Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Category:Open world video games

Are we sure about this? The game world doesn't open up until after the player has cleared the Forest Temple, which is approximately half-way into the game's events. Although the game's dungeons at that point can be completed in a number of possible orders, it's not necessarily possible to go literally anywhere, nor can the dungeons be completed in any conceivable order, just several possible orders dictated by which treasure items are needed to advance to new areas.

I would interpret 'open-world' to mean that the player is dropped in the middle of the game world and permitted to travel from end to end without plot coupons impeding progress. (e.g. something along the lines of Fallout or Elder Scrolls) Many Zelda games do deploy plot coupons to prevent the player from accessing certain areas from the start, or at least accessing them outside of a particular order. 98.86.104.44 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think sources called it open world either, just "open and expansive", which can be said for many adventure games, if not all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Although it's not as open as more recent open-world games like GTAV, Ocarina of Time does encourage the player to explore the land of Hyrule and achieve their goals by whatever means necessary. You don't have to complete the dungeons in any specific order; you just have to get them completed in order to progress the story. Yes you need to upgrade aspects of Link's arsenal to complete the game, but the landscape is still free for you the player to explore and actively encourages you to do so. I personally believe that the game is open world as you're free to change the pace of your quest as you see fit and solve the dungeons in any number of ways. -- internet informant (talk) 15:31, 09 July 2018 (UTC)

But do sources talking about the game agree with you? Open world wasn't a (common) term in the late 1990s, so you'd have to find retrospective articles on it, and even then I doubt they are calling it open world in the vein of Skyrim or Breath of the Wild. The same could be said about the original Zelda (if not most of them) too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I could find is the GameFAQs entry for OoT, which (perhaps erroneously) refers to this as an open-world game. But the site's database is riddled with contradictory classifications and other such inaccuracies. Since it's entirely dependent upon the userbase to submit data / corrections for these entries, GameFAQs is probably not a very reliable source. 75.63.209.97 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct, Gamefaqs is currently classified as an unreliable source. And while an editor recently added a source for it, I'm still not sure it applies. Yes, the game is featured on the "List of open world games" article, but just about its entire entry is written about how its largely a linear playing game... Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that other editor is up to, but they seem to have broken the article by inserting a citation in a random paragraph that makes no mention of the game having open-world qualities. 75.63.209.97 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an shoehorned WP:EASTEREGG link anyway. The citation should be kept, but the rest of the edit should be reverted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyedits

@Smuckola: we disagree.

• Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has been out for awhile - "awhile" is overwhelmingly written as "a while". It's sloppy writing in the source and inconsistent with Wiki style. As per WP:QUOTE: "trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning may be silently corrected". I don't understand why you want to preserve it.

• Aonuma concluded in 2004, "It was finally bundled in the GameCube version of Ocarina and released as Master Quest." What is the utility of this quote? It simply restates what we already say in the same paragraph: A fairly intact equivalent to Ura Zelda was released for the GameCube in 2002 in Japan as Zeruda no Densetsu: Toki no Okarina GC Ura and in 2003 in North America and Europe as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest.

I sometimes make typos in my edits. If you could point out the "typos and garbage" you corrected in my edit I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Personally I don't think "awhile" should be changed, because it doesn't really benefit anything by correcting it. However, the second edit I fully agree with, as the less direct quotes we use, the better. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't the benefit of correcting it... that it's correct? Popcornduff (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • You can include the same exact info without using direct quotes if it's such an issue; the whole point of quotes is to copy them verbatim, spelling errors/typos included. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not true, as per the WP:QUOTE policy I already quoted. Anyway, this is moot now as I've removed the entire quote - on reflection it added no information. Popcornduff (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"One of" the best

