| Revision as of 14:35, 4 August 2020 editPopcornfud (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers71,633 edits OneClickArchiver archived Sailing image? to Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/Archive 1← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:01, 23 November 2024 edit undoQuicoleJR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers14,643 edits Notification: listing of Fado (character) at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle |
| (33 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= |
|
{{GA|07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)|oldid=790949576|topic=Video games|page=1}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|class=GA|importance=high|Nintendo=yes}} |
|
{{Vital article|topic=Life|level=|class=GA}} |
|
|
|
}}{{Merged-from|The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Soundtrack|11 March 2008|talk=no}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
| Line 7: |
Line 8: |
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|action1oldid=24483379 |
|
|action1oldid=24483379 |
|
|
<!--This article was rated GA in 2006 by a blocked account which added the {{GA}} tag to several articles without review. The oldid for this false contribution is 36609106 False GAN is remarked out. |
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|action2date=25 Jan 2006 |
|
|action2date=25 Jan 2006 |
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|action2oldid=36670467 |
|
|action2oldid=36670467 |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|action2=WPR |
|
|
|action2date=02 February 2006 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker |
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=37898572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=WPR |
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3date=02 February 2006 |
|
|action3date=9 Feb 2006 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker |
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
|action3result=promoted |
|
|action3oldid=37898572 |
|
|action3oldid=38859836 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
|action4=FAR |
|
|action4date=9 Feb 2006 |
|
|action4date=14 July 2006 |
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker |
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker |
|
|action4result=promoted |
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|action4oldid=38859836 |
|
|action4oldid=63336501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAR |
|
|action5=FTC |
|
|action5date=14 July 2006 |
|
|action5date=22:54, 4 May 2008 |
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker |
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/The Legend of Zelda titles |
|
|action5result=kept |
|
|action5result=promoted |
|
|action5oldid=63336501 |
|
|action5oldid=209269438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FTC |
|
|action6=FTR |
|
|action6date=22:54, 4 May 2008 |
|
|action6date=21:05, 31 March 2010 |
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/The Legend of Zelda titles |
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/The Legend of Zelda titles/archive1 |
|
|action6result=promoted |
|
|action6result=demoted |
|
|action6oldid=209269438 |
|
|action6oldid=351811049 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FTR |
|
|action7=FAR |
|
|action7date=21:05, 31 March 2010 |
|
|action7date=15:29, 15 May 2012 |
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/The Legend of Zelda titles/archive1 |
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/archive1 |
|
|action7result=demoted |
|
|action7result=removed |
|
|action7oldid=351811049 |
|
|action7oldid=491303068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=FAR |
|
| action8 = GAN |
|
|action8date=15:29, 15 May 2012 |
|
| action8date = 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
| action8link = /GA1 |
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/archive1 |
|
|
|action8result=removed |
|
| action8result = Listed |
|
|action8oldid=491303068 |
|
| action8oldid = 790949576 |
|
|
| topic = video games |
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|maindate=November 26, 2011 |
|
|maindate=November 26, 2011 |
|
|
}}{{refideas |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|
|
|1=https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/miyamoto-initially-cringed-at-wind-wakers-art-style-and-asked-for-a-redesign-its-claimed/ |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|2=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009052639/http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/2633/features/zelda-the-man-behind-the-legend/?page=2 |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|3=https://web.archive.org/web/20141008002404/http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/54925/features/eiji-aonuma-interview-zelda-wind-waker-hd-was-challenging/ |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|class=GA|importance=high|Nintendo=yes}} |
|
|
|
|4=https://archive.org/details/nintendo-dream-january-21-2003-01-21-vol-082-600dpi-ozidual/Nintendo%20Dream%202003%2001%2021%20v082%20%28J%20OCR%29/page/n15/mode/2up (interview) |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Everydaylife}} |
|
|
|
|5={{cite web|first=Paula|last=Parisi|url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CA121283480&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-GPS&asid=338d29b3|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20240903113501/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CA121283480&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-GPS&asid=338d29b3|title=Game points|magazine=]|archivedate=September 3, 2024|date=August 10, 2004|accessdate=|via=]}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reception == |
