| Revision as of 14:36, 4 August 2020 editPopcornfud (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers71,633 edits OneClickArchiver archived Plot to Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/Archive 1← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:36, 4 August 2020 edit undoPopcornfud (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers71,633 edits OneClickArchiver archived 2 Wii U version sections? to Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/Archive 1Next edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives}} | ||
| == 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 == | == What about a part about content == | ||
Revision as of 14:36, 4 August 2020
 | The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 18, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
 | The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
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? MicroMacroMania (talk) 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, there's no harm in trying to make it encyclopedic. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- @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. WP:GAMEGUIDE WP:GAMECRUFT WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOT. 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. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 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 :) MicroMacroMania (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right on. After my comment, I checked you out and expanded your super excellent articles. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 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 :DMicroMacroMania (talk) 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 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am a HUGE Legend of Zelda fan, so I have Zeldawiki.org and Zelda.Wikia.com 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! Gameditor 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...MicroMacroMania (talk) 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? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 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."NathanWubs (talk) 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. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 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. NathanWubs (talk) 06:47, 20 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. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Merge Request
RESOLVED 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. – czar 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)The following discussion 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.
Moved from Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD § Merge Request – 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. The1337gamer (talk) 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, Chrono Trigger DS 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 Ocarina of Time article. 01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 (talk)
- 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. --ProtoDrake (talk) 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. NathanWubs (talk) 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.--Cúchullain /c 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. --Soetermans. T / C 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 Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U), 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. ~Mable (chat) 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.) Sergecross73 msg me 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. ~Mable (chat) 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 Digimon Racing 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 Over the Hedge for the DS), let alone upgraded ports (e.g. Sonic Mega Collection Plus, Sonic Adventure 2: Battle, Resident Evil 4 for Wii, Super Mario Deluxe, Super Mario Bros. 3 for GBA ). Why are remasters treated differently? Tezero (talk) 23:20, 27 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. ~Mable (chat) 14:56, 26 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.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 26 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. Resoru (talk) 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 you sure didn't document much of it by the looks of the HD article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Enough unique content to fill an article. Dream Focus 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. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —Talk to my owner:Online 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 Dolphin emulator. 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. Uncle Alf (talk) 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). --75.105.83.113 (talk) 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 WP:GA push before too long.--Cúchullain /c 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 Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. 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 The Wind Waker HD 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.--Cúchullain /c 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 03:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I will start a review of this shortly. What I can say off the bat is that plagiarism is not a concern. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies Cuchullain for the confusion possibly caused by the review being restarted, however, it was brought to my attention here that the length of the reviews was a concern. Due to this, I am restarting the review.
Overall I do not see any major issues with the article, however, I noticed that the article could possibly do with some more citations?
- "Nintendo's Zelda team initiated plans for a new game early in the development of the GameCube system, before Majora's Mask was completed for the Nintendo 64 in 2000" - source?
- "... included a GameCube port of Ocarina of Time as well as its previously unreleased expansion, Ura Zelda." - source? If it is covered elsewhere in a ref, could use duplication here
- "Nintendo presented a demo clip of the new game at the 2001 Space World, August 23–26." - source?
- Although it may not be easy/possible to fix, I do notice a lot of WP:CITEKILL, sometimes 6 citations for 3 words. I would recommend either looking into WP:CITEBUNDLE or distribute the citations beside the information that they support (or prune them, although that is not the approach I would personally take).
That's it. I am placing this 
On hold until these concerns are addressed and shall check back here frequently. Thanks for your time and sorry for any confusion caused. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, TheSandDoctor. I'll take care of these immediately. "Nintendo's Zelda team initiated plans for a new game early in the development of the GameCube system, before Majora's Mask was completed for the Nintendo 64 in 2000": The cites follow the next sentence, footnotes 15 & 16. They verify the info in both sentences.
- "... included a GameCube port of Ocarina of Time as well as its previously unreleased expansion, Ura Zelda." That passage and the two following are sourced to footnotes 45, 46, 47, and 48. Each of the cites give only pieces of the information. 45 is the one that includes the bulk of the info for the entire passage. 46 is about the Japan release with the bonus game called Ura Zelda, 47 is about the North American release with Ura Zelda named Master Quest, and 48 confirms that it was released as Master Quest in Europe. I'll add 45 behind the passage in question as well, as it covers that whole passage.