Since this keep getting reverted again.... The last discussion, which removed "one of", was before a major restructuring of List of video games considered the best. Previously, it had listed Zelda at the top of a ranked table due to it's metacritic score. We never really should have accepted that, as it's basically OR to use another Wikipedia article as a "source" for "the best" ever. Either way, the list has been reorganized since then and no longer contains a ranked table, so "one of" is the correct language to use. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously "one of" is far more accurate. What is and what isn't "the best" is completely relative, changes with the person, and should be avoided completely. Using "one of" still shows the great, and lasting, impact of the game while still avoiding all the issues. --Majora (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restarting this discussion, which seems to be needed again after recent reversions. We actually never used the list at List of video games considered the best as the source, or metacritic, and indeed still are not using them. We're using reliable sources - right now we're using Edge. We came to a consensus on this back in 2010, that reliable sources support the "the greatest" statement. Currently that statement is supported in the article by four Edge sources. Here are 5 other reliable videogame sources which support the statement. Equivalent statements also appear in the featured articles of Roger Federer, Lionel Messi, Citizen Kane, and The Simpsons. Per the rationale detailed at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, it makes such statements appropriate and stylistically consistent with Wikipedia as a whole. Per the above, I think we should reinstate the "the greatest" statement, with the sources. Autonova (talk)

References

The statement is made as a piped link to the list, which at the very best is giving the illusion that the list supports the statement, which it does not. -- ferret (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, that wasn't my edit, and was added after consensus was reached. Autonova (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

100% agreed with Majora. Just go with "one of", as it keeps the exact same statement, but would help prevent this pointless edit warring. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

