Talk:The Legend of Zelda (video game)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Legend of Zelda (video game) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "The Legend of Zelda" video game – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1, 2

The Legend of Zelda (video game) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 23, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
April 8, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 4, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
March 31, 2010	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

Video games: Nintendo High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Carlton Wilborn (2 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (3 participants)
The Campaign Trail (Web Game) (25 participants)
TheoTown (11 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
WePlay AniMajor (2 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Silver cartridge?

Hi people! I just came into the possession of an original cartridge of this game. The thing is, it is silver. Distinctively silver. I'll take a photo of it, so you can see with your own eyes. I tried a google search, but I couldn't find anything substantial, except for a discussion at GameSpot, with a user claiming the same thing. [1]. Does anyone have any info about this? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case you were wondering what this might have to do with the article, it might be something worth adding, right? :-)

Possibilities include, but are not likely limited to: it's a custom cartrige (not as likely), it's a rerelease (possible), or the gold paint faded into silver (I lean toward this one). Whatever the case, I would advise that you find out precicely what it is, or it could be called original research. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay images please

I would like to see one or two images of gameplay, at the moment there are none, I think would improve article. A small number of low res images would be fair use, it is normal for video game articles. Carlwev (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's one on the series article. Would that work?Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot of this game appears in the article about the series, I have added the image to this article as well, and added fair use rational to the image, since someone took it off due to no fairuse stated. I hope it will suffice. I thought it silly we have a screenshot of the game on wikipedia but aren't using it in the game article itself which had no screenshots. I am sure it must come under fair use to use a screenshot of a game in the article about that game itself as well as the series. I hope my wording was OK though. I like the image I think it's fine but I wasn't sure where the pefect place to put it within the article would be or what to write under it, I placed it for now but if anyone can do it better go ahead. Carlwev (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine now and has a sufficient rationale, but it's best to write the rationale before adding the image to an article, otherwise the image is infringing copyright. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent vandalism

Members of 4chan are fighting to maintain vandalism done to this article.

They are changing the main character's name from the correct "Link" to "Zelda".

Suggesting a temp lock or something.

70.48.114.249 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Lanced jack[reply]

I strongly suggest locking this--Jim88Argentina (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported it at WP:RFP. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I wouldn't really trust an IP address when saying it was done by 4chan. All sites like that have wars with each other and blame vandalism on each other. Gune (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the thread on 4chan, but I can't say they started it.--Jim88Argentina (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Legend of Zelda (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 15:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First or second game to sell 1 million NES copies?

There are two contradictory statements in this article, both of them written in the "Release" section. One of them, source #38, claims that the game was the first NES title to sell 1 million copies. I think this is wrong and it goes against source #34, written earlier in the article, that states that the game was the 2nd NES game to sell 1 million copies. I don't know if I should edit and remove source #38 and its statement from the article, as I do not have access to either sources. What do you guys think? -Dhyancraig (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the less reliable source, though I'm not sure which is less reliable. If that's any help. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that too! Both sources seem equally vague and doubtful. Isn't there an official Nintendo site for the Zelda games that might show some history of it? Dream Focus 06:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the answer to this. It's printed in an old Nintendo Power magazine. Technically, Super Mario Brothers was the first to sell 1 million, but the article said that Zelda was the first independently packaged game to sell 1 million, with their being 4 million NES systems meant that 1 in 4 had Zelda. I can give you the magazine, and page number if you want.--76.235.73.50 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Power in 1988 called it the first to sell 1 million copies, so I guess Nintendo Power is unreliable...2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:E4B8:E46B:8:B5BF (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, issue # 4 of the Nintendo Fun Club magazine states that the Legend of Zelda is the first single title to reach 1 million in sales.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:449F:EBF8:92DB:B2CB (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So did Nintendo power in 1988 when it talked about the sequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:2915:E8BF:7084:D453 (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

guinness records

if you name 2, why not name all 5? id change that myself but i dont know what the other 3 are --46.114.52.160 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that these are the more notable records it set. I understand limiting the list, as listing them all could make the paragraph tedious to read. I didn't think to check, but if there's no reference for it, I'd find one fast. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend movie reference

I've read multiple times, IMDB being one, where the Legend of Zelda game was based on the movie Legend. There was even an interview of Shigeru Miyamoto where he even said the movie was the inspiration for the game. Why isn't this in the article???--76.235.73.50 (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an acceptable source, because it's user edited like Wikipedia, so we can't use it. Shigeru Miyamoto, however, is an acceptable source, if you happen to remember where you read that. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little tired of reading these assumptions. First, the game and initial movie release in UK only are only 69 days apart (Dec, 1985 to Feb, 1986). Second, Zelda was the largest game of its time. There's no physical way to have developed the game, debug it, script write it, and release it in just 69 days, not with a game that massive in 1986. So large was it that it was on the new Disk Drive. Until NOA developed battery backup, the game got held off until 1987 (as stated in Nintendo Fun Club magazine). Those are fairy tales to believe that Zelda was based off Legend, it obviously wasn't.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:E4B8:E46B:8:B5BF (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda classic

what if mention Zelda classic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.229.136.224 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article mostly deals with Zelda classic already. Be more specific? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC) zelda classic is a pc re-release that comes with mod support while containing the entire game. it was originally released for dos but later got a windows release.84.213.45.196 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda 2 is the only true Sequel

