Talk:The Legend of Zelda CD-i games

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series. 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://archive.is/20120720182316/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=5&cId=3149883 to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=5&cId=3149883
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608052257/http://kotaku.com/gaming/history-is-cool!/this-day-in-gaming-june-5th-265907.php to http://kotaku.com/gaming/history-is-cool!/this-day-in-gaming-june-5th-265907.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404183227/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/index17.shtml to http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/index17.shtml

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) 09:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

the king
sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.247.135 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Claim: Nintendo refuses to acknowledge the existence of...
Recently there have been a number of edits from an IP-hopping editor who is. The editor has been asked to participate in discussion rather than edit warring. I am starting this thread to give the editor an opportunity to explain his position. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

My position is simply this: Although I acknowledge that "Nintendo refuses to acknowledge the existence of the CD-i games" is original research conjecture, my most recent version of the edit is not. The fact that the Zelda CD-i games do not get even a passing mention in such an extensive account of every piece of Zelda material in video games in an official series "bible" who's offical writer is listed as Nintendo is enough in itself to source that edit (in which I simply state that the book, those specific sections included, do not mention the games, something that is a matter of fact from the source). I would even go so far to argue that it should support my full edit, the "Nintendo refuses to..." line included. But I'm willing to compromise at dropping this, as I understand that it can be construed as ambigious heresay based on an interpetation. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:F8D1:2736:744E:5509 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim now reads "The Legend of Zelda Encyclopedia which contains an highly extensive overview of every Zelda related content ever released in the video game market, including a section that specifically lists all published video game that have had any Zelda content, no matter how minor, does not mention the games once." The problem as I see it is that this is textbook Synthetic Original Research. Nowhere in the book is this claim made. The claim that appears in this article is your own personal interpretation. There is in fact no claim that supports the one that you added. -Thibbs (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You raise a valid point. If this is the case, may I suggest compromising a less wordy edit, that simply states something akin to, "The Legend of Zelda Encyclopedia, an extensive source of official Zelda information by Nintendo, does not mention the CD-i games"? --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:F8D1:2736:744E:5509 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all I appreciate that you are looking for a compromise. But there are a number of issues that still bedevil this claim, however. Let's start with the most prominent three.
 * 1. The list found in The Legend of Zelda Encyclopedia (TLOZE) is quite obviously incomplete. There is no claim that the list is complete so what would be the point of alerting readers to the fact that TLOZE is incomplete? The only rationale would be to make a synthetic point that Nintendo rejects the CD-i games. I don't think that is at all clear. For example the appendix doesn't list any of the licensed releases. Of the three games listed here we only see one listed. Does that mean that Nintendo refuses to acknowledge them too? It's just personal interpretation to come to that conclusion. It's not encyclopedic. It's just speculation.
 * 2. Why are we citing The Legend of Zelda Encyclopedia and not any of the other hundreds of books released about this series? Have we decided that TLOZE is the definitive one? Basically the argument we would have to make is that Nintendo has never acknowledged the CD-i games, and that this is significant enough to merit mention in the article. The problems is that this would now be a claim from a researcher, not a published claim. Even if we could look through all of Nintendo's publications and come up with a synthesis of the works, it would still be original research.
 * 2a. And Nintendo is a poor source at that because of conflict of interest. Maybe it would be in Nintendo's interest to deny that the CD-i games even exist. That's how Donald Trump works. If the facts disagree with reality then the facts are "fake news". Obviously Donald Trump's twitter feed isn't the most reliable place to find facts. Third-party sources are considered to be much more reliable for situations like this. See WP:WPNOTRS and WP:IS.
 * 3. And of course we also know that the claim (i.e. the claim involving Nintendo's alleged failure to acknowledge the CD-i games) is completely false. Logic tells us that Nintendo did in fact acknowledge the CD-i games in legal discussions with Phillips. They obviously knew full-well that Phillips was making these games in accordance with legally agreed-upon discussions. The game was legally licensed and released with full knowledge of Nintendo. They will not sue Phillips because they legally licensed Phillips.
 * Those are the main issues I still see. What do you think? -Thibbs (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) [EDIT: I suppose point #3 is moot because you have dropped the "Nintendo refuses to acknowledge" point.]


