Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019 video game)

Citations part of the article
I can't help but notice that the Citations section of this article is very long - why is so much of the text quoted in the Citations? Can it be abbreviated/hidden/truncated without affected the main article? Gaunt (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with it. Quotes are good. It helps a reader understand what part of the citation verifies a claim made in an article, and editors to check that a claim is explicitly verified in clear and non-vague language. If there are some citation quotes that you believe that can be truncated without losing the information that verifies a passage in the article, you're welcome to explicitly point them out. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Remake" vs "Remaster"
Despite absolutely zero explanation in your edit summaries, judging by your edits you seem to have the view that every other remade title was a explicitly a "remaster". Do you have reliable third-party sources that explicitly state that Ocarina of Time 3D, The Wind Waker HD, Majora's Mask 3D, and Twilight Princess HD were all remasters instead of remakes? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this source suffice? --ExplorerX19 (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not explicitly state anything about Zelda apart from stating that the original Zelda games could be described as "reboots" of each other: "You could say that the Zelda series gets a reboot every release. Same story, same setting, same characters, but it is a different game that is no directly based on a past game." So it is not relevant here. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 10:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, on this site, the articles of the game explicated stated the Ocarina of Time 3D, The Wind Waker HD, Majora's Mask 3D, and Twilight Princess HD are remasters. But if you want sorry for the games, here they are. Sorry about that.
 * https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/02/14/great-deal-some-of-the-best-3ds-games-of-all-time-are-less-than-20
 * https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-15-the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time-3d-review?page=2
 * https://www.gamnesia.com/news/china-got-an-exclusive-new-version-of-twilight-princess-hd
 * https://gamefragger.com/nintendo/apparently-some-characters-in-the-legend-of-zelda-the-wind-waker-shared-the-same-body-a14707
 * https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/14/nintendo-legend-of-zelda-links-awakening-classic-switch/ ExplorerX19 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I should note, since you've made the same mistake twice, that I'm not, I'm . I can't say whether or not Gamnesia or GameFragger are reputable sources, and the Engadget source doesn't say which games are remasters, but the IGN and Eurogamer are reputable and their articles explicitly state that Ocarina of Time 3D and Majora's Mask 3D are remasters. Nonetheless, I think it would be better to omit "first / third / fifth remake" claims in the article for now, since it may be a controversial claim to make. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 11:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but why the pages of those games on this site are stated to be remasters? ExplorerX19 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to ask? Are you asking why I think other editors labelled those games on their respective articles on Wikipedia as "remasters"? I can't speak for somebody else, so I can't answer that question, as I'm mostly focused on this particular article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 14:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge Articles
After details at E3 are released this weekend, it may be more suitable to apply the information this article has to the end of the article about the Game Boy editions of The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. NinLEGWho 01:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarhOuh (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. JOE BRO  64  01:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the game is notable in its own right, and has had significant coverage. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It meets the general notability guidelines, and is long enough to have its own article, there enough unique content to put here.  D r e a m Focus  23:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Splitting footnotes section
Is there a good reason to split the section to dedicate an entire section to a single Efn note other than it's what other articles do? We don't need to pad out the table of contents and space in the article itself to glorify a single note when we could have all the footnotes of the article presented together in a single section, definitively segregated from the article prose. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 17:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't violate WP:OSE if there's a longtime precedent for it. Notes have virtually nothing to do with references. They elaborate on things that can't be explained in prose due to clutter. References are references. Putting the notes with the references makes no sense. JOE BRO  64  17:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would renaming the section "Footnotes" or something else other than "References" be a good compromise here, since it would appropriately describe notes, sources, and citations? The Manual of Style states that "editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose" for appendices, so it doesn't strictly have to be "References". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 18:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess. JOE BRO  64  19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Harvard citations
Hey, ! You made in which you removed citations from the "Sources" list and then asked "where do these 2 uncited references belong?". I'll answer that question. They were not uncited – these two sources are being used for citations using Harvard citation no brackets. If you look in the "Citations" list you'll find eleven quote citations prefaced with "Nintendo 2019" and three prefaced with "Marks 2019". The "Nintendo 2019" quotes were sourced from the Nintendo Treehouse presentation at E3 2019, with corresponding timestamps, while the "Marks 2019" quotes were sourced from Tom Marks' article on IGN about Zelda art styles. Harvard citation no brackets was used for two purposes. The first is so each source could be used multiple times without clogging up the "Citations" section with a ridiculously large group of quotes – imagine how huge the quote would be if all eleven Nintendo Treehouse quotes were grouped into the single citation! The second is so that a more direct quote relevant to the passage cited in the article can be segregated from other irrelevant quotes in the same source. For example, citations 11 and 12 in the article quote different parts of the same source in order to cite their relevant passages in "Gameplay". I hope I've been able to explain this system well enough! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You almost never see this sort of citation formatting in video game articles, so I just assumed it was somebody being lazy and not directly citing claims with it (I've seen this happen before). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, . A citation is a thing you pull from a source, hence the phrasing "I cited a source". I think it's important for that distinction to be made, to make clear that the sources are not directly tied to any passages in the article, and that the regime of article passage &rarr; citation &rarr; source is clear and obvious, especially to casual readers that may not otherwise understand the citation system well. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it still seems needlessly complicated to me, but as long as its being cited in some fashion, then it doesn't really matter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Categorized in open world video games
Shouldn't the game be categorized as an open world video game since the article itself mentions that you play in an open world environment?