Talk:Link (The Legend of Zelda)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archived

I archived this page. It was 141 kilobytes long...--Smashbrosboy (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

link and toon link

shouldn't they have there own page being 2 seperate people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Toon Link" is merely Link from The Wind Waker. This page covers the 7+ incarnations of Link, including both Twilight Princess and The Wind Waker.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Toon Link controversy" I agree that there should be a sentence or so, just stating that the cel-shaded graphics inspired a new idea in the reincarnation of Ocarina of Time's Link. Zeushas29 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Signed, zeushas29Zeushas29 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you change the page picture from Toon Link to the Twilight Princess Link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.57.21 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the dates

Why aren't any of them wiki-linked in the paragraphs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pic

Um for the main pic, should we use the ocarina of time pic? Only because it was nominated the best game or somethinThe Legend of G (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is explained in the archives - just because more of the series' fans like a certain representation doesn't mean it will be the most accessible image to the wider populace. Think about it - is some parent trying to figure out what their kid is babbling about really going to recognize a picture from a game about a decade old?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No we swhould use the Twilight Princess Picture, its now links modern accepted appearence. As evident in SSBB! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.101.184 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

if you think we should use modren era then toon link would be the newest link because of phantom hourglass. Edaldren (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Modernity isn't all that matters; we should use the image most people have of Link, that is, something like TP or OOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeck (talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

..then prove that. Prove that most people (and by that, NOT just people introduced to the series by OoT) know Link by his OoT/TP image. In fact, I would actually bet that most people that weren't introduced by OoT know him by his original design, the little chibi guy. PH is the one most recently in advertising, and thus most visible and likely to be in a general reader's memory.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

-So how about a compromise? Link seems to be best known as existing in two different forms throughout the series- A child and as an adult. Though strictly speaking it is true that he exists in more games as a Child than as an adult, it seems to be that more people identify with the adult incarnation of link, as can be seen with Super Smash Brothers, wherein "Link" is an adult. In later SSB games "Young/Toon Link" is introduced as a separate character than Link. Now, let me propose what I mean by compromise. Like this article, the Ganon article has been a subject of hot debate, over whether his human or best form should be made as the pic. Currently, a compromise seems to have been made in that both are shown. Why not do the same for the Link article? Remove some of the other pics contained in this page first, to save space/memory/etc, then replace the article's main image with two images - one showing the most recent incarnation of a child link - ie, PH Link - and one showing the most recent incarnation of an adult link - ie, Twilight Princess. I should also say that the picture we are currently using of Phantom Hourglass Link isn't really a very good picture anyway. Link is known for his courage and heroism, but in the PH press image we have, he doesn't come across that way. So, adult link issue aside, I think we need a new image ANYWAY. But consider my idea. -Unsigned Guest who's not a member of Wikipedia but thinks his opinions are just as important as anyone else's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.56.103 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He's really only appeared as an "adult" in two games. If others want to go with the compromise of adding the adult TP link, fine, but I can't see much reason for it that wouldn't allow us to also add Bunny Link, or Wolf Link. We do need to keep the PH image, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that at the very least a picture of TP link should be shown, if not the outright removal of the PH version. A key thing you need to keep in mind is that we shouldn't go off of what is "most recent" exclusively, but we should go with the most popular amongst recent imagery, which is clearly the Twilight Princess incarnation, also having appeared in Brawl. Furthermore, TP (as well as Brawl) are much bigger releases than that of PH, and extreme amounts of hype were generated for both, something you will not find in PH, which was a comparatively minor release. Finally, the original character art of link (not the in-game graphics, but the artwork) and that of many (if not all) of the older Pre-3D era games most closely resembles that of OoT/TP style (in contrast to the "toon" style). All these points considered, it would therefore be the most representative of the entire series to use a picture of the TP version of link. --HeroofTime55 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The original artwork for the original games showed a squat, cartoonish version of the character. The updated art for Link's Awakening DX, A Link to the Past, and the Oracle games uses a very anime-like style, and the in-game art of Link in Link's awakening DX portrays him very definitely as a chibi. We've already even gone into a sales figure analysis with this - there simply is no way of stacking the numbers that puts the Twilight Princess incarnation on top. Sales pick the chibified Oracle version. Most recent picks the cartoonish PH version. Most often appearances also picks the chibified Oracle version. The only argument for the Twilight Princess version is "I like it", which I'm sorry, does not fly.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like some of whatever you're smoking. Look at recent major releases. Look at the old art and tell me that resembles football-head over the more "realistic" TP version. And look at the game reviews of both Brawl and Twilight Princess compared to Phantom Hourglass (which again, was not a major release, unlike TP and Brawl. And to top it all off, the TP image is, as you stated yourself, more visually appealing to most people. You have no ground to stand on, and are clinging on to this as one of very few supporters of your side, for whatever reason I don't know. The TP version most accurately represents the character in recent incarnations, is the most visually appealing, and is therefore the best representation of the character. Compare the total sales of TP to PH. You can even ignore the GameCube version and Brawl, and TP still comes out on top with more sales. Both TP and Brawl received higher review scores than PH. You don't have any argument. If you use your method of "looking to the present" then TP link wins. I'm going to go ahead and fix the article now.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Know what, scratch that, I don't understand half the language of Wikipedia and I don't trust myself enough to make the switch without screwing something up. I was just gonna switch the TP pic with the PH pic in the article. The other issue with that is that it winds up putting two "toon link" images in close proximity, which is somewhat redundant, although the art style differs slightly. I am going to, however, remove the note that there is "consensus" to use the image, as there is no such consensus except that between Mr. KrytenKoro and himself.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. This is the original art. Don't make nonsense up.
2. Don't make up crap about "what was a major release". TP was released at the tail end of the Gamecube, and honestly wasn't considered as much of an advance as PH was. TP had better graphics than OoT, but that was about it.
3. Where did I say the TP image was most visually appealing? Don't make up lies.
4. Idiot, I went and compiled actual sales numbers to refute the various vague assertions that TP, OoT, or MM were the most widespread. If you had actually read the archives like you were asked, instead of retreading the same tired arguments, you would see we've been over this; and that a great number of editors agreed on this. It's pretty much only the non-editors like you, who are only here to change the picture, who want it changed.
5. Brawl is not an official Zelda game.
6. Your whole "I'm going to go ahead even though I know everyone else disagrees with me" - probably going to get you blocked, if you continue.
7. As for "for whatever reason" - specifically to prevent the constant image-shuffling you're advocating, and that you admit your actions would cause. This article is featured. It didn't get that way by people like you coming in and changing the image, then whining when you're reverted without ever doing anything to contribute to the article itself. To become featured, an article needs to be stable, and to be stable, it needs guidelines to follow. The actual editors of this article agreed to go with "Most recent official image", because it was something easy to work by, and because it had several strong and non-vague arguments behind it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What a joke. When they say "anyone can edit Wikipedia" they clearly leave out the antics of folks like yourself. You ever think that maybe you should reconsider your methods if so many folks are coming out to complain about the same single point of the article? I can't be bothered to refute your points, because unlike you, I can't be bothered to waste my life away arguing over a damned picture on a friggin' internet site. But I will point out these repeated comments by multiple individuals should serve to point out that your methods are somewhat flawed. Perhaps it is the denialist in me, who doesn't want to admit that Nintendo passed off such an ugly disgrace as "art" and went and made a number of recent Zelda games look like shit. But the fact that my complaints are not alone would suggest maybe you should reconsider your methods. I'm out, my life doesn't revolve around silly things like this. But you're still wrong, on a number of your posted points, and on your choice itself.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Again - your "repeated comments by multiple individuals" are the vast minority, and are only made by drive-by editors who don't even participate in the resulting discussion. You can complain about "anyone can edit wikipedia", but do you honestly think that the regular, constant editors are going to gladly let random people who aren't going to stick around to clean up the mess dictate how everything is run? You can contribute, fine. Completely shuffling the images for arbitrary reasons, no. As I said before, we agreed, after lengthy discussion, that using the most recent image is the least arbitrary and most recognizable way to go about this. No, it's not perfect, but that's because there's more than one human on the face of the planet, so opinions will differ.