”One of the greatest” is not the same statement as “the greatest”, and was not the result of the previous discussions about this very issue. There are a hundred games which can be considered one of the greatest - the reliable sources support the statement. This latest edit war was because someone changed “the greatest” to “one of the greatest”, ignoring previous discussions and without even changing the article’s reference statement or its sources. Autonova (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Totally agreed with "One of". Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Plus, there are tons of reliable sources which consider otherwise. Ignoring them and cherry picking sources are against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "One of" is far more neutral.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is using the article as a soap box or means of promotion? I have provided five reliable sources above supporting the statement, in addition to the four already in use in the article. This maintains neutral point of view, per Describing aesthetic opinions. As mentioned, equivalent statements also appear in articles on Roger Federer, Lionel Messi, Citizen Kane and The Simpsons, which are either GA or FA status. Autonova (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources which do not consider so. You are ignoring them and cherry picking sources to your advantage, which is against Neutral point of view. You are trying to make this article less neutral.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The statement does not say “considered by all critics and gamers to be the greatest”, it states “considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest”, which is a statement supported by the sources. Autonova (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this the same argument that was used on the List of video games considered the best article when it had a running tally of how many times a game was listed in first place? Info can be both true and POV pushing when worded a certain way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The statement is rather misleading. It gives the wrong impression the claim is a general consensus. Plus, the statement excludes other reliable sources which do not consider so. "One of" is a more comprehensive statement, which is much more accurate and neutral without a doubt.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeating my argument from WT:VG: I say go with "one of" the best. Just because it's got a high MC rating doesn't mean it's "the best", which can be just one person's opinion. I mean, I could say any game -- even Superman 64 -- is the best game ever. JOEBRO64 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Autonova's argument is that a number of countable sources have either outright called it the greatest, or have it ranked at #1 in a list. I don't think Metacritic is relevant here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with JOEBRO64. Even if some countable sources claim a game is the best, that is an opinion, not a fact. --110.4.239.31 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I hate to use Nintendoeverything for this but it's convenient. The article currently sources this primarily to EDGE. However, EDGE put Breath of the Wild at the top in their 2017 edition of the list. Ocarina was 9th. In 2015, it was 8th. This is primarily to show that things evolve. Yeah, we can find lots of sources with Ocarina on top. We can find lots where its not too, and many cases where sources that previously put it first no longer do so. -- ferret (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Like I said above, it may be true that it is the game with the most direct statements of being called the GOAT, but info like this can be worded in such a way that borders on POV pushing, which this could be considered a case of. Just going with "one of" is both more neutral sounding while remaining no less inaccurate. I'd argue for changing the wording on the Roger Federer, Lionel Messi, Citizen Kane and The Simpsons examples listed above too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Another support for "one of". We can't definitively make the other statement without that part in there. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support "one of". I could find many different reliable sources that don't consider Ocarina to be the greatest game (or even the greatest Zelda game). It is not as unanimous as people think. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• We should be representing the sources, rather than trying to decide ourselves. If there are 5 sources that said it's the best, then we should say that "Sources A, B, C, D, and E consider it the best". There should be no ambiguity where the article is getting its "best" from. Trying to analyze sources further to make some sort of general statement is WP:OR. "best of" is a compromise, but it fails to convey the intent of those sources -- that they think it's the best. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is for the lead though, which IS meant to be a summary of the article content. I don't think we would generally overload the lead with a list of specific publications would we? Either way, "one of the best" is a true statement backed by many sources, even those that have downranked Ocarina from #1 over time. There's ways to put "The best" in dozens of different video game articles if we're going to cherry pick sources for the lead. For the moment though, the live revision is being sourced in the lead to Edge, and Edge's opinion has since changed, with Ocarina dropping to 9th on their list, so "the best" is misleading. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Is this for lead? I didn't see anyone above mention lead. I guess in lead, "on of" is an acceptable compromise if prose explains what that actually means. But I wouldn't say that "Several reviewers described the game as the best at the time" or something is too much for lead. Given how much coverage a game like this would get and how long the prose would be, it would be reasonable that lead has a paragraph dedicated to reception summary (instead of, for example, all the ports... why is that even lead-worthy?) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • And again, while this may be true, if we can go with a more neutral sounding and just as accurate wording, there is no reason why we shouldn't. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• As with many game articles, the current "one of" statement is concise and the best. We do not need to make it messy.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have found an additional 6 sources which support the statement "considered by many the greatest": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], which brings us to 11 sources, of the 23 English speaking online sources in the approved list. These sources do not state that the game is the best ever - they state that it is considered by many to be the greatest ever. There is no logical leap required - we are basically quoting sources. From the above discussion, the three arguments against the statement are very similar: "it's an opinion", "you are cherry picking sources", "you could find many sources which say different". On the first point, everything in the Reception section is an opinion, so I don't think that's relevant. I'm glad the second and third points have been raised, as it has actually made me learn something about Wikipedia in general: a sporting star is relatively easy to agree on in terms of a "greatest ever" statement, because of the ability to literally count trophies won etc. But games are creative works. Tetris is considered by many to be the greatest game of all time, and indeed, in its article's lead section, it gives a similar statement. Wikipedia does not have a limit on how many articles can include this statement. As long as reliable sources support something relevant, it warrants inclusion. Significant portions of a critical community will consider multiple works as the best ever. For example, Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odyssey are both Good Articles, and both feature statements in the lead sections saying that that film is considered the greatest ever. Both are correct, simultaneously. Same with the articles for The Simpsons (FA) and The Sopranos (GA) - both have "greatest ever" statements in the lead, and both are correct. Just because we include the statement in this article, doesn't mean we can't in articles for Tetris, and/or any other game for which reliable sources support the statement. There won't be many, however, because it takes a lot for a reliable source to say something like that. The sources as they currently appear in the article do need to be changed, and perhaps the statement itself needs to be reworded based on people's feelings, but by the above logic I don't think we can suppress reliable sources and exclude the statement entirely. What do you guys think? Autonova (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Nobody is suppressing sources here, it's all to do with summarizing them. Saying "one of" is more neutral sounding without being any less inaccurate. You keep bringing up GA examples, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the best argument to make. I also argued that they all should be changed as well for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• The statement would be a result of cherry picking and exclusive of other reliable sources. "One of" is more comprehensive and much more accurate and neutral. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to boast of something nor a place to push POV. The more neutral and accurate, the better the quality of the article. We all know "One of" is more neutral and accurate.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don’t know what you mean by cherry picking. Like I said, the sources do not say the game is the greatest, they say that many consider it the greatest. And there’s 11 separate reliable sources which support this. If this is cherry picking then a lot of Wikipedia is also. Wouldn’t settling on a statement of “one of” also be considered cherry picking, since you’d be ignoring these 11 sources? Again, it’s not a biased point of view if it’s backed up by the sources. Surely by that logic, everything in the Reception section is a biased point of view. The game is remarkable in that many consider it the greatest and this should be mentioned in the article. Autonova (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • "One of" is inclusive of them. "This is one of my favorite games" includes "This is my favorite game". You are ignoring the fact that there are many people who do not consider it is the greatest. Obviously there are far more people who do not consider it the greatest than people who consider it to be the greatest. So the majority of people do not consider it to be the greatest. The statement "this is considered to be the best by many" is rather misleading. It gives the wrong impression the claim is a general consensus. The statement is nothing more than pov-pushing. The top priority of any article should be the neutrality and the quality of the article.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • For some reason you assume that by making something more neutral sounding and generalized changes its overall standing as a fact. Nobody here is arguing against its status as one of the best games of all time, it's just that your argument isn't something we can objectively consider better than what basically everybody else here prefers. We got rid of this same exact argument on the List of video games considered the best article and simply went with a non-subjective chronological-based ordering. Do you have an issue with this too? At what point would a game go from "one of the best of all time" to "considered by many to be the best"? This is the issue here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• An observation: Every single argument levied here against the use of "the best" ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", "You are cherry picking sources to your advantage", "Info can be both true and POV pushing when worded a certain way", "Even if some countable sources claim a game is the best, that is an opinion, not a fact") apply equally well to the use of "one of the best". In fact, most of them apply equally well to any acknowledgment of critical opinion. So those arguing in favor of "one of the best" need to find a new argument that actually supports that wording rather than repeating ones which characterize both "the best" and "one of the best" as "POV pushing". (Either that or drop the compromise position and come right out and propose that all info on critical reception be deleted from Wikipedia).--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am pretty fine with deleting "one of the best" statement. If we need to choose from "the best" and "one of the best", obviously "one of" is far more neutral and accurate.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • So if I can summarise the next round of points: "You keep bringing up GA examples, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the best argument to make." If you have a look through that guideline page, it says that comparisons to other articles can be a valid reason for something, as it maintains a consistent style across the encyclopedia. I'm also not invoking it with a sole article, I'm illustrating my points with several articles in multiple subjective topics, i.e. films and TV. "Saying "one of" is more neutral sounding without being any less inaccurate." Of course the statement "one of" would be perfectly correct. But it would also be vague, and silent on a remarkable and relevant fact. There are probably fifty games which been called "one of" by a reliable source. And why is the "one of" statement more neutral? Going into detail isn't the same as being biased. "Obviously there are far more people who do not consider it the greatest than people who consider it to be the greatest. So the majority of people do not consider it to be the greatest. The statement "this is considered to be the best by many" is rather misleading. It gives the wrong impression the claim is a general consensus." We are not saying almost all people consider it the greatest, or most people, or even most gamers, we're just saying "many critics and gamers". We're just quoting sources which explicitly state that. "Many" is a significant minority, but not a majority and nowhere near a consensus - you will never reach a consensus on anything artistic, ever. If someone reads thats statement in the article and interprets it that way, they've misunderstood the sentence. "At what point would a game go from "one of the best of all time" to "considered by many to be the best"? This is the issue here." Like I said, if you can find a reliable video game source that says exactly that. And like I said, multiple games can be "considered by many to be the greatest", if mentioned in a reliable source. It's not an exclusive sentence, to be used only once per topic on Wikipedia. If a reliable source mentions it, we should mention it. And, again, we're not picking a couple of Number 1 placements on a All Time Greatest Game list and using that as our source - we're directly quoting the statement. Autonova (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is just an essay and not a guideline. Plus, far more articles adopt the statement "one of", so if you insist on Other stuff exists, then we should adopt "one of". "Many" is a significant minority, but not a majority and nowhere near a consensus - you will never reach a consensus on anything artistic, ever. If someone reads thats statement in the article and interprets it that way, they've misunderstood the sentence. Yes, "this is considered to be the best by many" can easily cause that misunderstanding. Many people would interpret it that way. "One of" does not cause misunderstanding, and is much more accurate and neutral and more comprehensive.--110.4.239.31 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added 20 reliable sources which clearly state that they rank Zelda the "greatest" (not "one of") game of all time. How many more reliable sources do you need? Also, this was the consensus on the talk page for many years, before several POV-pushing editors (who clearly dislike the game) changed it recently. See earlier talk page discussions to see what the long-term consensus was for many years. 122.254.152.245 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternative reality in the story summary