According to Nintendo's official Zelda timeline they have only ever made one sequel to the Legend Of Zelda, and that is of cause Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link, so although it is tempting to say it spawned "many sequels", that is in fact NOT technically correct. All the other Zelda games are prequels and should be mentioned as such. The game spawned "many prequels", NOT "many sequels". Colliric (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In statements like this, it generally is saying "Sequel" as in following games in a series, not necessarily that the story takes place afterwords. Also, pretty sure that Links Awakening is a direct sequel to A Link to the Past. Does it really not mention it as such? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a side issue, because Link's Awakening is also a prequel to the original game, as well as being a sequel to A Link To The Past. Colliric (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how technical you want to get, there are six games in the timeline that are neither sequel nor prequel to this game. What would be the right terminology for them? In the end, Blake's suggestion seems logical enough and is certainly the least clunky. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official timeline by Nintendo, they are all prequels, although some are set in alternative timelines(still counted as prequels by Nintendo because they all occur prior to the equivalent time of "The Legend Of Zelda" in the prime "NES" timeline, and Nintendo has begun to merge the alternative timelines, which, if you don't know it yet, is a major plot point of A Link Between Worlds). See Zelda timeline, which is more accurately and clearly represented here. The CD-I spin-offs are not to be counted as Nintendo considers them "apocryphal". Colliric (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But are you getting what we are saying? It doesn't matter what place it serves in the timeline. If a game is released after another, it is still considered a sequel. If you want to get technical, then yes, you can explain it in more detail, but we don't really need to in every instance. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is Nintendo's opinion that counts, and by their own reckoning, they have never done a sequel to "Zelda 2: The Adventure Of Link". That is THEIR official stance. Just as it is THEIR official stance, on another controversial NES topic, that Super Mario Bros. 2 is the legitimate and proper Sequel to Super Mario Bros., despite what some fans think about the game not being "the original game". If that is reflected in that article(which it must be given they are the primary source on deciding what is and isn't the "official" sequel), their own opinion on the Zelda series must also be reflected here. And their opinion, given in the official timeline, is they have only done one plot sequel to Zelda 1, and the rest of the games are all prequels in relation to it.Colliric (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're clear, the argument appears to be over whether we should use the real-world timeline (release dates) or the in-universe timeline when deciding whether this game has numerous sequels or prequels. If the real-world timeline, then the game has a still-growing number of sequels. If in-universe, the game has one sequel, a still-growing number of prequels (I'll count Link Between Worlds as soon as it's released), and a (I hope) still-growing number of alternate timelines stories that I'm not convinced have a proper label. Whichever consensus goes with, I'll support. That being said, who here was claiming that the "Dark Triforce" of the CD-i Zelda games was cannon? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Legend of Zelda (video game). 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:

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proper subtitle for original and Link

There seems to be some misunderstanding on what the proper subtitle is. Some claim the true title is "The Hyrule Fantasy: Zeruda no Densetsu" or "The Hyrule Fantasy: The Legend of Zelda", while others say it's "Zeruda no Densetsu: The Hyrule Fantasy", or "Zelda's Legend: The Hyrule Fantasy". I studied Japanese for 3 years, the latter is correct, as the article correctly states, the proper title is actually "Zeruda no Densetsu: The Hyrule Fantasy" or "Zelda's Legend: The Hyrule Fantasy" as subtitles are written before the title in Japanese. This means the sequel is actually improperly titled "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link" in the article, actually the proper title is "Link's Adventure: The Legend of Zelda 2" as shown on the title screen in the Famicom Disk System version. There needs to be some fixing on the sequel's title.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:449F:EBF8:92DB:B2CB (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links broken by the page move