|
== Intro edits == |
|
|
|
|
In comparison with more recent articles, the reception seems lacking. It really doesn't mention its game of the year awards, or E3 awards, and I'm sure reception could be expanded. - ] ] ] 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image of Windwaker == |
|
|
|
|
|
The title of this game is The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. Could we keep the only image of the Wind Waker in the article? |
|
|
Also why are we depicting Link flying on a deku leaf which is a relatively minor part of the game, and not him sailing which is a very big part of the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would be for adding a zoom box on the Wind Waker, as well as combining the two images of style into one side-by-side image for better contrast, but there is no reason to remove a fair use image because there are four others on the same page that don't illustrate the same thing. --] (]) 02:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's a wand. That's described sufficiently. It's certainly far less impressive than Toon Link, the Dragon Boat, etc. --] (]) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::<nowiki>*edit conflict*</nowiki> |
|
|
::A an ordinary rock may be unimpressive, but sure fits in the ] article. Playing music is also a huge part of Zelda games, and showing how it is played is also a significant reason to include the image. --] (]) 02:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I do agree that the Deku Leaf image should be replaced with something showing Link acting in more traditional gameplay. - ] ] ] 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'll just say this; if we ditch one, I'd ditch either the Deku Leaf or Link blowing up. Either one can be used to demonstrate the HUD or demonstrate the graphical differences from the tech demo to the final game. The Wind Waker shot, though, demonstrates a prominent game mechanic. ] (]) 02:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::A game mechanic that can be very easily explained in the text. The explosion demonstrates visuals, and the Gameplay image demonstrates the main gameplay. Ideally, anyway - both Deku Leaf image and Wind Waker image need removing, but the former only because there are better alternatives. - ] ] ] 02:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Lol, why does something "need" to be deleted. Clearly the FA reviewers did not think so, and also the readers will likely prefer the added image. What does removing an image add to the article? I hope you are not thinking that Nintendo will take baseless legal action against their free publicity. --] (]) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::WP's goal is a free content encyclopedia. The Foundation recognizes that for some topics, non-free content is necessary and allows for exceptional uses in those cases. It is our job to minimize the amount of non-free images, ''not'' because WP could be sued, but because it does conflict with the free content mission. We have to balance that verses the need to demonstrate elements to the reader, and what can be said easily in text. --] (]) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We only minimize fair use when there are free images available. Using a fair use image where no other free image is available does not interfere with our goal at free content as there would be no free content to replace it with, but it does help the reader visualize our free written content. ] (]) 03:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No, that's wrong. Our approach is ''not'' use non-free media when a free equivalent is available. This ''can'' be text descriptions in lieu of visuals. In the case of describing the Windwaker, it's rather straighforward "To use magic from the Windwaker, the play must match directional symbols in time with a beat while Link directs with the wand.". There, no need for a non-free image. --] (]) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"''No, that's wrong. Our approach is ''not'' use non-free media when a free equivalent is available.''"<br> |
|
|
I just said this, the only difference is that you are interpreting text as an equivalent to an image, which it is not. A free equivalent to an non-free image would be a free image, not free text. The inclusion of a non-free image does not replace the text anyways, but adds to it. |
|
|
In your response you cite both a lack of need for 1. an image, and for 2. a non-free image. |
|
|
#Since the image illustrates a relevant aspect of game play it adds to the article. |
|
|
#Since there is no free image that can replace the image, we are not stopping any free content from being added to Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 05:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, WP assumes text can substitute for a non-free image; this is standard practice. If the goal of the image is to show the gameplay element (which is all that image is doing, since we've shown the art elsewhere), and it can be easily described in a few lines of text, the image is not necessary. On the other hand, if the image is showing an art style, that's likely difficult to put concisely into words, and thus we allow non-free since there is no free image replacement. --] (]) 06:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::On this matter, I honestly think that we should fix all of the images, save for the lead image. Deku Leaf isn't representative of how the game operates; what if we could get an image of Link in action with the explosion in the background? In one image, we could depict the art style, battle, and the use of 2D to produce cartoonish effects. - ] ] ] 06:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@Masem<br> |