Would it be irrelevant to the story summary on this article to include the alternative reality variation on the conclusion (within the official Zelda chronology storyline, Ocarina of Time has two endings, one where Link wins, and one where he does't, that lead to seperate timelines; although only the latter is an ending presented in the game)? My argument for this is two part. For this "alternative reality" is just as valid within the canon story of Ocarina of Time as the ending shown within the game. And, in relation to this, within the plot summary on this and many other articles, information contained within instruction manuals, for example, are used as a valid source for extension of garding story information that is not presented in the actual video game. Would it therefore be fine to add a small subsection to the story summary clarifying the "other reality" that is contained within the Ocarina of Time storyline, as presented through official sources? 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You additions are way too wordy and rambling. You’ve got to reign it and fight that tendency. This isn’t a college essay or monologue on OOT, nor is it a Zelda fansite. It’s a encyclopedia entry. Your additions don’t mesh with content or tone of an encyclopedia entry. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the advise, and I'll try to work on it, but comments on my editing style aside, would the broad notion of inserting this into the article be okay. That's all I asked. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it really belongs here. It doesn’t actually occur at any point of the game. At the very least, if it were included, you’d want to include proper context - that this is some factoid from a separate book, or people are going to delete it thinking it’s erroneous, especially since it’s not an online source that can be double-checked. Might be more of a development note too, as again, it’s not part of the game’s actual story. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it belongs better on the series page than here, or perhaps the legacy section. But yeah, it does not belong in the plot section since it does not come from the game itself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s true too, the series article may be more appropriate as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