@SNUGGUMS and Philg88: Yesterday's requested move broke a large number of internal links that previously targeted this article. Izno and I fixed all circular links on the series' article, but shouldn't a bot have fixed the rest? —zziccardi (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bot is only smart enough to fix the redirects, not each of the links. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I feared. In that case, I think it's probably best to move the page back to the previous title. Way too many links were broken when The Legend of Zelda (video game) was redirected to The Legend of Zelda for manually disambiguating them to be reasonable. Personally, I don't think including the year in the original game's article name is necessary—the 2016 entry's proper title should be revealed soon enough. —zziccardi (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days and no one's voiced any dissenting opinions, so I'm going to request the page be moved back. —zziccardi (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 01 November 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Moved back to The Legend of Zelda (video game). This article was moved as a good-faith effort to disambiguate this title with the upcoming video game. However, consensus is that this article is the clear primary topic for the video game. The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game) will be moved to The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game). Aervanath (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game) → The Legend of Zelda (video game) – Please see the reasons outlined in this discussion. Thank you! – zziccardi (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of the games in the series are named "The Legend of Zelda" in one way or another. In fact, I oppose, given that I think that The Legend of Zelda (video game) should redirect to The Legend of Zelda (video game series) (which I just realized didn't exist, so I created it as a redirect to The Legend of Zelda as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}; The Legend of Zelda is the current target of The Legend of Zelda (video game).) Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the section above, my main concerns with the page's current title are that the recent move from The Legend of Zelda (video game)—where it had been since September 2009—to The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game) was made without consensus and that it broke a significant number of internal links: all links that used to target the original game's article now go to the series' article. While I recognize the issue of the links shouldn't take precedence over consensus regarding what the article's title should be, I again stress that the page was moved to its current title without any discussion whatsoever. I don't necessarily disagree with keeping the article where it is right now, either; it's just that there should have been a discussion about the most appropriate title first. —zziccardi (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the section above: However, almost every title in the "The Legend of Zelda" series could be referred to as "The Legend of Zelda" per WP:SUBTITLES. Confusion is unavoidable. Steel1943 (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see confusion as an issue let alone unavoidable. Frankly in most case I have seen people usually use the subtitles to refeer to other entires in the franchise. Personally I have never seen the Legend of Zelda on it own used to describe any of the other games in the series. In short I do not seen confusion as an unavoidable issue that requires the need to use 1986 video game.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how WP:SUBTITLES applies here. Would you mind clarifying? —zziccardi (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could be referred, sure, but could does not mean should or is; we use full titles like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, not The Legend of Zelda (1998 video game). --Soetermans. T / C 12:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: My point seems to be missed here. With the exception of the first game in the series (this one) and the announced game, all of the games have a title that allows their respective article titles to have natural disambiguation. However, that point alone does not mean that titles such as The Legend of Zelda (1998 video game) are not useful redirects. My point here is that "The Legend of Zelda (video game)" is an ambiguous title per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since it could refer to any of the titles in the series per WP:SUBTITLES, and notable so for each game in the series. (Also, thanks for giving me the idea to create that redirect, so I will now.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, there have been a lot of discussions about WP:SUBTITLES at WT:VG! I do see your point though. --Soetermans. T / C 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zziccardi: In regards to me clarifying my statement about WP:SUBTITLES, please see my response to Soetermans above. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much discussion here, so I thought I'd bring up the following regarding the requested move's eventual closure: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus states However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. —zziccardi (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support no other game in the series is simple titled the Legend of Zelda making adding the year redundant. Also when I hear people taling about other games in he franchise I notice that they use the subtitles such as Link to the Past, Skyward Sword, ect making this the natural location for the proposed title since there is little chance for confusion.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlike, say, the Tomb Raider series where there are two games with the same name and no subtitle, this is the only game lacking a subtitle. If someone is trying to search on another Zelda game and enters only "Legend of Zelda" to find it, they will still need to go through at least one page (The series or the disambiguation page), so having this at "The Legend of Zelda (video game)" will not be any real more work for them. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As I stated in the preceding section, I'm not seeing a compelling policy-driven reason to include 1986. In addition to Masem's Tomb Raider example, I think it's worth mentioning that other video game-related articles also avoid needless disambiguation with respect to possible confusion between a series' title and that of an individual game—Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. (video game) come to mind. —zziccardi (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Somehow, this entire discussion so far has managed to avoid mentioning the obvious reason that the page was moved in the first place, namely The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game). As long as we have a page at that title, then we cannot have a page at just (video game), per article naming rules, and some of the above comments seem to not know about this articles. --Pres N 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True but that is was not announced as the full title nor did we move this article when Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword were originally announced sans subtitles. I also don't recall anyone being confused due to that either so I don't think the exitence of the 2016 game should be a factor here.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that in the previous section but no one responded... —zziccardi (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly recommend that until Nintendo affirms a day-and-month release date, that the current "2016 video game" LOZ article be instead at "(Upcoming video game)". We had this problem with The Witness (2016 video game) in that, up to a few months ago, there no fixed release date, we had to keep moving that article around over the 4-5 years since announcment and an "RSN"-type release schedule. Now, while the Big N rarely goes back on release promises and there will certainly be a 2016 Zelda game, it's still speculation to assume that will be the release year, and for all purposes, we shouldn't let that override that there presently only exists on LoZ game with that name and zero subtitle. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could always start another requested-move discussion for that article. —zziccardi (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: there is no other Zelda game called simply "The Legend of Zelda" and it does not seem likely that there ever will be one. The 2016 game will not be called "The Legend of Zelda" and a hatnote here pointing to that article is sufficient in the interim until an official title is announced. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Axem and 65.94.253.102 here: Temporarily moving this game's article each time an article for a new untitled entry in the series is created isn't really an ideal solution, and it shouldn't be necessary given the hatnotes. —zziccardi (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the statement that "it does not seem likely that there ever will be one", given the number of re-releases of HD versions for both Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time. A similar re-release of this game (while I'm unsure we would treat it as a separate page or in the context of this page), or a "re-boot" with the same name could very well require the same name as this. --Izno (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Parenthetical disambiguations need to be completely unambiguous and because of the existence of The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game) the proposed title is not. If the incoming links are a concern, my suggestion would be to resurrect The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation) and point the The Legend of Zelda (video game) there – the dab project members will fix the links fairly quickly then. Once that has been completed, the dab page can just be turned back into a redirect if no one thinks it's a useful dab page to have. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24: To clarify, are you suggesting this page be kept at its current location only until the Wii U game's full title is announced, or permanently? Including 1986 will be unnecessary once that game's article is moved to its final title; it seems undesirable to repeatedly move this page each time a new Zelda game is under development, and we don't do that for any similarly named video game articles. I'm all for your idea of using The Legend of Zelda (disambiguation) until this discussion is closed, seeing as there are currently 350–400 broken links (although, of course, not all are in the mainspace) that aren't doing readers any good. Thoughts? —zziccardi (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose permanently resurrecting the disambiguation page since per WP:DABCONCEPT The Legend of Zelda is the page that any related redirect/disambiguation page should point to. Jenks's propopsal appears to be a temporary "make it easy for our disambiguation people to fix things".