 * I don't see what those issues have to do with the proposed edit I am putting forth. Which regards to all of your points, there is no personal interpretation in such an edit that I am happy to compromise with, so the issue within your first point and your second point, does not matter. The edit does not infer that the Encyclopedia is "complete" nor that it is definitive. It is simply stating that it is it is a source of official information and the games do not appear in it. This is factually accurate information. Your 2a and 3rd points don't really add anything to what we should be discussing here, whether Nintendo would have conflict of interest nor any legality between them and another company is not relevent. That being said, I have several points to bring up
 * The Encyclopedia is routinely, under official sources, cited as being the most definitive and extensive collection of Zelda series information ever published. This includes on the offical website of the book's publisher, Dark Horse.
 * On this note, the website specifically says that the book "is a treasure trove of explanations and information about every aspect of The Legend of Zelda universe!". --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:F8D1:2736:744E:5509 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not really surprised that the publisher describes its own product as "a treasure trove of explanations and information about every aspect". In fact I think that kind of illustrates the point I'm making. First party sources are not very reliable. Third party sources are much more reliable. The citation itself, by the way, should not be pointing to a commercial website. If you want to cite the encyclopedia, then just cite the physical book itself just like normal research papers in high school.

But the meat of the issue here is that there is no neutral reason to draw the attention to the fact that this particular game is not mentioned unless you are trying to imply that the absence of the game is significant. And that is something that is original research. There are several licensed Zelda games that do not appear in the TLOZ Encyclopedia and there are even more different versions that are not listed. Obviously we don't make the jump to conclude that Nintendo disowns those games or versions. The absence of a game or version doesn't tell you anything. Nintendo is not making the claim that any game not appearing on this list is not official or that it's not worthy or anything like that. An absence says nothing unless you interpret it. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You're completely avoiding the point. Not only are you pulling your own ideas on what a "suspicious source" or whatever should be, you're also misinterpreting the source. I put in the URL of the book, like it asks you to. The actual source is the page numbers. But morever, like I said, you're just avoiding the point and you keep going back to this idea that the edit is not okay because it jumps to conclusions, when it doesn't. You're still stuck on trying to debunk my original edit. The latest idea for the edit I am proposing does not conclude anything. It just presents facts. The reader can conclude what they want to from the facts presented to them. If you're thinking that this version of the edit concludes anything, that's not the edit concluding something, that's you seeing a sourced, objective fact, interpreting it in a certain way, and then coming to a natural conclusion based on the information. And that's exactly what wikipedia information is supposed to do. You seem to be confusing this with my actual edit directly conjecturing up a hyperbolic conclusion. They are not the same thing. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:F8D1:2736:744E:5509 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So what in your mind is the purpose of mentioning the absence of these games? It doesn't seem to relate to the topic of this article (i.e. CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series) in any way. Is it just a random fact? Is it at all significant that these games aren't mentioned in your source? If so, why haven't any reliable third party sources taken note of it? Wikipedia isn't really the place for random observations. -Thibbs (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's talking about the reception of the games, and in particular, Nintendo's retroactive attitude towards them. I think it fits rather well as a fact to bring up the fact that the big, chunky official series bible written by Nintendo does not mention it. To be frank I don't see how this is such a point of dispute. It seems like a common sense addiction to me. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:F8D1:2736:744E:5509 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a problem because if it's just a random statement then it's pointless and has no bearing on the topic. Hundreds of books fail to mention the CD-i games. Why bother reporting that this one also fails to mention it? And if it's intended as a claim that the absence of the games is significant despite any claim being made by the source itself then you are introducing original research. There are any number of reasons why a book may omit details covered by its remit. At Wikipedia we're not allowed to make interpretations like that and we're not supposed to provoke readers to come to the conclusion we are leading them to.
 * Again, the absence/omission of any reference to the topic of this article should be a clue for you that the citation does not belong here. References to other sources that also completely and totally fail to mention the topic of the article also do not belong in this article. It's common sense. All of the other sources here discuss the topic. Your addition alone fails to mention the topic of the article. Wikipedia is supposed to report what the experts say, not to tease readers into drawing their own conclusions. -Thibbs (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I also oppose inclusion. It’s editorializing and informal/unencyclopedic in tone. It’s WP:OR, and until there is WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion, it doesn’t belong in the article. Sergecross73   msg me  15:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Serge. Popcornduff (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Article rename
The current article title is grammatically incorrect. The correct article title would be CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series.