|
|
"''WP assumes text can substitute for a non-free image''"<br> |
|
|
They are not ''equivalents'' though, and inserting a non-free image to illustrate free text when no free images are available has no downsides.<br> |
|
|
Being necessary is irrelevant. Whether or not it adds to the article is what is being discussed, and it illustrates an important game point, and does so non conspicuously within the article. Also, whether or not you dislike images in articles I can guarantee that the reader will, so I see no reason to unnecessarily remove useful images just because the article doesn't ''need'' them which by definition most images on Misplaced Pages are not ''needed'', but are still desired. --] (]) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:''inserting a non-free image to illustrate free text when no free images are available has no downsides''. Wrong - it ruins the free content mission. Non-free images are supposed to be used exceptionally, and we have determined that generally on video games, two uses are justified: the cover image, and ''one'' gameplay image. More may be added, but you have to show that they are absolutely needed, that the visual elements are critical for the reader's understanding and that there is no free replacement. A concept shown in a non-free that can be described in words '''is a free replacement'''. It's not an image, but that's not required, see ] which doesn't talk about an equivalent necessarily being within the same medium. This is a requirement from the Foundation, so while yes, it woudl be great if we could include a lot of screenshots to illustrate various aspects of a game, that just is not allowable. --] (]) 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::"''and we have determined that generally on video games, two uses are justified: the cover image, and one gameplay image.''" |
|
|
::I have not seen anything to support this, nor would I agree with it. Most video games will require more than one image to show gameplay and the game. Game reviewers typically use multiple images to showcase such things as in review of Wind Waker that uses four images, or the various video reviews which feature several minutes worth of gameplay footage. There is simply no way to cover in depth many video games with only one image from the game. |
|
|
::"''it woudl be great if we could include a lot of screenshots to illustrate various aspects of a game, that just is not allowable.''" |
|
|
::It is clearly allowable under the law, and I see no statements by the foundation or within policy to state that multiple images can't be used in a Misplaced Pages article to illustrate a game. If I have missed something please inform me and I will go look it up, but for now I am not understanding the criteria as not allowing for this many images. --] (]) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are arguing from a "fair use" standpoint, which is correct, one can likely use multiple screenshots in conjunction with a review without violating copyright. But Misplaced Pages uses a higher standard, that we aim to be free content and only allow exceptional uses of non-free images. This means minimal use of these images. |
|
|
:::We generally don't balk with one cover image (to identify the game) and one screenshot (to define a specific aspect of the game and to show the graphic style); that's minimal use but necessary to talk about the work. This doesn't mean we can't use more screenshots but there needs to be a very justifiable reason, as most gameplay can be broken down into various tropes describable by text. --] (]) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Meh this isn't worth arguing about. There is no legal need, or foreseeable reason that I can see that Fair use images would be so conservatively used when nothing could take their place, and when they add to the article, but I don't feel like getting involved with Fair use rationale. Go ahead and delete the image; this isn't going anywhere. --] (]) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that all images in use right now, at least with the Deku Leaf and the Spaceworld demo, could be replaced. For example, I was thinking for the first image, we could replace it with an image of sailing, an image of Link on the overworld, or of Link fighting the boss. As for the SW demo, I think it would better be replaced by the image of cel-shaded Link winking, and using it in association with the "needs-to-be-added" pre-release reception of the demo. - ] ] ] 02:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I went through the game to make screenshots some years ago, maybe there's a good one in there that's actually representative of the most important gameplay aspects and the art style. ] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Review == |
|
|
|
|
|
