Jump to content

Talk:Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cover art

[edit]

Why is only the coverart from Link: The Faces of Evil used to represent both games? The image's NFUR states that its purpose is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the section dedicated to the work in question. [...] [and] to assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the game", but this only applies to half of this article's topic. How does this image help readers identify Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon? How does it assure the reader interested in Wand of Gamelon that she has reached the right article? -Thibbs (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because in numerous cases, including The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, all Pokemon games, and other games with multiple box arts, that the article could only justify the use of one cover art. Sad as it may be, we are limited in the number of images we can use. Using two images to fulfill the same purpose is seen as excessive. Therefore, we must go with only one image. Additionally, free text is perfectly capable of indicating to readers that they have arrived at the appropriate article. In fact, I would venture to say that screenshots from the game better illustrate the game, considering that most people who are aware of the subject do not know it for having played it or ever having seen it in stores. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If free text alone is sufficient then I know how we can reduce the use of free images even further. Can you please show the guideline that would state that a two coverarts cannot be used in a single arrticle? -Thibbs (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." - Having two images that do approximately the exact same thing - representing the subject of the article - is not acceptable as indicated by the basic goal of Wikipedia. There is no guideline however that states that no two cover arts can be used in one article because that's not the case. The case is that no two cover arts can be used in an article for the exact or almost exact same purpose. WoG's boxart's value is only for visualization of the topic. Every image must have a unique purpose. Identifying a single game is not a unique purpose unless you can show that WoG's lack of visual identification would detriment the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WoG's boxart's value, like FoE's boxart's value, is only for visualization of half of the topic. Together they would allow visualization of the entire topic. And the legal exposure argument is bunk. Do you remember when yesterday you said "The argument that you have made is not acceptable; very few of the images on Wikipedia for video games can actually cause any impact on the related companies." Honestly what aspect of Fair Use does two images violate? Amount and substantiality? Do you honestly think that the educational use of two low-res images of box-covers would infringe on Animation Magic's copyrights in their two videogames? I can assure you that the two images easily meet Fair Use. Your concern over Wikipedia's legal exposure is frankly laughable in this regard. Two non-free images is very much a limited use of non-free content. The slippery slope argument that 2 images leads to 8 images leads to 15 and 20 images is nonsense. The use of only one image to represent two different halves of a combined topic makes exactly as much sense as using a photo of only Tom to represent Tom and Jerry. As Tom and Jerry are copyrighted characters individually as well as collectively, why would both of them be depicted at the top of their article? Is it acceptable there because the images are collaged into one? Would that be an acceptable way to solve this problem at this article as well? I know there is an advertisement for them in one of the sources I'd located where they are depicted side by side. Would this be acceptable according to your legal judgment? -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific case, I can see reasonable NFC allowance to use both images side by side ala the Pokemon covers, since the games are very closely related, considering both games are so tightly connected. Yes, its two NFC images (unless one can find media published by Nintendo that has both covers side by side), but both games are covered as the main topic of this article, so it's okay to have both. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit late but I agree in this case. This is not a case of two versions of the same game (Pokemon), or two very closely related games (the oracles are actually one story in two parts).--70.49.81.26 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon. 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:

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) 11:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon. 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:

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) 20:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAH BOY

[edit]

should there be a link to the spread of this?75.171.110.135 (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TOO many citations?

[edit]

I never thought I'd see the day, but I have to wonder if the article is over-cited. Specifically, I'm not entirely sure that all of the quotes are entirely necessary (in particular, citing Morshu's "lamp oil, rope, bombs" line to support there being a shop strikes me as extraneous). Certainly, they make it a real nightmare to copyedit the page - the plot summary in particular.

If there are no immediate objections, I'm going to take a look at this page and see if I can make it a little more manageable. Gimubrc (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and done it - something like a third the game's script was in the citations, which seems to lean awfully close to replicating copyrighted material, and to be perfectly honest I have a feeling that the quotes were more about some joker looking for an excuse to cite the (admittedly hilarious) dialogue as many times as they thought they could get away with. We don't need direct textual quotes for every single sentence in the plot summary, after all - consider by way of contract the relatively small number of quotes in the Featured Article on Citizen Kabuto. Anyway, I've cut a whole bunch on a first pass; might trim more later. Gimubrc (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on that! - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The voice credits

[edit]

I have this page watchlisted, and I've noticed a slow-motion edit war going on over the voice credits section - who is credited as voicing whom.

