary to merge this page to the larger LTTP article if there's a lack of content sourced to something other than direct observation, but that's a separate discussion with separate reasoning for a separate time. For now, I think we're all in agreement that this article is the best solution for the time being if not indefinitely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, as long as all the sourced Four Swords information is retained, then go ahead. I just don't want to see a repeat of the prior linked argument again and again and again. I have better things to do than deal with insults by someone who has an agenda. Ex-Nintendo Employee 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion (the same suggestion I made to LTTP elsewhere) would be to let it go; a dumb, dumb, dumb content dispute turned vicious. No need to hang onto that venom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't have a problem with the way it's turned out. I have nothing personally against the user LTTP (him and I have disagreed on content in other places, such as the Super Metroid article), and I don't feel it's extended itself. I have a problem with the vicious personal attacks, yes. And yes, I believe from his prior statements that he does have an agenda when it comes to these articles. Am I going to lose any sleep over it? Not really. Besides that, it seems like he accomplished what he set out to do in the first place, which was to turn the Four Swords article into a redirect. Ex-Nintendo Employee 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments? I said that I was going to redirect to A Link to the Past. I was referring to Four Swords, I never claimed that I would redirect the compilation page to A Link to the Past, and how do you even think I ever did when I never stated as such? The closest thing to that idea is me saying that FS should be redirected to ALttP - and considering I never even brought up the concept of redirecting to ALttP again but rather to ALttP/FS, you can't exactly feign ignorance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement is a lie. You already stated before that you intended to remove the LTTP/FS page and move its info to the general LTTP section. Your own statements which were already linked to before. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've not seen where I said it, mind showing me before you make baseless accusations (a nice way to ask you to stop lying through your teeth to legitimize your bull**** statement)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did some checking on my earlier reference and it appears I was somewhat mistaken; LTTP's "this is not a game" discussion was trying to revert an earlier action by user:Ian Moody, who was attempting to shift the ALTTP/FS article content from ALLTP/FS to specifically FS. I got involved in the earlier referenced discussion after someone had done a page move, which made it appear as if user ALTTP's "this is not a game" discussion was occurring on the ALLTP/FS page and not the FS page. The discussion occurring on the Four Swords page (as opposed to the LTTP/FS page) makes a difference. I'm big enough to admit I made a mistake about ALTTP's motivations, although I still disagree with some points ("not a game") and the Jewish thing. Apologies. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to apologize too, a lot of the stuff I said was too harsh, but one of my biggest pet peeves is being told that I think one way when I don't (like that I'm a Nintendo zealot), and I suppose I didn't think that you could have been misinterpreting something I said. So let's just put this behind eachother. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Move
I'm moving the article to rename the "/" from the title. I can't find any promotional material from Nintendo that indicates the slash exists, and it's mucking about with WP, treating it as a subpage of LttP. -- Norvy (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nintendo.com's page, Nintendo Europe's page, Zelda.com's page, Europe's equivalent of Zelda.com page, and Wikipedia doesn't do sub-pages in the main namespace anymore.  I reverted the move. &mdash; Ian Moody (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Games?
Have we ever come to a conclusion that the there are two games on one cartridge and that there should be two different articles? I think it's highly ridiculous that one person can sway an entire community. --Russoc4 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference between this and Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
How does this game compare to the Gamecube game of a similar name? Is it a completely separate adventure, or are they extremely similar? Thanks! --pie4all88 08:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Four Swords Adventures is the sequel to Four Swords. Unlike the first, Adventures can be played by one person. 67.188.172.165 03:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pitfall
Wasn't there a Pitfall game on certain copies? 67.188.172.165 03:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Legend of Zelda Four Swords screenshot.png
Image:The Legend of Zelda Four Swords screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Axem Titanium 03:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)