Regarding page links from non-main space, it's not useful to fix those or to use them as a reason to set the location of this page. --Izno (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose permanently bringing back the disambiguation page for the same reason. No one seemed to be against temporarily reviving it, so I've done so. —zziccardi (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this has tripped me up a few times, as people that are used to Wikipedia's coverage of video games might know that "title (video game)" always discusses the first game in a series, assuming this game's title is the same as that of the series (such as is the case here, or for example Mega Man (video game)). Changing from this pattern for no real reason is confusing. Also, I cannot imagine someone searching "video game" to be looking for all of them. Of course, proper hatnotes will always be needed. If multiple games will ever be titled "The Legend of Zelda" (for example, if the 2016 game does not get a subtitle), "the Legend of Zelda (video game)" should become a disambiguation game for the series, the first game, and the newer game. ~Mable (chat) 08:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the upcoming The Legend of Zelda doesn't carry a subtitle, we can decide on this title then. I also like to point out that "2016 video game" in my opinion is too soon, as there has not been a formal announcement of a release date, and that there are plenty of video game articles that still have "upcoming" in its title. --Soetermans. T / C 12:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a few back and forth comments from Nintendo on whether or not the game's coming out in 2016. I do believe the current stance is "TBA", so you're correct in that, but that's where the current name comes from at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit off-topic, but Nintendo hasn't really been ambiguous about whether the game is coming out next year or whether it'll still be released on the Wii U by my interpretation. Please see the two sources cited at the end of that article's lead: In an interview at Electronic Entertainment Expo 2015, Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aimé stated that the game will be released in 2016.^[1]^[2] —zziccardi (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my wording wasn't the best, but there has been a lack of clarity at certain points. When it was first delayed out of 2015, they didn't give a new year right away (it was a debate on the talk page at the time), and I believe their most recent financial reports have it listed as "TBA" instead of "2016" like other 2016 releases. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)) [reply]
Yeah, I was aware of that discussion at the time but didn't feel like I had anything to add to it… I should have made my point clearer, too. The Wired article states the following: On this list, the Wii U Legend of Zelda appears with “TBD” as its release date. (This remains unchanged from its status in Nintendo’s previous quarterly fiscal report that it issued in early May.) Many writers have decided that absence of evidence is evidence of absence; that is, “TBD” is a possible indicator that the game is not coming in 2016. … This means absolutely nothing. Thus, there's no reason to believe Reggie's confirmation of it being a 2016 game at E3 doesn't still hold true. —zziccardi (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was thinking of a more formal announcement, but I guess Reggie's is as good as any source to go on on, of course. --Soetermans. T / C 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ~~Alternatively, it could be moved into The Legend of Zelda (NES video game), and the article about the 2016 video game can be called The Legend of Zelda (Wii U video game).~~ The upcoming game's name is still unclear which another reason of why I support. --TL22 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your alternative proposal could get messy though, if 1) the NES game is/were to be released on the Wii U eShop or 2) The Wii U Zelda is announced for the NX too. I don't think we should make that switch to usin platforms. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCVG, we avoid using console names until and unless a game is released in the same year on two separate consoles. This is not the case regarding this page.--Izno (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striked the statement. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better disambiguation and avoid naming conflict with the upcoming instalment, also I don't get why this article is any exception unlike other game that have or having an upcoming game with the same title like Doom (1993 video game), SimCity (1989 video game), Tomb Raider (1996 video game), Medal of Honor (1999 video game), Mortal Kombat (1992 video game) and Prince of Persia (1989 video game), we can revert the article back if the upcoming game gets a subtitle. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think because every other entry of The Legend of Zelda carried a subtitle since. --Soetermans. T / C 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there is nothing to suggest that the would stop now and if that that later becomes the case we can request another move then. Also if this was a major cause of confusion we likely would have had move requests when both Twilight Princess (was simply called Legend of Zelda for about a year) and Skyward Sword were announced. In short I see confusion as a non issue is this case.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that all the other entries mentioned had another game in the franchise commercially released with same title. This has not happened here. Finally, based on the fact that Nintendo often announces Zelda games without a subtitle initially before formally announcing the full title, we should move this back until there is evidence thga the next entry does not have a subtitle opposed to waiting for confirmation of a subtitle before moving it.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDeviantPro: This article isn't an exception: We only include the year when there are two games with the same title and neither has a subtitle, as is the case with many reboots. Please see Masem's support rational above and WP:NCVGDAB. —zziccardi (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving. While the upcoming video game may be inappropriately titled (I pass no comment on the truth of this statement), "1986 video game" is a unique disambiguation and prevents the same future problem of an upcoming LotZ game having a released title but no released subtitle. Its status as the primary topic of today may not be true tomorrow, and WP:NCVG actually (in a precedent-sort-of-way) already prescribes certain naming where an original title and a series name come into conflict. (I might head over there to see about adding a guideline regarding known upcoming titles.) --Izno (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Which part of WP:NCVG are you referring to, exactly? The first list item of its disambiguation section clearly states: For original video games: Disambiguate using numerics and subtitles when part of the official title (e.g., Need for Speed: ProStreet). Further disambiguation can be made by appending "(video game)" or "(YEAR video game)". The former is preferable. And under the sixth list item: If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name… As I brought up in my support rational, WP:VG game consensus is in favor of avoiding unnecessary disambiguation, which is why Final Fantasy (video game), Metroid (video game), Star Fox (video game), and all other original games that spawned successful series are located under those titles. There's no reason the first installment in the Zelda series should go against the established naming conventions. —zziccardi (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of is they are arguing that this is not the primary topic since the 2016 game is currently titled a The Legend of Zelda. I disagree with that since I don't see making the primary topic transient as the solution. If we did that we would have needed to move this to 1986 video game when wind Waker was announced then move it back when the subtitle was later shown, move it back to 1986 video game when the teaser trailer for Twilight Princess was shown and then wait about year when the subtitle was announced at next year's E3. We would then need to rince lather a repeat for Skyward Sword and this game. Even the Western release of Link Between Worlds did not have a subtitle, thought the Japanesd version did. I think we can safely see why that method simply won't work with this series.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm mulling over: I think we should prefer (parenthetical) disambiguations that don't require us to reassess whether the topic is going to be the primary disambiguation. I'm less concerned with considering what is and what could be or should be, so I'm tossing some spaghetti.