If you'd like to actually show how my explanations are incorrect, go ahead. But so far (and this is common to all the criticisms we've had of this picture), your argument is "I don't like it". Well, sorry, but that's not a valid reason to reformat the article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire basis of your argument is "We decided it awhile ago and so you're wrong just because of that," which is an irrefutable point (and thus one which is improper to make). Perhaps you could start by detailing the reasons why picking the most recent image without regard to any other factors whatsoever is superior to those methods where other factors (sales, average rating, popularity, etc) are considered in the equation. I maintain, simply, that your method (or if you will, the "current method") is inferior to my proposed method, which is generally to take, amongst the current generation of systems and the games released for them, the artwork from the game which revives the highest average ratings (taken from compilations of ratings), the most sales, and is, in general, the most notable version of that character amongst the current generation of consoles. I fear that, while you and the other self-appointed protectors of this article discussed these things, you perhaps lost site of the outside world (aka people like me), the one that this article is written to be presented to. The bottom line is, the current image is not the most notable image from the current generation, and therefore I disagree with it's usage. Articles (especially their introductions and the accompanying images) should be written to get the point across and feature the most notable characteristics of something, and not sacrifice that in the name of technical trivia like release dates. I propose that the current system be reconsidered, for these reasons, and any necessary adjustments be made.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) (PS: It would be helpful, instead of just saying "why dontcha reed the discussion pages" that you would point me to the specific section where this discussion is available. Otherwise I'm not wasting my time trying to uncover it, as I don't even know what I'm looking for and would have to read volumes of irrelevant material to find it. That's your responsibility, not mine.)--HeroofTime55 (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the basis of my argument, and I've explained why there are multiple reasons to our decision.

Your "method" is, quite honestly, "I refuse to listen to others, so I'm going to pick the image I like best for only that reason, and everyone will have to deal." Your constant attachment to your paranoid delusions isn't helping your case, either.

As for "most notable" - the TP image might be accessible to Zelda fans or general videogame fans. As something no longer being advertised, and hasn't for a while, how is it going to be recognizable to, for example, a parent trying to find out what their kid is playing?

They're are multiple decisions in each archive. It's four pages, and they're quite prominent discussions. Stop acting like a child and do the smallest amount of legwork yourself.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 12:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing all my arguments out the window, making baseless accusations, and in general, flaming me. As to the single new "point" you brought up, why do you suggest that someone's "kids" can only play the most recent game available? Lets say a new game comes out, it's heavily advertised, but in terms of sales it performs miserably, while sales of the previous game continue to rise. This hypothetical example proves that the current methods are flawed. Of course, such outlier events are uncommon, but nonetheless, it helps to demonstrate the errors behind the current method, and proves that "most recent" is not the equivalent of "most notable." While you sit there accusing me of not digging through old pages to find a few scraps of discussion about a topic picture, it would help your cause and make you look like less of a hypocrite if you actually, you know, read my arguments, instead of blowing them off as incessant whining.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "hypothetical" situation proves nothing, except that you'll pick at any straws you can.

I've already gone over which one had the most sales - the Oracle games, and their chibi-Link depiction.

Highest average ratings is inherently fluid, and is no guarantee that the average reader will actually recognize the image. It also begs the question - do we consider all ratings? Are you volunteering to check every magazine and website that has ever reviewed a Zelda game, and add them to the average? What about prominent review sources which don't use a number system? What about review ratings which have different scales (1-10 or 1-100 or even A-F)? Before suggesting this as a criterion, can you do like I actually did, and provide numbers for it?

Your final criterion is which is the most "notable". How do you plan to demonstrate this? "Notable" as defined by wikipedia is demonstrated by second-party sources. Again, are you volunteering to search every second-party source for zelda discussion and tabulating the amounts for each game? Also, see above - when it was suggested the first time that we go by sales numbers, I provided the damn sales numbers so people could see where the truth lay. I ask you to do the same.

Now, to your discussion this time: How many copies of Link's Awakening do you think are available to most children? How many parents do you think will recognize that game as what their kids mean when they say "I want that Zelda game!"? Do you understand how advertising works?