Would anyone be opposed if I took this to ]? There are major sourcing issues (+tags) and it doesn't seem to be as comprehensive as it can be. Basically it's not an article that can be easily fixed and as it is it is not FA quality. '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>]</big> 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The Gameplay and Graphics sections are completely unsourced, and it also hasn't been reviewed in 6 years. ] (]) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::So, back when I was more active, the general sentiment was that Gameplay segments of VG articles largely don't require citations, as a description of the mechanics of a game can be sourced directly to the game itself, and that this should be so obvious of a source that the citation is unnecessary. In fact, it would be visually cumbersome to see the same citation at the end of every sentence. Has this changed since I've been gone, or are there statements that need sourcing beyond the primary source? '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 04:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible Original Research Verification == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Graphics section may contain original research that might be of note, due to the game's uniqueness among cel-shaded games. Would an image of an example of bump-mapping be enough, or are there other sources needed? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Yes, some additional sources are needed. Try to find a news article or something that discusses the graphics of Windwaker in-depth. A slight rewrite for POV issues may be in order as well. ] (]) 02:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think I will need to delete the Graphics section because so far, I'm the only one to notice the bump-mapping (because everybody only thinks of cel-shading when they see ''The Wind Waker''). ] (]) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cover art == |
|
|
|
|
|
What's with the bright yellow cover art? I've never seen a North American copy with the bright yellow cover, nor can I find any photographic evidence of it (an eBay search, for instance, turns up nothing but results with a more sepia-toned cover ). Some other sites like Zelda Wiki list it as a "2003" cover (as opposed to the one I just linked, a "2004" cover) - but there's no source given for the change. They do cite the bright yellow one as coming from Nintendo's press site, but the possibility exists that it was just a promo image posted to Nintendo's press site that was changed prior to release. Can anyone provide any evidence of the bright yellow cover actually being released, or should it be changed to the more golden/sepia-toned version? --] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:If it helps any, the cover of my copy of Windwaker matches the image currently up there, or at least is close enough for me. Is there anything else wrong with it, like legal issues or something?] (]) 03:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Plot == |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed a line that stated "There will be an HD remake in autumn 2013" (may not be an exact quote) at the end of the first paragraph that was redundant (this is already mentioned elsewhere in the article) and has no bearing on the plot whatsoever. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 2 Wii U version sections? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently there are actually two sections titled 'Wii U version,' one at the end of 'Gameplay' and the other at the end of 'Development.' I understand that this may be to provide a gameplay and plot perspective to the remake, however the two sections cover much of the same content and I fell it would be of much benefit to the reader if all the information was compiled into one place. Thoughts? ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 23:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:My first thought is to rewrite the two subsections to only include the information relevant to the main section (the subsection in "Gameplay" should only have gameplay differences while the subsection in "Development" should only have development differences). In time, it may warrant its own article like Ocarina of Time 3DS did. Counterthoughts? ] (]) 02:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Everything should stay in the development Wii U section. ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What about a part about content == |
|
|
May i suggest a new part called content? We can talk about what the game contain like dungeons, bosses etc? Is it a good idea or not? ] (]) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:That might be difficult. Official Misplaced Pages and project policy is that "fancruft", information that only a hardcore fan would care about, is not acceptable in a Misplaced Pages article. Unless you can find a way to make such seemingly walkthrough-worthy information encyclopedic, I would expect the Wise Ones to see it as fancruft and disapprove. That being said, ] to make it encyclopedic. ] (]) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{reply to|MicroMacroMania}}Larry was super right about the first part. It's basic Wikipedian ethos (fandom, lore, etc), to believe that everyone's time and energy are totally and equally worthless, that all people are equally totally self-interested, and that people have nothing better to do than read, revert, delete, or edit everyone else's text daily. To throw stuff boldly against a wall and see what sticks or isn't scrubbed off by someone else. But it's not actually true. We can actually mostly know what's right and wrong before acting. Here are the links to the aforementioned policies, containing the aforementioned