Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Revert of hatnote about "Zelda 64" redirect
Sorry, but I don't understand in what way this explanation makes sense.

If someone types "Zelda 64" in the search field, that person is in all likelyhood looking for a Zelda game that was released for the Nintendo 64, and that can either be Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm saying it solves a problem no one is having. Who is knowledgeable enough to type in a search term like Zelda 64 but not knowledgeable enough to know if they meant Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask? OoT went by the working title Zelda 64 prior to its release. MM did not. No one would type in Zelda 64 and actually mean MM. Sergecross73   msg me  16:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Zelda 64 is (or was) a common alternative name for Ocarina of Time, but not for Majora's Mask — so I think it's unlikely someone searching for Zelda 64 is looking for Majora's Mask. Additionally, this is a long hatnote that takes up a lot of prime real estate at the top of the article, so to me it doesn't seem worth the trade-off considering the little value it adds. (Unrelated, but here's a rant I wrote on the subject of clunky hatnotes some time ago.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was thinking of that essay when I wrote my response but couldn't remember where I had read it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I read your essay, but personally, I don't understand your problem. In scenario 1, the hatnote is helpful. In scenario 2, when you don't need it, you can just ignore it. It shouldn't keep or distract you from reading the article. Therefore, from my point of view, it only brings advantages.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading. I guess it isn't clear enough in my essay, but the problem is this: if something is in an article and it doesn't help anyone, then it's at best redundant and should be deleted. Popcornfud (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I know that Zelda 64 was the working title of OoT, but someone who doesn't even know the name of the N64 Zelda game that person is looking for is 99.9% likely not to know that little trivial development detail.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But is someone who doesn't know the name of "the Zelda N64 game" actually likely to search for the name "Zelda 64"? And is that someone likely to be looking for Majora's Mask or the much more widely known Ocarina of Time? Popcornfud (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "But is someone who doesn't know the name of "the Zelda N64 game" actually likely to search for the name "Zelda 64"?"


 * I can only speak of myself here, but if I'm looking for a game whose name I don't know, I would type in the title of the game series or franchise and the platform it was released on. That approach doesn't seem too outlandish and implausible to me, especially since many N64 games are named after this scheme.


 * "And is that someone likely to be looking for Majora's Mask or the much more widely known Ocarina of Time?"


 * Just because OoT is a lot more known doesn't mean that MM is unknown and only a few people are looking for it.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And we're saying that scenario is...unlikely. I mean, the fact that both articles were worked on to the point of FA status and such a hate note wasn't implemented is probably a good sign of that too. And both articles already mention the other title pretty prominently in the lead too, so even people in your far fetched scenarios would get there eventually if they just skim through the intro of either article. Sergecross73   msg me  17:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * And I think that scenario isn't unlikely, which I also justified. But it's fine, I respect your opinion and if two people think it's unlikely, I'm probably outvoted. I don't see the disadvantages of such a hatnote, I only see potential advantages, but good.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Late to this party. Why does this hatnote even exist? Sourcing and common use, Zelda 64 never referred to anything but OoT. -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I assume it was snuck in without anyone noticing. Bafflingly, even Maxeto seems to remember there was no consensus for this, referred to it, but didn't fix it. Sergecross73   msg me  22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was added only a month ago, here. I'm removing it. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sergecross73   msg me  23:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2nd Annual Interactive Achievement Awards
According to the archived web pages for the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences web pages from 1999. Zelda: Ocarina of Time won 5 awards total. There was 2011 Forbes article with a photo Miyamoto holding up 5 awards at the 2nd Annual Interactive Achievement Awards. If Ocarina of Time had won 6 awards, why would Miyamoto be holding up 5 awards. My theory is that the academy has mistakenly list Ocarina of Time as the winner of the Outstanding Achievement in Software Engineering since the early 2000s. I have had trouble finding any news articles that list off the winners from 1999. MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Miyamoto was originally gonna make OoT like Super Mario 64
Ganon's castle was originally gonna be a hubworld very similar to Peach's Castle. Link would travel to different stages, like in SM64 Complete idiocy (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To be included in the article, this needs a reliable source that verifies it. Do you have one? Sergecross73   msg me  20:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Miyamoto said that in an interview. Complete idiocy (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea when it was, or who interviewed him. I can't find the article that said this anymore. I'll look further into it. Complete idiocy (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, feel free to post it here if you find it. Until there's a source, we can't add it to the article though. Sergecross73   msg me  14:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright. Complete idiocy (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, it's in the article. Complete idiocy (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, yup, it is. The article seems to cover it pretty well as is. Sergecross73   msg me  16:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:OOT (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)