Is Twilight Princess even still available in stores?

I'm sorry, but if you haven't thought your arguments through at all (which as demonstrated above, you haven't), I'm going to say it. In order to stay featured, this article needs to be stable. In order to be stable, we need to have a way of deciding things. Using the most recent depiction not only has a high (not maximum, but reasonable) level of notability and recognition to it, but it is also incredibly easy to implement. Of the usable criterion you gave, two of them are incredibly, if not impossibly hard to implement, and the third gives a result you earlier stated you were against.

You're the one who said these things when I politely explained the inarguable facts of the matter to your original demand:

• "I'd like some of whatever you're smoking."
• "You have no ground to stand on, and are clinging on to this as one of very few supporters of your side, for whatever reason I don't know."
• "I am going to, however, remove the note that there is "consensus" to use the image, as there is no such consensus except that between Mr. KrytenKoro and himself."
• "I can't be bothered to refute your points, because unlike you, I can't be bothered to waste my life away arguing over a damned picture on a friggin' internet site."

As well as attributing to me words I never said, and outright making things up (about LoZ's art style, for example).

I'm sorry, but to me, this sounds like groundless, "incessant whining", as well as trolling. Now, please do not continue this discussion until you've gone over the archives and read through the reasons given in past debates for why we chose this image.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• sigh*

From the top:

• The Oracle games are not in any way recent games, their sales figures don't matter
• The art in the Oracle games is, at any rate, NOT the same style as the Cel-Shaded version in some recent (current-generation) titles, the first appearance of Cel-shaded/Cartoon-shaded art being in Wind Waker
• Among current generation games (those titles for the Wii and DS) Twilight Princess had, at the time this argument started, the highest sales between it and the only other current-generation main-series Zelda game, PH. It may still be the case, I haven't bothered to check again though.
• Of course Twilight Princess is still available in stores! Why would you even allege that it isn't?
• As for different rating systems, naturally, they would be converted to the same scale (anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics could accomplish this). It would focus on major game reviewers, as selected by the editors of this article (or, more preferably, the wider community of editors of gaming-related articles. A site-wide standard would be ideal, but I question how easily that could be accomplished).
• Neither TP nor PH are being advertised (and in fact Nintendo is releasing information and screens of the next game in the series)

Your arguments do not constructively analyze my proposal, you instead continue to make things up simply to discredit an idea you refuse to seriously consider. If my idea is so flawed, why don't you describe instead how you would refine it, and if you still think it is wrong, show how your refined version is still incapable of providing an accurate picture. But you won't, instead you'll continue to pull up old and irrelevant data, make ridiculous assumptions designed to make my theory look more unstable than it actually is, attack me personally by accusing me of being just a whiner who wants to change a picture, and draw connections where they don't exist. And then you follow up with a "Read the old discussion pages, but it's your job to dig them up good luck see ya later." No. A hyperlink to important discussions (which I assume you took part in) is not a difficult task for you, and the only reason you would refuse is in an effort to make me "go away" for the time being. I will not, nor will I stand for baseless accusations of trolling, when all I have done is put together a more than reasonable argument for a changed system. It is my right to propose a well thought out alternative, and you can not and will not stop that. Speaking of proposals, I'd like to add this thought to my proposal: "Released artwork for unreleased titles will become the current artwork from it's release until two weeks after the release of the first English-version of the game, at which point it will revert back to the Sales/Ratings model." Obviously, this is to give exposure to the recently-available artwork when no sales figures exist for the game in development. Wait, what's that? Doesn't that mean I would support displaying the art of this new game even though it is "cartoon shaded?" Oh no! Looks like I'm not just a butthurt fanboy who wants to play down "Celda" more than it deserves, contrary to Mr. KrytenKoro's accusations. --HeroofTime55 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So you've changed it from wanting to consider sales figures, to having arbitrary standards of "recentness". This is even less helpful as a method.

I've never said it was the same as the cel-shaded - I said it was a chibi, SD style.

And how are you defining current generation? If you're going by hardware, Twilight Princess was designed to be a Gamecube game, and is as much a Wii game as those on Virtual Channel.

Because I certainly haven't seen it anywhere but resale shops.

So, again, you're asking for completely arbitrary decisions to make completely unique systems somehow compatible. How in any way is this going to be the most useful method?

And?

Your ideas require so much work and arbitrary decisions to put into place, there's very little hope for refining them. That's why, again, I explained how the currently excepted method is infinitely easier to use. Furthermore, it is entirely on you to demonstrate how they would work - I'm not your workhorse, I'm the guy who's arguing against you. It is your obligation to defend proposed changes to the article, not mine.

You're the one who was constantly throwing personal attacks around, from your second comment onwards. I was calling you on your hypocrisy when you attacked me, and if you continue to call me a liar or use personal attacks, I will follow the steps for reporting you.

I already gave you a hyperlink - the three at the top of this page.

You've put together no argument - you've put together complaints, and I've either shown you how your claims are outright false (like when you said that the original games did not use the SD art style), or explained how your hastily thought out methods would be incredibly difficult to use.

I've still not heard exactly how you are defining the sales/ratings model - you've shown above that you don't think it should be a flat "all sales ever" - may I ask, why? People can still buy the earlier games through resale shops. You seem to bandy about the term "current generation" - How is this defined? Last 10/5 years? Current system of hardware (which at this point would include only Crossbow Training and Phantom Hourglass)? Some other arbitrary standard which you have not actually explained but feel free to get mad at me for not already knowing?