explicit bans on this particular material. ] ] ] ]. MicroMacroMania, please read those and realize that the article already contains a description of the nature of the game's dungeons and bosses. I really hope that those guidelines and policies (and the stuff that's already in decent articles such as this one) will shape your desire to figure out what content is actually necessary, because that's how many good editors start out! You did the right thing in asking, and please do keep asking guiding questions. — ] <small>] ]</small> 05:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Haha.. Dude I am already a frequent writer on Misplaced Pages.. I wrote most articles about tax systems, "taxation in Hungary", "taxation in Croatia", "taxation in Slovakia"... I made those pages.. I just havent edited game pages before.. But ok... Thx dude :) ] (]) 08:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Right on. After my comment, I checked you out and expanded your super excellent articles. — ] <small>] ]</small> 08:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Lol yeah I noticed it know.. Anyway sad we cant have pages about all content in the games for us mega fans :D] (]) 08:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh yeah, I was gonna say that yes we can, as long as it's over at Misplaced Pages's sister site, wikia.com. Fandom and whatnot, is exactly what it's for. <3 — ] <small>] ]</small> 09:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am a HUGE ] fan, so I have and bookmarked! The wikias are where you go for pretty much anything there is to know about a game or franchise. There are a lot of wikia sites out there, so you should be able to find one that suits your interests. And don't feel bad about being called out by Smuckola. When I was new here, which was only a few weeks ago, Smuckola kept correcting me, but now I know what to do and what not to do! <span style="font-family:Impact;padding:5px;border-radius:4px;background:#000">]]</span> 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dude I am NOT A NEWCOMER!!11!!1 I just asked a question lol... I have been here for months...] (]) 06:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Link's Age == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just noticed that Link's age in the plot summary is the subject of a minor dispute. I'd like to see it resolved here before it becomes an edit war. I don't believe his age was ever mentioned either in the game or the Hyrule Historia, so where are the numbers 9 and 12 coming from? ] (]) 05:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: I do not know either. I am inclined myself to delete the age. I think the age of 12 comes from SS:BRAWL on his trophy it states the following: "Link as he appeared in The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass, with big eyes and an expressive face. He lived peacefully on Outset Island until a bird captured his little sister, and he came to her rescue. In The Wind Waker, he had to crawl, press up to walls, and the like. His green clothes were worn on his 12th birthday and are the lucky outfit of the hero of legend."] (]) 07:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the age either, but you know that someone's gonna put it back and that will just end in some level of page protection. I'm gonna split the difference and put a citation needed tag on it; maybe Super Smash Bros counts as a reliable source, but I'm gonna leave that call to someone wiser than me. ] (]) 06:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Well sometimes protection is unavoidable especially if ip are the one doing it. But we can see what people can come up with. After all it does not have any rush. And if they come up with nothing we can just delete it later. ] (]) 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge Request == |
|
|
{{Archive top|status=resolved|result='''No consensus''' to merge HD article, based on personal preference. In six months' time there were no substantive arguments each way, and none that demonstrated what coverage the sources support. – ] 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{Moved discussion from|Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD#Merge Request|reason=This discussion was happening on 2 different talk pages at once, I have copied the comments from the other talk page to this. Any further discussion should be continued here. ] (]) 22:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
In my opinion there's very little new content in the Wii U re-release to warrant a separate article. The plot section is just a copy and paste, and even the minor gameplay differences are described in greater detail than needed for a general-use encyclopedia (as opposed to a Wikia or GameFAQ). I think we can expand the sub-section in this article rather than create a new one. For Chrono Trigger, ] didn't get its standalone article even though it has new boss fights and maps. Even Ocarina: Master Quest (which does have completely redesigned dungeons) is only a subsection of the main ] article. 