IP65: No, I'm not arguing that this is the primary topic, nor does your comment make sense following that. My suggestion certainly does not lead to us moving this article around each time a new game is planned for release without a subtitle. The point I'm making is that we can move The Legend of Zelda (the video game) to a page which needs no other disambiguation since it will be unique forever (as there are no other Zelda games released in that year). The Legend of Zelda goes to live happily forever at The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game), The Legend of Zelda (video game) goes to live happily forever as a redirect to The Legend of Zelda, and whichever game is coming up either goes on to be The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game) or e.g. The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game). But I'm not too worried about going with WP:PTOPIC, though I'm still of the opinion that The Legend of Zelda (video game) is ambiguous. Shrug. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Jenks' and PresN's comments, above, as well. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why some might argue (video game) alone is inadequate for disambiguation, but if that's the case, the issue isn't with this article, but rather with WP:NCVGDAB. Instead of opposing moving this page back to its longstanding title, which was consistent with our naming conventions, why not open up a new discussion wherein WP:VG at large can determine whether the guideline should be revised? —zziccardi (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Breaching experiments can occasionally be valuable feedback on whether we're still on the right track. To that end, sometimes it's useful to try a change in the location of a particular page and see if it sticks, and then pursue discussion later. It also helps flesh out (dis)advantages. --Izno (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we're all mere pawns in Snuggums's social experiment? Oh dear. —zziccardi (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to [requiring] us to reassess whether the topic is going to be the primary disambiguation, I don't see that as the case here. When the naming conventions were established, I imagine the general consensus was that including the year in an original game's article title wouldn't be necessary, well, ever. Similar to Masem's point above, anyone who enters only "The Legend of Zelda" in the search bar is almost certainly looking for either the series' article or this article. If a reader were looking for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, for instance, he or she would surely enter just "Ocarina of Time" or start spelling out its full title and click on the relevant suggested query. Given that all suggestions would be the games' proper titles, "The Legend of Zelda (video game)" isn't likely to be ambiguous. —zziccardi (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note to closing admin: the only reason this discussion is happening in the first place is because User:SNUGGUMS unilaterally decided that a move from The Legend of Zelda (video game) to The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game) was "uncontroversial", just a few days before this discussion was started. The move request was fulfilled less than 90 minutes later, not giving interested editors enough time to object. Clearly, with the amount of ink spilled here, it's obvious that the original request was asserted to be uncontroversial in error. There seems to be a double standard being applied, requiring a much stronger consensus to return the article to the status quo it held for over six years, at the behest of a single editor. If anything, I think this discussion should be speedily closed, the article returned to The Legend of Zelda (video game), and a new requested move discussion to be opened suggesting a move to The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game). It's the only rational move forward, if we are to have ANY respect for the policies and procedures we've developed for ourselves as editors. The burden of proof should be on the heads of those who support a change from (video game) to (1986 video game), not the other way around. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're here now having this discussion, so let's not be WP:BURO about it. That said, I would agree that a "no consensus" finding should lead to this article being returned to The Legend of Zelda (video game). --Izno (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the correct course of action. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this discussion shouldn't be discounted just because it's a breach of process, but that doesn't render Axem's points any less valid. —zziccardi (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:PRECISE failure. Ambiguous disambiguation is always a bad idea. PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply, since neither the current nor the proposed titles are primary titles. They both carry parenthetical disambiguation, so by definition are not primary topic locations. Multiple games with the same title, not to mention the entire videogame series is also a videogame topic. Just fix the wikilinks instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact no game other than this that has simply been titled The Legend of Zelda so this is not a WP:PERCISE failure. Every game in the franchise since the second released in Japan in 1987 has had a subtitle and there is nothing to suggest that Nintendo will suddenly stop using them. The only other article that currently uses only The Legend of Zelda is the 2016 video game but I see it as a safe bet that they will follow an almost 30 year tradition of subtitle use especially since Nintendo has had a history of announcing subtitled Zelda games without them during reveal trailers. Also, if by some chance they actually do release a future entry without a subtitle we can move this to 1986 video game then since these requests are not set in stone. Finally if I am reading this right and you are suggesting that since the game and the series have the same name that the game has to include the year in the title that goes against long standing common practice as well as the video naming conventions WP:NCVGDAB which has stood unopposed on that front for years.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALLing the title of the 2016 game does not make that the case. We have an article at that name, so this automatically fails WP:PRECISE -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would see this as an exception since we have an established precidence of Nintendo handling subtitles in this matter since this has happened 4 times already, (it would have been 5 had Link Between Worlds Japanese title was not announced as quickly as it was). If WP:CRYSTAL was followed to the letter this article would have been moved to the current title and back on four separate occasions. I can't imagine that this is what WP:CRYSTAL was intended for so I see moving the article back as a common sense solution unless there is evidence that the next game will in fact not have a subtitle.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support There has only been one game released with the title The Legend of Zelda. It is likely that the 2016 installment will get a proper subtitle closer to release, as has happened with other Zelda games announced without a subtitle. If it does not, then we can rename this article. Reach Out to the Truth 20:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as this seems to be convention for titles such as this. (and totally not because I spent two hours yesterday fixing all the dablinks ;) ) — foxj 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the convention for titles like this. We would only need to include the year when there are two games of the same title released such as Simcity and Doom. The difference here is that no other game in the series is simply titled the Legend of Zelda. Technically the 2016 game is called that now but that is because the full subtitle has not been announced and based past history where Wind Waker, Skyward Sword, and Twilight Princess initlally did not have subtitles it's highly unlikely that this would change now and I don't think we should need to wait for the subtitle to be a minced before moving this.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not the convention for this? Yes it is, especially since almost every video game in the The Legend of Zelda series can be called "The Legend of Zelda" by itself per our naming standard at WP:SUBTITLES. (As I stated above, I do not believe that any of the other titles in the series should be moved as they have natural disambiguation in their titles, but the phrase "The Legend of Zelda" is a valid term as a redirect to each one of them.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the opinion that WP:SUBTITLES is irrelevant here. That section is a part of the naming conventions guideline for books. Yes, the section reads, in part, Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE. But the key word is usually—that is, where it makes sense, the guideline could be applied to the titles of articles on other forms of media. In this case, however, WP:SUBTITLES is in direct conflict with the naming conventions for video games (see my response to Izno's opposition above); by no means is it logical to assert that the guideline for titling articles on books should take precedence in this situation. —zziccardi (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, WP:SUBTITLES discusses a different type of subtitle: In the case of many video game series, the series' name comes first, followed by a colon and then by the individual game's unique subtitle. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and all other examples used there are incomparable, in that those works are not discrete installments in series and therefore don't include series' titles. —zziccardi (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zziccardi: Your statement that WP:SUBTITLES only applies to books is not correct. There was consensus formed at Wikipedia talk:Long titles#Requested move that the guideline WP:SUBTITLES can apply to any media. (There were plans and consensus to create a standalone guideline to allow it to be clearer that it applies to all media types, but that has yet to happen, thus the clear reason why the other media types are listed there in the parentheses.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say WP:SUBTITLES applies only to books—I am well aware it can apply to any media and acknowledged that above. I think you may have missed my point, which is that it doesn't make sense to abide by WP:SUBTITLES here because the established naming conventions for video games explicitly say otherwise. —zziccardi (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that I have never heard anyone talking about Skyward Sword call it Legned of Zelda on it own. Dito for games like Orcania of Time or Twilight princess. I do not believe that the other games are generally known as simply Lengend of Zelda.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imwould also note that the Subtitle discussion linked to was move discussion with few people responding. Considering the limited participation I don't believe that it should be enough to automatically overrule the video game naming convention (a guideline) which contradicts it.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the two are unrelated, and do not contradict each other. The current title is the compromise between the two guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, "The Legend of Zelda is the working title of an upcoming action-adventure game". Working, not official title, therefore it is "crystalballing " to assume it will be its final title. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if something is done about The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game). So long as that article stays where it is, The Legend of Zelda (video game) is incomplete disambiguation. This has been a recurring problem with articles on Zelda games for literally ten years. Before the official names were released, 2005's The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and 2011's The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword were located at The Legend of Zelda (tentative title)[2] and The Legend of Zelda (2010)[3], respectively. Both were moved around a few times before the full title was known, meaning the precedent is far from clear.