As with all controversial edits or proposals on this wiki - you need to put together an example of how your proposal would work, either on the talk page or your own sandbox pages, before you should demand that the proposal be used. I hope you can understand how incredibly faulty it would be for us to adopt new proposals haphazardly without actually knowing what they will do - if your sales/ratings system is as easy to use as you are claiming; it should be no work at all for you to demonstrate it. If you can't demonstrate it, then there's the damning evidence.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See, this is the point where your logic breaks down, because you are wrong. Now you're left to make up absolute bullshit about me "changing my suggestions" and other such bullshit. Yes, I'm slightly modifying it to account for flaws in my initial thoughts, but what I don't get is why you think that's such a bad thing. This WHOLE TIME I've been arguing "Among recent games, the one with the highest sales figures/ratings." Recent having been clearly defined multiple times as the "Current Generation," and since you want to get all technical, it would refer (obviously) to games which are not a re-release. TP for the Wii was released at the same exact time as for the GCN, and it is therefore current generation. VC re-releases would, obviously, not count (And yet, if Nintendo makes a NEW Zelda released for VC only, these standards would account for it). Again, you continue to do nothing but make baseless accusations. I've been defending (contrary to your claim) my proposal from your mindless badgering for too long now. I've never proposed we immediately switch, I've proposed that we simply consider it seriously and see if we can develop the idea into a viable alternative. I've done everything you claim I've not done (besides sift through mountains of irrelevant information looking for a needle in a haystack). And yet you persist. Instead of merely threatening to "get the staff involved" (Which is a tactic that rarely gives positive results even against people who are new to online culture) I'm actually going to do it, because this is ridiculous. You ignore my arguments and make stuff up, very rarely making any actual constructive criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroofTime55 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC) ....You know what, screw it. Congratulations, you win. As much as it disgusts me to concede to someone who did nothing more than badger me to the point of absolute frustration, I have better things to do with my time. Much better things. Even the damned reporting procedures are lengthy, and I don't have the time to waste on a trivial issue. This is the most inhospitable environment on the Internet, and I want no part of it. Goodbye.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you come back - you claim to have asked for discussion on your proposal. Well, that implies telling you in which ways the proposal won't work. That's what I did. I know why you're yelling at me for explaining the problems with your proposal, but that doesn't change that you were wrong to do so.

You changed your suggestion from an inconvenient but performable option, to a completely arbitrary option to fit your whims. That is why I criticized you changing it - I demonstrated that your claim would choose the Oracle-series chibi style, and so you added arbitrary qualifications to try and keep it to your Twilight Princess image. I should probably tell you though - Twilight Princess qualifies as a re-release, as it was released for the Wii and then a few months later, the Gamecube, instead of a simultaneous multi-platform release. (You should really check your info before shouting at me against it - this choice of Nintendo's was in fact well-known, and intended to drive Wii sales). So, even under this new arbitrary system of yours, only the cel-shading and chibi games would be available for use.

"Baseless accusations"? Of the two of us, I am the only one who has actually gone through the sales numbers, and I was explaining how your proposal still wouldn't get you the results you wanted. Of the two of us, I've actually been looking at review sites, and read the reviewers' own explanations that numeric systems are unreliable, uninformative, and quickly out-of-date. Again, all I have asked you to do is to actually give an example of how your proposal could be put in action, instead of your constant tantrums. In common language - "PUT UP OR SHUT UP".

If you'd like to pick out one time where I've provided false information, go ahead. If you are instead going to call me a liar simply because I am providing facts and numbers which don't support your claims, then your presence will not be missed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Twilight Princess qualifies as a re-release, as it was released for the Wii and then a few months later, the Gamecube, instead of a simultaneous multi-platform release." - Please do tell how on EARTH this reinforces your claim that the Wii version is a re-release, telling me that it was first released for the current-gen console? This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about, exactly why I am no longer interested in trying (in vain) to contribute to at least part aspect of the Wikipedia project. Your arguments are riddles with inconsistencies like the one above. You're also bent on ages old games, whose art style has nothing to do with either Cel-shading or "realistic" styles used in the current games, as if "style" itself even matters. ...Of course, I have to respond, I can't fulfill my claim of "Leaving" because I can't lurk without remarking, woe is me. But as for trying to contribute, with you blocking every attempt I make towards reasonable discourse, I see no reason to further attempt to do so. Even so, I simply cannot let you mock my name in the ways you are. You are the most uncivil person I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. Perhaps it is just simpler to use the current system.... But that gives you no right to make baseless attacks, it gives you the grounds to say just that. Your ignorance, feigned or real, disgusts me. --HeroofTime55 (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC) ...I looked through the talk pages trying to dig up your needle in the haystack, and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Hai_guys.2C_which_image_do_we_want_to_use_for_Link.3F_Vote This contains a discussion, at the very end of which you come in and make a suggestion to use the "most recent," a single editor agrees with you (your so-called "consensus") and a few sections later you are arguing that a "consensus was reached." The whole section I linked to was a raging debate with nearly equal sides, hardly a consensus. Really, most people don't get so excited when one guy agrees with them that they go around claiming their ideas as absolute, irrefutable, 100% agreed upon fact, so it baffles me why you do take this route. I see nobody, here or in the talk pages, as vocally supportive of your ideas. How you've been allowed to walk about pronouncing your outright lies as truth for this long escapes me... Perhaps it's just an instance of an unstoppable force meeting with an unmovable wall, the result is this mess. I rescind my previous claims that I'm done with this... It has become obvious to me that you are working nearly alone of not totally. I don't know how much of a personality cult you might have, but I will not let this go. Perhaps my ideas so far were flawed, but so are yours. The only thing I ask of you is that you do follow through with your petty threats to appeal to higher authorities, this discussion could use some serious arbitration right about now.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you guys are going to use Cel-Link as an image, please find one with transparency (the current one is on a white background, ick). -- RattleMan 04:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

1. YOU are the one who came up with the "ignoring games which have been re-released". So Twilight Princess is disqualified under that proposal.
2. The most recent games which WEREN'T Re-released are: Phantom Hourglass, Four Swords Adventures, Four Swords, Oracle of Ages, Oracle of Seasons, The Wind Waker. Every single other one has been re-released at least once, by a quick run through (correct me if I'm wrong). The only reason I listed Oracle was that it was among that list, so stop you're whining.
3. Again, give ONE example of me making a baseless attack, or using false information. So far, I have tried to show you how your proposals would not work, and so far, you've constantly insulted me and called me a liar.
4. Instead of constant tantrums about how "my" system is flawed, please give A FREAKING EXAMPLE OF HOW YOURS WOULD WORK! Your ENTIRE complaint seems to stem from you not wanting Phantom Hourglass to be the picture - EVERY system you have thought up is either unworkable, or gives a result contrary to your stated goal. Most sales? Gives the Chibi Oracle art. No re-releases? Again, Oracle, or the Cel-shaded games. Highest ratings? Completely unworkable as a comprehensive system, as stated by the reviewers themselves.
5. Since you're so incredibly paranoid and unwilling to put work into it, I'll get quotes and links for you. Though part of the discussion started on the Ganon talk pages, the policy was agreed to by most of the editors on the Zelda wikiproject, and has been backed up on this article's talk page:

• Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Pictures need changing/ updating:

I don't see how being the most recent home console game has any relevance, the portable games have to be just as significant, else we'll be judging this on opinion. Although I would say Link's Crossbow Training is a valid point, it is made by Nintendo. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

- Haipa Doragon, who actually contributes to the project

• Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Hai guys, which image do we want to use for Link? Vote

As I've stated before, I'm somewhat indifferent to the matter. As it is, the Phantom Hourglass image is the most recent rendition of Link (whereas the Brawl image is just Twilight Princess Link). From that point of view, I would choose the PH picture. On the other hand, it could be argued that PH just uses Wind Waker Link, which of course pre-dates the TP rendition. I'm not so much concerned about the canonity of SSBB, like Takuthehedgehog, because like I said, it's just Twilight Princess Link in that game (which is part of the Zelda canon).

   So basically, I don't really prefer one over the other. These are just the facts so everyone can make up their mind with those in consideration.--Atlan (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

" - And here, Atlan was the first to place any support for the PH image.

I'm not so much concerned with the fact that Smash Bros isn't canon as I am that it's a spinoff franchise, whereas Phantom Hourglass takes place in the main series. I used both spinoff and noncanon in my edit summary to try to explain my point of view. Takuthehedgehog 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

- then him.

  1. Smash Bros. is a secondary game for Link. Use a primary image.
  2. Phantom Hourglass is not yet released in any English-dominant countries. So use TP Link.
  3. When PH comes to PAL or North America, use that image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

- then ALTTP, who is an INCREDIBLE editor to this project.

• • We use the canon image. And don't say that a lack of continuity is a reason to ignore the logics of canon, because A. It's not, and B. It DOES have continuity, as clearly shown. We won't use the Mario from the Olympics Games game, so we won't use a spinoff's image. And in respect to the "they're using SSBB images, so this page should too!" So if a page has a typo, all pages should have typos? The only reason Kirby's page has the SSBB image is because someone removed the original one, it eventually got deleted as an orphaned image, and I can't find the Squeak Squad depiction of Kirby. And looking at Meta Knight, there is no suitable alternative within my grasps. I've looked, but cannot find any recent image of Meta Knight that would work. In this case, we have a recent, canon image of Link.

    - funnily enough, half a page down and I (who you claim is some kind of cabal-leader) haven't even entered the discussion.

Link only had the cel shaded look for two games, i vote tp, plus, it doesnt look good. you pull up the page and go, "hey I saw that dude on spongbob!" Also, I think the TP look would be more recognizable to people. Wii2-13 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

       The Wind Waker, Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, The Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass. Five games, not two - almost half the series, and more than the "realistic" look

- I finally reply here, to someone who can't count. And, whose argument started the same as yours.

I'd say we should keep using the Phantom Hourglass image, it's the most recent canon iteration of the character. I wouldn't mind the collage idea Paul730 mentioned in the "No lead picture" section on this page, though, similar to the Doctor Who articles on the Doctor and the Master.

- Haipa Doragon again.

Most recent makes more sense, recognizability is based on opinion and can easily vary. And don't use SSBB images, the game's not part of the series. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

- AGAIN.

You know what, I think I've given enough examples for now that there's a damn consensus. USING THE DAMN TOPIC YOU LINKED TO, in which I didn't even enter, OR GIVE AN OPINION, until far, far after nearly every main editor for the project had already defended the "most recent image" consensus. Is that enough for you?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is easy, right at the top: Example of a baseless attack: Claiming I meant any game that was re-released should be excluded, rather than excluding the re-releases themselves. Wow, that was so easy! Amazing!--HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I also find it funny that only now that I somehow managed to dig up the single discussion from those pages do you mention other peoples remarks... From a completely different article! You use poor claims all around, claiming TP for GCN is a "re-release" which it is not, it was released just a few months later as part of a multi-system launch. TP hasn't even been re-released! You make stuff up like that in half of your arguments! As for providing a system, I have already provided numerous examples to ascertain what is the "most notable" of the images (Not that you would care, your userpage clearly indicates you think notability is worthless), but nonetheless, here it is again. This time, please read carefully, so that you might be able to understand it and not make more false claims:
-Among the games released for the CURRENT GENERATION which are IN THEMSELVES NOT RE-RELEASES and in the MAIN CONTINUITY of the Zelda series, among ALL of these games and ONLY these games (Currently TP, PH, and the new one still in development)
-First, any games that are STILL IN DEVELOPMENT and for which ARTWORK HAS BEEN RELEASED will automatically get the spot from the time the artwork is released until two weeks after the game is released. the advertising campaign for the English version of the game ends (if this date can be easily ascertained)
-Otherwise, whichever AMONG THE GAMES IN QUESTION has the GREATEST SALES NUMBERS will get the spot. Sales numbers are probably the best indicator of notability.
-I am proposing this idea for DISCUSSION and not immediate implementation.
Read CAREFULLY please. Lest another Great Wall of Text result in our arguments.
Also note that it has been changing. I'm trying to adapt it to be the best possible indicator while still being easy to understand and implement.
And finally, note that when Nintendo releases artwork for this new game, my idea would lead to a Cel-shaded link for many months thereafter, so you can hardly say I'm as shallow as simply being against Cel-shading. One might even call such comments baseless attacks.
And finally finally, if you want a completely different argument, which kinda goes against my proposal but I'd like to mention as a side remark, if you consider all appearances of Link in the current generation, you have TP, SSBM, and Crossbow Training all against PH in terms of art "style." Actually, cancel SSBM off that list, cause "Toon Link" did make an appearance, although you might note that Nintendo decided to differentiate him from "Link." It wasn't the other way around. It wasn't "Link and Realistic Link" it was "Toon Link and Link." Something to be said for that as well, as to what Nintendo thinks of their own character.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

1) That's not a baseless attack. At worst, it's a misinterpretation of your remarks. An example of a baseless attack would be your continuous claims of me leading a cabal, making up consensus, or the "I'd like some of what you're smoking" remark you started off with.