01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*'''Support''': There is definitely not enough information to warrant a separate article. There are multiple articles that include sections in development, gameplay and reception that cover more than one version of the game. --] (]) 18:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': I lend my support to this as well. I do not understand even how such an article could have been greenlit, considering how similar it is to this article. One of the unique parts of the other article is the development section and release section. But those are quite small so they should be able to be integrated to this article. Same with the reception section as well. That section also feels bloated because of the pre-release babble that is included. ] (]) 12:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. I think it would serve readers better to cover the new version in a section here rather than sending them to a separate article with a ton of duplicate material.--] ]/] 14:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': per nom. Game is essentially the same, with an HD facelift. The development and reception sections of the Wii U version can easily be put here too. --]. ] / ] 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
;Other talk page comments |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - Plot and gameplay are of very low importance in a video game article anyway. I would support getting rid of 90% of the content of these two sections, and only summarize them concisely. Then, looking at the actual unique content, which are the important development, release and reception sections, I think there's plenty of content to warrant a unique article. I've never really been a fan of combining different games (such as done with '']''), so I would oppose to this merge. Merging the development, release and reception sections of this article into the ''Windwaker'' article might get that article out of balance. ~] (]) 19:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I could go either way too. On one hand, the game's are largely identical. On the other hand, I do believe the HD version did receive a lot of exclusive coverage, and elicited commentary for a few things the original did not. (One of the first Nintendo HD remasters, releasing the game a month earlier digitally, etc.) ] ] 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If the issue is that it includes a lot of duplicate content from another article, then simply remove most of that content and see if the article holds up. I think there is plenty of original coverage here to keep it separate from the original game. ~] (]) 14:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::When it's an issue of overlap, I tend to prefer merging. The content here really doesn't look too substantial to me - the Development section I threw together for '']'' a few years ago is about the same size, and that was just cobbled together from some tangential E3 articles and stuff. It might have the potential for some expansion, and likewise so does Reception, but... I mean, I hate to ask, but would users really care enough for us to host a separate page just for that? We don't even differentiate console and handheld versions of games >99% of the time (the only exception that jumps to mind is ]), let alone upgraded ports (e.g. '']'', '']'', '']'' for Wii, '']'', '']'' for GBA ). Why are remasters treated differently? ] (]) 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep separate'''. I created the article for TWW HD because of the large amount of content unique to the topic. The two games have unique histories, and the gameplay differences are sizable. People often call games like TWW HD "remasters," but this one especially is a remake. It's a new game of its own right, with plenty of unique information about it. Reliable sources treat it as a separate game and indeed many readers will want information that applies uniquely to this remake. ] (]) 07:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:*As I said above, I'm not especially a proponent of merging, but if there is a "large amount of content unique" to the HD version, you by the looks of the HD article. ] ] 14:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Enough unique content to fill an article. ] 13:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. There is enough to be said about WWHD's development, reception, design, etc. that it would make this already large article be unwieldy if merged. - ] <small>]</small> <small>]</small> 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per above. ] (]) 05:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100919235931/http://apps.metacritic.com:80/games/platforms/cube/legendofzeldathewindwaker to http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/cube/legendofzeldathewindwaker |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Widescreen image == |
|
|
|
|
|
The image https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Wind_waker_1080p.jpg should be replaced, because it's widescreen. It was apparently taken using a widescreen hack in the ]. It's not possible to scale this image to 4:3 without messing up the graphics. |
|
|
|
|
|
To properly represent the actual original game, the article needs an image that is 4:3, not 16:9. ] (]) 14:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Too much negative == |
|
|
|
|
|