This said, so far as I can tell, no one in the press (or on Wikipedia) is treating "The Legend of Zelda" as the new game's actual title, it's just a working title as it develops. The article could be moved to a descriptive title like "2016 Legend of Zelda game", which would remove the need for the year in the 1986 game's title, and establish a precedent for future editors to follow the next time Nintendo inevitably releases a Zelda game.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Otero, Jose (June 17, 2015). "E3 2015: Why Nintendo Didn't Show Zelda Wii U". IGN. Ziff Davis. Archived from the original on June 18, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ Kohler, Chris (July 29, 2015). "No, Nintendo Didn't Just Delay Wii U Zelda Again". Wired. Condé Nast. Archived from the original on July 30, 2015. Retrieved August 1, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'spiritual forerunner of the role-playing video game genre'?

This sentence in the third paragraph of the article seems wildly inaccurate. The genre of role playing video games had most certainly been established prior to the release legend of zelda. Ultima_I:_The_First_Age_of_Darkness, as a single example, was published in 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.139.242 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Legend of Zelda (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619113453/http://nindb.net/game/legend-of-zelda.html to http://www.nindb.net/game/legend-of-zelda.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611225644/http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/nes_games.pdf to https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/downloads/nes_games.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830220653/http://zelda.com/universe/pedia/l.jsp to http://www.zelda.com/universe/pedia/l.jsp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=7&cId=3140040
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206204922/http://www.f3.dion.ne.jp/~kameb/satella/st_slg.htm to http://www.f3.dion.ne.jp/~kameb/satella/st_slg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Legend of Zelda (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204193350/http://www.f3.dion.ne.jp/~kameb/satella/st_kbn/st_kbn.htm to http://www.f3.dion.ne.jp/~kameb/satella/st_kbn/st_kbn.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False claim about Zelda's influence on computer RPG's