2) I used one quote from one of the earlier archives - the rest are from the exact topic you linked to. Please don't be an idiot.

3) The GCN release is a re-release. It was not a simultaneous multi-platform release, was specifically given the reason "we're still working on it", and was significantly delayed in order to boost Wii sales. So, no, not making anything up there. Would you like to try again? By the way, an example of a "poor claim" would be your "they were released at exactly the same time!!!Eleventy!1!" bit.

4) As for my userpage: "Not that you would care", but don't act like an idiotic jackass.

5) No. That is not an example. That is, with even more qualifications this time, just your proposal. An example, as I've explained over and over, would be you doing some of the work, and showing us what result would come out with your method. Again, as I've said before, it would be idiotic for the editors to choose a new procedure if they have no idea what kind of results it will give.

As of March 2009, using this report:

1. TP: 4.52 million (only current to December 08)
2. PH: Total: 4.13 million (only current to December 08)
3. Crossbow Training: 3.44 million (only current to December 08)

There is a problem with the PH numbers the March 08 document gives higher Japanese sales numbers than the current figure.

For keeping current sales figures, the only constant I'm seeing is the NPD, which releases monthly reports, but which you need a login to access. Plus, it compiles the monthly figures, not total figures, so you'd have to add them by hand. And, it only covers US sales, which would be off by about a million or more from worldwide sales. There, I actually went out and did your own work for you, again.

Since I actually did the work for you anyway, on to actual discussion of your proposal - I don't support it. It would take too much time simply to look up and verify current worldwide sales numbers, and the qualifications to it seem arbitrary - for example, The Legend of Zelda, Link's Awakening, and Ocarina of Time each sold nearly two million more copies than Twilight Princess, and the Oracle games (if taken as a multi-version release, as games like Pokemon and Nintendogs are), sold nearly twice as much as Twilight Princess. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that most depictions are used more than once - here's the list I posted about two years ago, for example:

   1) SD Link:

   * LoZ: 6.51 million
   * ALttP: 4.61 million
   * LA: 6.05 million
   * OoS+OoA: 7.92 million
   * Total: 25.09 million

   2) "Realistic" Link:

   * Zelda II: 4.38 million
   * OoT: 7.6 million
   * MM: 3.36 million
   * TP: 4.93 million
   * Total: 20.27

   3) Cel-shaded Link:

   * TWW: 3.07 million
   * FS: 1.63 million
   * TMC: 1 million
   * Total: 5.70 million

As you can see, back then we were told that TP had sold 4.93 million copies - now it is somehow sold only 4.52. Even then, the chibi SD style of the original and ALttP-based games far outsold all other depictions. Let me see if I can compile more recent numbers; however, this list is only as accurate as the wikipedia sales article, which we are not actually allowed to use for sourcing according to wikipedia policies; this list also omits the Virtual Console and GBA re-release sales, as well as the Gamecube collections (Master Quest and Collector's Edition), due to lack of figures. It is also a very rough grouping; while the chibi and cel-shaded games have a clear unity of style, the "realistic" games are basically all over the place in terms of consistent style.

1) Chibi

• LoZ: 6.51 million (NES), 1.69 million in Japan (Famicom)
• ALttP: 4.61 million (SNES), 2.024 million approximately (GBA)
• LA: 6.05 million approximately (GB+GBC)
• OoS+OoA: 3.96 million (GBC)+3.96 million (GBC)

Total: ~28.804 million

2) "Realistic"

• TAoL: 4.38 million (NES), 1.61 million in Japan (Famicom)
• OoT: 7.6 million (N64)
• MM: 3.36 million (N64)
• TP: 4.52 million (WII), 1.32 million (GCN)
• LCT: 3.44 million (WII)

Total: ~26.23 million

3) Cel-shaded

• TWW: 3.07 million (GCN)
• FS: 2.024 million approximately (GBA)
• FSA: No figures available
• TMC: 1 million (GBA)
• PH: 4.13 million (NDS)

Total: ~10.224 million

Or if you wanted to group it a different way, by age (a suggestion I've seen multiple times):

Child:

• LoZ: 6.51 million (NES), 1.69 million in Japan (Famicom)
• ALttP: 4.61 million (SNES), 2.024 million approximately (GBA)
• LA: 6.05 million approximately (GB+GBC)
• OoS+OoA: 3.96 million (GBC)+3.96 million (GBC)
• OoT: 7.6 million (N64) (appears twice)
• MM: 3.36 million (N64)
• TWW: 3.07 million (GCN)
• FS: 2.024 million approximately (GBA)
• FSA: No figures available
• TMC: 1 million (GBA)
• PH: 4.13 million (NDS)

Total: ~49.998 million

Adult:

• TAoL: 4.38 million (NES), 1.61 million in Japan (Famicom)
• OoT: 7.6 million (N64) (appears twice)
• TP: 4.52 million (WII), 1.32 million (GCN)
• LCT: 3.44 million (WII)

Total: ~22.87 million

By this rough compilation, the sales would tend to claim that the most widespread depiction of Link is one of: Child Link, Chibi Link, TLoZ Link. Each of these categories incompatible with the TP image. So, the qualifications you added are contrary to other ways of arranging the numbers, each of which has been suggested before. You could argue as well that the older TLoZ Link has been in the consciousness longer, that it sold the most, that the Oracle games and Ocarina of Time sold just a little bit less than it, etc.

Then, not only is your method in contradiction to similar proposals we've had (which isn't actually a problem), and it is time intensive and prone to error (which is), but there's no strong reason for the qualifications you've given it. You added them to address my responses, which were not actually complaints - merely notifying you that your proposal would not give you the results you were looking for. Honestly, if there wasn't a consensus to use the most recent image, I would be all for using the classic TLoZ or slightly more recent (compromise-y) Oracle artwork (which is so close to the original style that it actually appears in that game). I'm not a huge fan of the lead image we have now, but it was chosen by consensus, for quite reasonable and useful reasons.