I don't know where the information is coming from - which, in and of itself, is a problem. I've done a quick Google search and found the results surprisingly inconsistent - IMDb is the most detailed, and it has a lot of holes. As such, I ask that someone with access to a copy of the game post the actual, confirmed voice credits and include a citation.

Alternatively, we could simply cut the entire section wholesale and be done with it.Gimubrc (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable sources discuss the voice cast, cutting it would be best. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume the original games have credits - but I don't have copies for either and can't check them. But I'm inclined to agree it should be cut, pending citation. Gimubrc (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morshu’s own article

[edit]

I believe Morshu should get an article of his own. Yes I am aware that in his game of origin, he was very minor and only had two lines of dialogue. However, this is one of the very rare examples of a fictional character is popular because of how he is portrayed in memes as opposed to his game of origin. For around 10-15 years when it came to characters you would associate with memes, Morshu has always been there then and he is here today just as well known if not more than how he was on the early days of the internet. I think we should leave the article alone because he is in a way a very well known figure in meme culture and while many memes die off, he has always been here. I believe we should treat the article with the same respect and give this internet favorite the article that he deserves.

Unless a substantial amount of reliable outside sources (i.e. GameSpot, IGN and the like) cover this subject, it is not notable enough for its own article, regardless of your personal feelings. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to quote the lines of dialogue that has in the game? Vinnylospo (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources aren't enough to justify real-world notability. There needs to be extensive coverage by reliable secondary news sources that aren't connected to Nintendo or Phillips. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five licensed characters - is Mario one of them?

[edit]

In the Development section of this article we can read: "As part of dissolving the agreement with Philips, Nintendo gave them the license to use five of their characters, including Link, Princess Zelda, Ganon, and Mario for games on Philips's console, the CD-i, after the partnership's dissolution." However, the citation attached to Mario leads to the interview with Hotel Mario's creator, which says nothing about licensing at all. On the other hand, interviews concerning the development of Zelda games, like this one, mention the elusive "five characters" without specifying which ones those were. In my opinion, the "five characters" line appeared in the Zelda interviews, and then people remembered that Philips also made the Hotel Mario game and conflated the 5-character list with Mario since he's the protagonist and Nintendo's most recognizable mascot. However, in the Hotel Mario game we already have Mario, Luigi, Princess Toadstool and Bowser - add in Zelda's characters, and that's more than five, even if we don't count the Koopalings and the other iconic Mario enemies appearing in Hotel Mario as licensable characters at all. Now, take a look at the character roster of Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon, and you will spot exactly five canon characters that had appeared in previous Nintendo materials: Link, Zelda, Ganon - obviously, King Harkinian (1989 cartoon and Valiant comics) and Impa (Zelda I and II on the NES plus Valiant comics). All the other characters in those two games, like Morshu, Gwonam, Duke Onkled etc. were invented by the Philips team and never appear anywhere again. Mario's characters were probably licensed separately for the Hotel Mario game. Thoughts? --LernosRotosch (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Zelda: The Wand of Gannon" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Zelda: The Wand of Gannon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Zelda: The Wand of Gannon until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Plot Additions

[edit]

Months ago, I cut certain parts of the plot summaries for FOE and WOG. Now I return to find that all of the sentences I got rid of have been readded (with minor rephrasing). Some people may think I'm being unreasonable with why I keep trying to trim the summaries, but I have my reasons. For one, a lot of what's in the plot summaries don't reflect important plot points. For example, Link asking for a kiss from Zelda twice in the game's events is simply something the writers threw in for comic relief. And who wants to know that the Wand of Gamelon game ended with Zelda and her father laughing just because it's an internet meme?! Also, we don't need to state how the King offers his aid to stop Ganon's chaos in Koridai before Gwonam reveals that Link must defeat Ganon because the beginning talks about how Link's hopes for an adventure are fulfilled when Gwonam announces Ganon's takeover and saying afterwards "Although the King quickly offers his aid" overshadows the previous sentence. Besides, it wouldn't make much sense to include the King offering his aid anyway since the King's actual line is "How can WE help", which wouldn't really make it clear that the King would be offering his own aid solely. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:60DF:4591:D68D:E4AA (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Link:_The_Faces_of_Evil_and_Zelda:_The_Wand_of_Gamelon&oldid=1257366126"