The article contains the following paragraph:

Zelda is often cited as being responsible for the surge of action-oriented computer RPGs released since the late 1980s, such as the Origin Systems game Times of Lore.[69] The Legend of Zelda series would continue to exert an influence on the transition of both console and computer RPGs from stat-heavy turn-based combat towards real-time action combat in the following decades.[70] When it was released in North America, Zelda was seen as a new kind of RPG with action-adventure elements, with Roe R. Adams (who worked on the Wizardry series) stating in 1990 that, although "it still had many action-adventure features, it was definitely a CRPG."[71] In more recent years, however, there has been much debate regarding whether or not The Legend of Zelda qualifies as an action RPG.[72]

This paragraph doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Most of the computer RPG's that were released after Zelda were still turn-based. Furthermore, the only computer RPG for which there's any real compelling argument to be made that it was inspired by Zelda is Times of Lore. The earliest computer action-RPG's were first-person dungeon crawlers, which are obviously completely different from Zelda. What's more, this style of RPG goes back to early 80's titles like Dungeons of Daggorath, which predate Zelda by many years.

Let's look at the various styles of computer RPG's:

-turn-based RPG's: Wizardry, Might and Magic, Fallout, various Ultima games, the Gold Box series and other SSI RPG's.

-first-person action RPG's: Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, Ultima Underworld, Elder Scrolls, Deus Ex.

-real-time with pause RPG's: Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment.

-hack-and-slash RPG's: Diablo and its many clones.

Not only are none of these similar to Zelda, but a majority of them predate the first Zelda game. That's the issue with this paragraph: while it has plenty of references (although almost none of them can be checked), it doesn't actually provide any examples of games that Zelda supposedly influenced, with the sole exception of Times of Lore.

And of course, Zelda is not an RPG itself, so how it could have meaningful influence on other RPG's?

I suggest removing this paragraph entirely.