Finally, your method doesn't seem (at least, by the work you've put into it), to demonstrate any real advantage over the system we have now.

1. It is definitely not quicker to use;
2. It is prone to bad numbers, difficult to verify, and requires a discussion for every dispute - in order to demonstrate that one depiction is the highest seller, you would have to pull out the numbers each time someone complained. And it's taken me two hours already for this reply.
3. You've not really shown any demonstration that your proposal would produce the (relatively) most well-known and recognizable image of Link. You've really not even tried; instead, you've been constantly threatening to leave, insinuating that wikipedia is a cabal and waste of time, and repeatedly claiming that I'm making up facts whole-cloth without ever really showing where (at worst, I misinterpreted one of your sentences. I could pull out about five times you've actually made demonstrably false claims of the top of my head). While, true, this does not actually discredit your proposal per se, it makes me extremely unwilling to side with you, and I'm the only one that's shown up to discuss the topic this time around.

But that's my take on it. Since I've done nearly all of the work I requested of you for you, and because I've also given the reasons why I don't support your proposal, and demonstrated that consensus definitely isn't with you, I really have nothing more to add to this discussion until one of the other project editors throws their two cents in. I've left messages on their pages asking for them to chime in; if you'd like to do the same, go ahead. You can find their names at the zelda project main page, or you might just post a new message on the project's talk page asking for input.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I will remark, that the above reply is, hey, for the most part until the end, constructive criticism, and is by far the best reply you've made by far. Thank you. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. And before I comment on your attacks at the end, let me respond to the good parts:
-You are right, actually. Sales figures are not an especially viable figure. But I was looking for something concrete to use as a standard to measure notability and recognition... Probably impossible any way you cut it.
-I do, however, hold by my assertion that "most recent" is not the same as "most notable" and in my opinion the system does need to change.
-Getting more heads in here is probably a good thing, but will they read this disaster we've left in our wake?

Anyway, that's pretty much what I have to say on that. As for your attacks: I only ever said once that I was leaving, and then I quickly rescinded my claim. These are the kind of things I'm talking about. You say something that is similar to the truth, but is not the truth. I'm still not entirely sure if you're doing it on purpose or by accident, but it really, really annoys me.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As OoT is single the highest selling game of the franchise it would hold he most clought. Another thing i would like to argue is the the artwork for the older games are in the same style as OoT and thus they would be included in the "realistic" style.

1) "Realistic"

• LoZ: 6.51 million (NES), 1.69 million in Japan (Famicom)
• ALttP: 4.61 million (SNES), 2.024 million approximately (GBA)
• LA: 6.05 million approximately (GB+GBC)
• TAoL: 4.38 million (NES), 1.61 million in Japan (Famicom)
• OoT: 7.6 million (N64)
• MM: 3.36 million (N64)
• OoS+OoA: 3.96 million (GBC)+3.96 million (GBC)
• TP: 4.52 million (WII), 1.32 million (GCN)
• LCT: 3.44 million (WII)

Total: ~55.034 million

2) Cel-shaded

• TWW: 3.07 million (GCN)
• FS: 2.024 million approximately (GBA)
• FSA: No figures available
• TMC: 1 million (GBA)
• PH: 4.13 million (NDS)

Total: ~10.224 million

This would suggest that at a ratio of 5:1 that realistic link is the more recognisable character.

And about the concencus Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Pictures need changing/ updating had only 5 signing contributers (Ringwall, KrytenKoro, 24.113.67.17, Haipa Doragon, and 4.154.32.212) and was 3:2 in favor of realistic link.

Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Hai guys, which image do we want to use for Link? Vote had 13 users (ChibiMrBubbles, Atlan, FullMetal Falcon, Takuthehedgehog, A Link to the Past, Svetovid, Paul730, Adv193, 67.164.35.55, Wii2-13, KrytenKoro, 76.220.199.246, Haipa Doragon, and Zero1328) with a concencus of 5:Twilight Princess; 5:Phantom Hourglass; 2:None; 1:Collage.

This shows that there was no concensus or that it would have been to use the Twilight Princess pic.

I also googled link and the second pic was of OoT kid link (first was two conected circles). The four varients it gave (link zelda, link legend of zelda, zelda, legend of zelda) had the realistic link first (except link legend of zelda which had the evolution of link followed by realistic links). AndrewTJ31 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How in the Hell are people looking at the art for the original Zelda games and calling it a realistic style? His feet and head are the size of his bloody body! His sword's as big as he is! Ignoring how you're counting the votes, there's also the simple problem that consensus isn't vote-determined - it's argument determined, and most of the arguments made by "Use TP/OoT Link!" simply had no merit. Let's count it by the actual matter at hand; whether to change the policy (since at the time one of the discussions was opened, PH wasn't released yet)

Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Pictures_need_changing.2F_updating

Voting for some interpretation of "most recent":

• KrytenKoro
• Haipa Doragon
• 24.113.67.17

Voting for other policy:

• Ringwall

Talk:Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda)/Archive_3#Hai_guys.2C_which_image_do_we_want_to_use_for_Link.3F_Vote

Voting for some interpretation of "most recent":

• Atlan
• ChibiMrBubbles
• Takuthehedgehog
• A Link to the Past
• Paul730
• KrytenKoro
• Haipa Doragon
• FMF

Voting for other policy:

• Adv193
• Zero1328

So, yeah, consensus was for most recent appearance - the question was whether that included non-canon and non-released games.

As for the Google Search:

• [1]

OoT - 1 image

TP - 2 images and 2 screenshots

ALttP - 3 boxes

LA - 2 boxes

LoZ - 2 images

TWW - 1 image

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The voting for some interpretation of "most recent" is incredibly vague and does not mean that there is only one interpretation of "most recent" or that some viewpoints won't overlap.