But what about my point regarding instruction manuals being used as sources? Those are not stating game information either, and up until fairly recent history, video game instruction manuals have infamously been prone to tangants with no relevence to what's in the actual game. Not only this, but localization teams insert their own spin on things. Most of the North American Zelda manuals are completely contradictory to the Japanese originals, and more over, the North American localization team made up a bunch of nonsense that is not only not included in the game, but is just them throwing in non-canon garbage on a whim. And yes, the western Ocarina of Time instruction manual is used as a source on the page's story summary, and it has been up there since forever, and no one's had an issue with that. I just don't get what the difference is. I suppose it's true that the manuals are more closely linked to the games, but they're both offical sources outside of the game that do not pertain the story given within the game itself. Particularly back during this era of gaming, when manuals were still unrealiable. And back them, the communication between the game developers and the manual writers was not the greatest, let alone between the manual writers and the manual's translaters. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Also, if no none-game information is entitled to be in the story summary whatsoever, why are all of the Zelda story summaries litered with openings that explain it's placement in the timeline in relation to it's predecessor? Majora's Mask's always had that it takes place a few months after Ocarina of Time in it's summary, which isn't said in game at all. Twilight Princess has that it "takes place place several centuries after Ocarina of Time and a century before the events of Four Swords Adventures". Again none of this is stated in-game. Heck Twilight Princess' page even states, in relation to the plot of the game, that it takes place in a parallel timeline to Wind Waker. Which, again, has zero relation to the story presented within the actual game, particularly regarding any connection to Wind Waker, be it a parallel timeline or otherwise. Skyward Sword: "Skyward Sword takes place at the beginning of the Zelda continuity". Once again, this has no relevence to the in-game story whatsoever. This entire thing just seems inconsistant. If information without relevance to the ingame story should be kept out of plot summaries, then that's totally fine with me, but the Zelda pages are literred with things that go against that, that no one's apparently cared and that have been there for years. Surely you can at least see where my confusion here is coming from. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, as I don't think they really should not be cross-referencing other games like that unless they are a direct sequel with plot continuations, and even then it should be kept to a minimum (single sentence). Remember, that just because something exists in one article, doesn't automatically make it correct or fine, even if you would normally assume that it should be. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it's true that the manuals are more closely linked to the games - there you have it. And as Dissident states, much of your argument fails WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand, I was just pointing out where my confusion and mistake has come from. If information that is not in-game relevant is really not allowed on plot summaries, than that's fine by me. I simply wanted some sort of comfirmation regarding this. Since there's even stuff like, how the spirit who teaches Twilight Princess Link sword moves is the Ocarina of Time Link, But the game never references this "spirit" as being Link, let alone the Link from Ocarina of Time. This info is from outside sources, but despite that even this is stated in uncertain terms on the Twilight Princess page in the plot section. Due to stuff like this, I figured that outside official lore extensions were fine. Although regarding Skyward Sword, I suppose as that game does deal with the creation & backstory to a lot of series staples, like the creation of the Master Sword, the backstory to cycle of evil that's cursed upon Hyrule, that might be at least worthy of being mentioned. Other games have no such relevancy though, outside of featuring the same base lore, like every Link being the same reincarned spirit of Hylia's hero, and every villain being a result of Skyward Sword's curse of evil's endless return. Which is tensious at best.