Kreyghun (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say that The Legend of Zelda did not influence RPGs and specifically CRPGs is a blasphemous notion. Zelda not only created the sole consumer interest in open-world RPGs, but it pioneered the genre with its open-world format, interchangeable weapons and dungeon-based gameplay. Yes, CRPGs specifically continued to have turn-based elements, and that is specifically reflected in the succeeding sentences. The references are very reliable, and of course have been checked over, and the statement "Zelda is not an RPG" is a subjective statement that the paragraph itself goes over. No matter what you believe, you need to discredit the actual reference, not just blank the paragraph citing incorrect information, to get the paragraph removed. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 21:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Zelda did not invent the 'open-world format, interchangeable weapons and dungeon-based gameplay'. According to Miyamoto, Zelda itself was influenced by computer RPG's that had implemented those things more than half a decade prior, most notably the Ultima series. Moreover, the paragraph specifically cites Zelda as fueling the shift towards real-time action computer RPG's underwent, which, as I pointed out, is obviously false. And no, Zelda is not an RPG. It has no character progression. If we are to label Zelda as an equipment, then we should label every action game where you acquire items and powerups as RPGs. And those references are completely subjective. As I pointed out, computer RPG's that were influenced by Zelda are almost non-existent. How can I discredit something that doesn't exist? Here is the book excerpt specifically mentioning Ultima's influence (note that the Black Onyx, another influence on Zelda, was also made by a western computer RPG developer): https://books.google.nl/books?id=GBXqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=miyamoto+zelda+ultima&source=bl&ots=veBbd54vDI&sig=HyuWqYVSvgRz2lR_FHJEc80TOyM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZlZvlrJvZAhWsAcAKHSSwCZAQ6AEIajAM#v=onepage&q=miyamoto%20zelda%20ultima&f=false Kreyghun (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely misquoted me. I *never* said Zelda invented those things, but it's clear to say that the game definitely popularized it amongst both the consumer base and other developers. The notion that Zelda does not have character progression is completely false as well, Link as the protagonist grows stronger over the course of playing the game. I would definitely say that Zelda has certainly innovated and popularized the open-world genre, and while there were definitely ones before it, including some notable ones like Ultima, Zelda definitely was the most popular and as a result was the most influential, both in sales and recognizability. However, I understand your point and I suggest to add to the article discussing the game's predecessors. Additionally, you really need to remember to follow Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. There is no use in insulting people, reverting edits without consensus being reached, or not reading others' additions properly. Also, forgot to mention (sorry if this causes an editconflict, "RPG" doesn't necessarily mean much; it discerns that the player plays a role in the game. The term's purpose is to umbrella into different terms; turn-based RPG, open-world RPG, Japanese RPG, etc. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 12:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what character progression in an RPG is about. Link grows stronger by finding stuff. In an actual RPG, you create a character, assign their stats and skills and that character then grows stronger by improving those stats and skills. Zelda is simply not an RPG, otherwise we should label thousands of action games where you find upgrades as RPGs. You have yet to mention how Zelda supposedly innovated the open-world formula. And you have yet to address my main point, which is that Zelda didn't meaningfully influence computer RPG's. The article mentions numerous Japanese console RPG's Zelda influenced, but it can only name a single computer RPG it influenced, Times of Lore. It claims computer RPG's shifted towards real-time because of Zelda, but in actuality most remained turn-based. Why are you defending this? THESE ARE BLATANTLY FALSE FACTS. This paragraph simply doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny and should be removed. Kreyghun (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all, you need to remember WP:GOODFAITH. I don't appreciate being shouted at, I am not your "enemy" in any way, we are simply having a discussion about whether something belongs in an encyclopedia. The term "RPG" does not fit your definition, nor it fits anyone's; "RPG" is often cited from things like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, but also things like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and the like. These games also applicable as both action-adventure games and RPGs. Not all RPGs must have numeric-based statistics where characters earn experience. The idea that "Zelda is an RPG" is an extremely subjective and debated matter and thus should not be a point of your argument. Also, I meant that Zelda popularized the open-world format, that is something undeniable. I believe that this paragraph should be re-written to not say that Zelda inspired new non-turn-based RPGs, but rather state that its sales and recognition kept the genre alive. I believe that is a good compromise. (Also please remember to format your replies correctly. To reply to a thread, please put the preceding amount of colons plus one to the start of your paragraph. Also please remember that apostrophes are for property assignment, not for pluralization. RPGs not RPG's.) ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Zelda didn't keep computer RPG's alive. Computer RPG's faced a major decline in the 90's and the genre almost died out. As I said, the idea that Zelda influenced computer RPG's is absurd and not collaborated with any games, with the exception of a single one, Times of Lore. Furthermore, your argument seems to be that there's nothing wrong with the paragraph because it has references. But it's very much possible for references to be factually incorrect. For instances, one of these references describes Zelda as a 'computer RPG', yet Zelda didn't appear on the computer, so how can it be one? It's obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge in the history of RPG's that Zelda didn't have a meaningful influence on computer RPG's. What is happening here is an obvious agenda on the part of Nintendo fans to inflate the importance of Zelda. If you look back in the history of the article, I recently removed several parts of this article that turned out to be complete lies (as in, the references listed turned out to be talking about something else entirely), all done with the goal of inflating Zelda's influence and reception. Think about that: someone went out of their way to find false references to paint Zelda in an even more positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreyghun (talk • contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have convinced me; consensus has been reached and the paragraph will be reverted. But, I will warn you that partaking in Wikipedia editing means there are to be no biases assumed, nor not assuming good faith. I am DEEPLY offended that you think I would sully the quality of this encyclopedia by spreading false facts just because I have some kind of imagined secret agenda. If you continue to discuss with other users like this, it would most likely get yourself banned. From your contributions, I can see you're a relatively new user, so it's important to excuse you for things like this, but you must remember to adhere by WP:GOODFAITH at all times, and most importantly, click "Show preview" so I don't have to format your additions to talk pages for you. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 17:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that genre history articles such as Action role-playing game still largely consist of banned user User:Jagged 85's work, and that ban was precisely for the reason that we're discussing here, the blatant misuse of sources to push an agenda. So I would be suspicious any time you see an undue claim on Wikipedia regarding Japanese games' influence, especially if they make claims of being an "early example" of something (Jagged's favorite phrase.) Phediuk (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I AM ERROR

Hi, I just noticed that there is no mention of the famous line of dialogue "I AM ERROR," commonly thought by stupid westerners to be an actual error but no, the man is just saying that his name is Error. This is unacceptable. Let us vote and decide wether or not this line of dialogue should be there or not.

Thank you, Jason Funderburker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.166.26 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't appear in the first Zelda Game, it was from the second one!!!--Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.166.26 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

legend of Zelda

Where can I get a map of the Legend of Zelda original game? I can't seem to find the dungeons.

Is it okay we include the Japanese The legend of Zelda Famicom Disc System box art in the Wikipedia page

Excuse me since Megaman 1 and 2 has the Japanese famicom box art https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mega_Man_(video_game) Including Metal gear which has the Japanese MSX box art https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mega_Man_2 including Metal Gear

Is it okay we can include the Japanese The legend of Zelda famicom Disc System box art : https://photos.wowroms.com/emulators-roms-logo/24/58841/420-420/Zelda+no+Densetsu+-+The+Hyrule+Fantasy+(Japan)+(v1.0)-image.jpg in this Wikipedia page?

--Belrien12 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First home console game to use battery saving?

I don't think the Legend of Zelda was the first game with a built in save feature. Family basic was released with a battery backup in 1984. In 1985, the super cassette vision game Pop & Chips had a built in level editor which can be saved with batteries. Penguin Land (which had a level editor feature) was released on the JP Sega Master System on 8/18/87 four days before the USA launch of Zelda on the 22nd. Raikusu (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]