All of a sudden, an user who hates ''The Wind Waker'' has overemphasized the negative fan reaction the game got during its reveal and the first few years since its release. The use of superfluous expressions like "deeply mixed" is evidence of this. It's not taking into consideration the subsequent years' retroactive reception (for example, in an official IGN voting tournament, the game made it to semifinals where it lost to Ocarina of Time). --] (]) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I added the material, and I certainly don't "hate" Wind Waker. The deeply mixed early reception over the graphics is one of the most noteworthy thugs about the game, and it's well sourced here. It's my intention to add additional material on how the game's reputation has improved over time once I'm done compiling the sources. Hopefully, it'll be ready for a ] push before too long.--] ]/] 15:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notes for GA review == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've nominated this article for GA review as I think it's finally ready. I modeled the article after the other Zelda game articles of high quality, in particular the FAs ] and ]. I made a few slight changes to their layout. In particular, there are sections for its initial reception by fans, and the fact that it improved over the years. I did this because this is treated as a major feature of the game's history in the sources, much more so than for most other Zelda games. On a related note, I didn't include info on ] in the "Development" section, first because it has its own article, and second, because I felt it was a better fit for the "Legacy" section, since the remake was only done after it was felt the game's reputation had improved. Otherwise, it follows what they do pretty closely.--] ]/] 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sales == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've twice reverted parts of the recent edits to the introduction. The reason is that the previous version read better than the changes. Specifically: |
|
], you might want to go back over your edits to see what can be retained here. ] (]) 20:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*The following sentence is phrased awkwardly: "The element of ] has a prominent role, by facilitating sailing and being controlled with a magic conductor's baton called the Wind Waker." |
|
:Thanks for catching that. I'll see what I can do. ] (]) 01:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*The following sentence introduces passive voice: "Instead, a distinctive cartoon-like art style was created through ], originating the ']' character." (I also don't think the sentence benefits from being broken up). |
|
|
*Calling the art direction "whimsical": I don't think this is the right word choice. At any rate the previous paragraph already establishes what the art direction is like. |
|
|
*The article verifies that the divisiveness among North American players contributed to weaker sales in comparison to Ocarina of Time, in fact this is a pretty significant part of the game's history. Removing that hurts the flow. |
|
|
*"As a result, the subsequent '']'' (2006) has a more natural and serious look." This doesn't flow right. As a result of what exactly? As a result ''of comparatively weak sales'', Nintendo changed directions with the visuals. As a result of that decision, Twilight Princess has a more realistic style (I don't think that "natural and serious" are the right word choices) |
|
|
*Splitting the sentence on the character's allies and activities strikes me as unnecessary, but I'm open to this if others support the change. |
|
|
There are some good changes that I'll restore, and others that should be made. In general this introduction has suffered from content creep over the years; I'll get to work on fixing that.--] ]/] 20:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Would this still classify as GameCube-Only? == |
|
== Cover art == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm aware that the two versions (OG and HD) have separate articles, but at the end of the day they're the same game at its core. Pages where the remasters are merged with the original game (] and ]) don't have either marked as exclusive for their respective consoles (Xenoblade's remaster in particular has WAY more identity than Wind Waker's in my eyes). I could totally be wrong with this thinking, and if I am, I'd appreciate a link to Misplaced Pages's policies on remakes (if such a page even exists). Thanks for reading! | ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Was that yellow cover art actually used or is it some not final pre-release art since all I'm able find is the gold cover. --] (]) 19:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14#Zelda 10}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 23#Fado (character)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
I've twice reverted parts of the recent edits to the introduction. The reason is that the previous version read better than the changes. Specifically:
There are some good changes that I'll restore, and others that should be made. In general this introduction has suffered from content creep over the years; I'll get to work on fixing that.--Cúchullain /c 20:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that the two versions (OG and HD) have separate articles, but at the end of the day they're the same game at its core. Pages where the remasters are merged with the original game (Xenoblade Chronicles (video game) and Skies of Arcadia) don't have either marked as exclusive for their respective consoles (Xenoblade's remaster in particular has WAY more identity than Wind Waker's in my eyes). I could totally be wrong with this thinking, and if I am, I'd appreciate a link to Misplaced Pages's policies on remakes (if such a page even exists). Thanks for reading! | NJ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The redirect Zelda 10 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Zelda 10 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)