And FYI, I removed Sergecross73's comment because it is reiterating the point in a deflammatory way. "And as Dissident states, much of your argument fails" is not needed, and is assumptious, when it isn't what I'm arguing anyway. I appreciate people approaching me with issues in a way that is civil. I do not appreciate being told that I "fail", especially when all it is doing is stating a point already said in a more civil manner. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And I’ve restored it. You are not to alter others comments. Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, but it still wasn't an appropriate comment, nor one that was needed. Can I actually get an apology or acknowledgement that this isn't appropriate, because this isn't the first time I've felt like you've gone out of your way to personally jab at me, when it wasn't needed. Moreover, you didn't actually make any point regarding manuals, as I brought up that point only so that I could immediately dispute it. Just saying "there you have it" doesn't agree the points I made. But anyway, I wasn't even "arguing" in defense of or against manuals, nor even my edits persay, I was just looking for some clarification. I take no personal offense to someone civilly addressing the issues within my points and even just nudging a reminder at me about the rules that "but they're doing it so why can't I" argument isn't appropriate, but I do take offense when someone makes an assumptious remark about how I've "failed", and does not add anything to the discussion in the process. Also when someone takes my point and does not actually address it, but just reiterates the point. Not going to get into this again, but "I suppose it's true that the manuals are more closely linked to the games" doesn't actually mean anything, and that's the point I was making in the first place. That in itself is an assumptious remark to make, since it can be argued that it is not true in more ways then one, especially back in 1998. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything offensive. I just said that your arguments fail goes against WP:OSE. That’s not an insult or an attack on you. You just used another invalid line of reasoning. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This has no longer become relevent to Ocarina of Time, so moving discussion your talk page, if that's okay. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI, just wanted to point out that I've been trying to straight out Zelda pages and remove information that doesn't conform to strictly game appropriate information (no extended lore, nothing not mentioned or shown in-game), and Wikipedia officials are now throwing the exact opposite in my face, that it's evidenced in the source and can't be removed. Apparently there's no winning here, no matter what you do. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:2DD1:6523:1DD6:2151 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

On which pages? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not edited by a singular person - different editors make difference editing decisions. That said, we don’t need 100% uniformity, and the very brief mentions I’ve seen you remove would generally seen as far less problematic as your very long ones. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: Looking into it, it appears another editor objecting to your overly long/detailed additions was cited as a reason as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Tags

If this article is to maintain its FA status, someone needs to resolve the citation needed tags. 2620:0:E00:550A:290A:AAC3:21A2:9D24 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that, even without my recent edit, the gameplay section is well sourced. Perhaps there's something else I missed? Jwarlock (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OOT

This abbreviation is mentioned in sources that are already cited in this article. Benjamin (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Why does this need to be pointed out though? Who isn’t going to make this basic connection? Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about "POTUS" or many other abbreviations. Benjamin (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Anything can be abbreviated. Trivial, not helpful to anyone except where it's especially notable (eg BBC, NASA, FBI). Popcornduff (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It does seem to be mentioned often enough. Benjamin (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not remotely enough to be notable. Newspapers can mention the FBI or BBC without needing to tell readers what they stand for (in fact the abbreviations are more used than the full terms). OOT is just an everyday abbreviation - internet users will abbreviate anything as soon as more than three people understand it. Popcornduff (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

New Material to incorporate

Shmuplations has an interview, don't know if this information is already in the article or not, but it should be checked. https://shmuplations.com/ocarinaoftime/ Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

GameCube version is not a port, but rather just an emulator and ROM.

Basically, the article states that OoT was ported to GameCube. Rather, it is an emulator running the original N64 ROM, with changes done on the emulator level; for instance, the removal of Islamic imagery and such. This is the same for Majora's Mask. The Wii version is properly listed as emulated; this version is almost identical to the GameCube version, with some improvements. Wii U and on use newer emulators. I would edit it myself but I don't know if my source is considered good enough. https://twitter.com/Volvagia224/status/1453887151901487105 LeoLeoSuper (talk) 11:34, 31 January 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)