- "Nintendo presented a demo clip of the new game at the 2001 Space World, August 23–26." This and the following 2 passages are cited to 17, 18, and 24; 17 and 18 cover the Space World demo passage. I could move them up to the end of that sentence as well if you think it would be better.
- The WP:CITEKILL issue is going to be tricky to fix. In writing up those passages, I looked at all the reviews available to me (all the sources listed at Template:Video game reviews and a few others noted as reliable at WP:VG/RS) to find what was common between them. I preferred this to the way other video game articles sometimes handle things, where there's a quote at a time with no true indication that it's representative. As such it won't be possible to move citations to a more direct place with something like " especially in the dungeons", as all five of those reviews praise the dungeons. At one point another editor went through and removed some of the citations, but it seemed pretty haphazard so I reverted it. We could do some citation bundles, but in my opinion that usually results in even more overkill - you have to copy the full citation in every footnote where it's used, which adds even more bulk to the ref list. But I'm happy to do it if others prefer.--Cúchullain /c 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain: Thanks for your response and understanding as I attempt to resolve concerns raised. Your explanations seem quite fair - I would just like to see citations closer to what they support, then again, I think that that could just be personal preference and I do see what you mean. As for the CITEBUNDLING, it was just a suggestion and I am happy to leave it as is. If you do not want to copy the citations closer, I do not see an issue with that, just let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've rearranged the cites for your second and third comments, so see if that looks any better. Probably tomorrow, I'll take a stab at bundling at least the cites with 5 or more and see how that works. I'm down for either bundling the cites, or keeping them as separate sites, so long as all of them are kept for the passages they support.--Cúchullain /c 19:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain: I am satisfied with what you have and are planning to do. If you want, I can pass this review right now, or do you want to wait? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- TheSandDoctor: By all means, pass it if it's ready. The cite bundling won't change anything besides how some of the cites are presented; changes to the actual article presentation will be small. Thanks for your guidance!--Cúchullain /c 20:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain: You are very welcome! I have gone ahead and promoted the article again, thank you once again for your understanding and I apologize for any confusion this has caused. Now that I know a lot more about the reviewing process and have more experience, if you have any other articles you would like to have reviewed, I would more than happily do it - I only have one more re-review to do but I am waiting for the nominator to get back online from vacation. Any experience I can get I am happy for as I want to improve as a reviewer. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Have you considered DYK or attempting to get this article back to featured article status? While I do not have any experience with FA, I think you are well on the road to that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- TheSandDoctor: Thanks! I thought this review went well. I hadn't thought about DYK, but I have thought about FA status. I'll have to check with someone experienced with video game FAs.--Cúchullain /c 14:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Have you considered DYK or attempting to get this article back to featured article status? While I do not have any experience with FA, I think you are well on the road to that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain: You are very welcome! I have gone ahead and promoted the article again, thank you once again for your understanding and I apologize for any confusion this has caused. Now that I know a lot more about the reviewing process and have more experience, if you have any other articles you would like to have reviewed, I would more than happily do it - I only have one more re-review to do but I am waiting for the nominator to get back online from vacation. Any experience I can get I am happy for as I want to improve as a reviewer. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- TheSandDoctor: By all means, pass it if it's ready. The cite bundling won't change anything besides how some of the cites are presented; changes to the actual article presentation will be small. Thanks for your guidance!--Cúchullain /c 20:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain: I am satisfied with what you have and are planning to do. If you want, I can pass this review right now, or do you want to wait? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've rearranged the cites for your second and third comments, so see if that looks any better. Probably tomorrow, I'll take a stab at bundling at least the cites with 5 or more and see how that works. I'm down for either bundling the cites, or keeping them as separate sites, so long as all of them are kept for the passages they support.--Cúchullain /c 19:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain: Thanks for your response and understanding as I attempt to resolve concerns raised. Your explanations seem quite fair - I would just like to see citations closer to what they support, then again, I think that that could just be personal preference and I do see what you mean. As for the CITEBUNDLING, it was just a suggestion and I am happy to leave it as is. If you do not want to copy the citations closer, I do not see an issue with that, just let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sales
User:JimmyBlackwing, you might want to go back over your edits to see what can be retained here. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. I'll see what I can do. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Cover art
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. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Video games good articles
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class video game articles
- High-importance video game articles
- GA-Class Nintendo articles
- Nintendo task force articles
- WikiProject Video games articles