This is because "the", here, should connect to "series". (See also, for example, "The man read the Guardian review, not "The man read The Guardian review, or "The man read the The Guardian review".)

Alternatively we could rename the article "Legend of Zelda CD-i games". Popcornfud (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What about CD-i games from the The Legend of Zelda series? That makes most sense to me as it corrects the grammar and still keeps the proper title The Legend of Zelda intact. But then again even in that very series article they use it in the lede ("Since the original Legend of Zelda was released in 1986[...]") so maybe stickling for the "The" goes too far... I would be comfortable with CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series. -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the lack of italics for The Legend of Zelda is indeed another problem. However, CD-i games from the The Legend of Zelda series is incorrect for the reason I gave above. The issue is to do with the use of the definite article. Popcornfud (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well "The Legend of Zelda" is already a proper determinative noun phrase like "The Beatles". The "The" is baked in. Grammatically speaking I don't think there is a hard rule for cases like this, though. You can see the number of "the Beatles versus The Beatles" disagreements at WT:TBP. If I remember correctly, the  The Chicago Manual of Style allows the "The" to be removed if removal doesn't lead to confusion and ambiguity so like I said I'd be fine with CD-i games from the Legend of Zelda series as a grammatical improvement over the current title. -Thibbs (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally understand the point you're raising with regard to the infamous Beatles debate - but this is a completely different issue.
 * The reason the current title is incorrect is that if you remove "The Legend of Zelda" from the title then you get "CD-i games from series". This is obviously incorrect. As in this case "series" is a single noun, not plural, it requires a definite article ("CD-i games from the series"). So we add "the" to the sentence but remove it from the game title because duplicating the "The"s is weird.
 * The current capitalization is simply wrong - it's not a matter of preference or editorial judgement. This has to change. Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current capitalization is simply wrong - it's not a matter of preference or editorial judgement. This has to change. Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current capitalization is simply wrong - it's not a matter of preference or editorial judgement. This has to change. Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

... Of course this entire discussion is a bit silly. We should simply call the article "CD-i Legend of Zelda games" for reasons of WP:CONCISE. Besides, these games are not really "from the Legend of Zelda series" per se, they are games in the series. Throw in the lack of italics and the title is bad on several levels. Why is this page move-locked? Popcornfud (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "The" (with a capital letter) would be the one to go if any. That's what the Chicago Manual of Style says is allowed. I'm just saying that it's not an open and shut matter of grammar as to whether "the Beatles" versus "the 'The Beatles'" is correct. Both sides agree that the lower case is necessary. The argument is about the upper case "The". And the difference is whether the "The" is part of a proper noun phrase or whether it is just a determiner. Either way would work for me, but I also think that the reason for the title's form is consistency with this and this other article. They are all equally ungrammatical so there's a pleasant consistency there. :) You might want to bring this up at WT:VG for a better consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and the italics should be fine I think. Title italics are determined by the DISPLAYTITLE template at the bottom. -Thibbs (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just rediscovered this article, noticed the problem with the title again, and rediscovered this discussion. Have requested a page move below. Popcornfud (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series → The Legend of Zelda CD-i games – Per WP:CONCISE. (There is also a problem with the formatting of "The" in title right now — see conversation above — but that is probably moot.) Popcornfud (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Move to The Legend of Zelda CD-i games. No need to have " " in the title, otherwise a sound nomination where I have nothing to add to. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a dodgy attempt to indicate where the italics would go. Have removed. Popcornfud (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per rationale. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)