And I Quote

"If anything, I say Twilight Princess Link should be up there because: It is the most recent home console game, it is soon followed by the Crossbow Training game featuring him in this style (which would then become the "most recent" game), and it is also how he is being presented in Smash Brothers Brawl. It is the most common face of Link at this time. 24.113.67.17 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"

this is a vote for the "most recent" that is against using PH? It also goes into should we use "most recent" home console images or "most recent" of all? Also, do spinoff games count twords most recent?

And does

"Foolishness. The reason OOT Link should be on here is not becuase of popularity but becuase it is the best game out of them all. The game is heralded as the best of all time in most magazines (Game Informer, NP)and just seems to be a standard that cant be surpassed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.32.212 (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) "

not count as a vote?

The opining states "Get a more detailed picture, like one of OoT's Link or of TP's Link."

This changes the first back to a 2-3:Twilight Princess; 2:Phantom Hourglass; 2-1*:Ocarina of Time as the opening was unsigned but clearly not Ringwall.

• I put the order to comply with what the vote would be for each decision as the vote would either be for TP or OoT.

This leads me back to my question that I share with HeroofTime55 What consensus?

For the second one I group TP, Brawl, and Link's Crossbow Training together as they use the same general character model of the "realistic" link.

Does

"I vote for SSB image since it's more accurate and detailed.--Svetovid 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)"

not count?

"I vote Brawl image as I said. There is a double standard to this image rule, Alucard's wiki article uses the Symphony of the Night as the main image despite being outdated and Kirby's image is using the Brawl image. Same goes for Mario's image. --ChibiMrBubbles 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)"

and

"I think you should just use the Smash Bros image, as it is clearly the best picture of Link.", "For the record though, I'd rather have TP artwork than PH.", "As for the SSBB picture, why does it matter if it's not canon? He looks the same as he does in TP and it's a better picture.", and "What? All I know is, I said that the Zelda series had loose continuity, you denied it, someone responded with a sarky comment about the timeline, and you exploded. Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude or something, I'm told I have a dismissive manner and I don't mean to offend you. I just think we use the SSBB picture, that's all. Paul730 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)"

Do not support the "most recent" but for the "realistic" link as I have indicated.

"why don't we just leave the image section of Link's article blank and put PH and Brawl pics in the Appearence section. geez can't believe people are fighting over a picture of Link. 67.164.35.55 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)"

would be a vote for none.

"Link only had the cel shaded look for two games, i vote tp, plus, it doesnt look good. you pull up the page and go, "hey I saw that dude on spongbob!" Also, I think the TP look would be more recognizable to people. Wii2-13 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)"

although badly reasoned was a vote for TP.

"Yo, listen. I like Wind Waker fine... but could we change the main picture of Link at the top of the article. Use Twilight Princess or Brawl. Hell even OoT Adult Link will be fine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.199.246 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)"

is clearly a vote for using TP/Brawl/Oot. in other words "realistic" link.

And finally if you are telling me that the previous views are not representative of what is happening now why would we use their "unclear as to which consensus was made" to define what we should do now. The concensus seems to be not just to be against using the OoT link but also in favor of using the TP/Brawl link over the PH link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewTJ31 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're to go with what's "most recent", surely Spirit Tracks is the only option here? I don't think, considering this, comments from two years ago have much relevance. Also, Wikipedia's processes are decided by consensus, not votes. Merely asserting an opinion without reasons to back it up won't do much for whatever argument you're making. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What I was ponting out was that using the phrase "some interpretation of "most recent"" was a way to put people from different sides onto the same boat to give the apearance of consensus. As in the second section the users "voting for some interpretation of "most recent"" seemed to do the most bickering. This section started about using an OoT pic, which does more or less have a concencus not to use, but has turned into a realistic vs. cel shaded argument, which no over arching concencus of which should be used.

If we are using only the most recent game, then Zelda should have a picture of Tetra for the main image as she was in PH and Ganon's main image should use WW since PH is of the same style.

Also the more I think about it shouldn't both sytles be used as neither gives a full overview of the way the current series is depicted as the series now has two different styles that they use. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I really don't see a pressing need for two images in the infobox. The infobox's image's purpose should be, fundamentally, to identify the character, not present a distinction between art styles, and using two images of such similarity would likely do little but confuse the reader. Anyway, what is defined as "realistic" would be entirely subjective, as no definition of it has been provided by sources (an absence of cel-shading doesn't necessarily make something realistic, either). Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So why aren't we using Tetra on Zelda's page? As she is the "most recent" form of Zelda AndrewTJ31 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tetra is Tetra. Even though she became Zelda for a time in TWW, Zelda didn't appear in PH. That's not entirely relevant, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for all the princesses of Hyrule being Zelda was covered in Zelda II. The official Phantom Hourglass site States "She was Princess Zelda from the Kingdom of Hyrule". It is never stated that she isn't Zelda just that she does not want to be called Zelda at the moment. This also seems to raise a double standerd that no matter what the most recent Link looks like that image should be used, and if Ganon has large image change from a blue pig-like monster to a person with green skin and red hair his image should be updated, but if the most recent Zelda looks different from what she previously looked like it is okay to just ignore it and use a non recent image. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Andrew, you don't listen at all. I said "at the time this discussion was made Phantom Hourglass hadn't been released yet". Please be more honest when trying to call me a liar.

Yes, some votes were ignored, as the wikipedia policy on consensus says to ignore nonsensical "I like it!" comments, and stick to those that actually present arguments. Most of the "but wait, here's one!" comments you quoted were just that, and I ignored them specifically because of how pathetic they were.

And again, you totally ignored the point of this discussion, which was whether to stick to the policy of most recent - 90% of the comments you added which you claim support "TP no matter what" are just various views on what counts as "most recent" - such as the constant furor over whether to use SSBB, TP, or PH.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that there is significant argument on the consensus to use "most recent" as the policy.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What should be used and what shouldn't

As the above seems to have a false dicotomy, I will ask a few questions that cover a larger scope on the subject.

1. Should the most recent game be used no matter what other games have come out?

A. Does a non-cannon or spinoff game count as being more recent then a cannon game?

1) What constitues a cannon game?

2. Should a home console game take presience over a handheld game?

A. If the graphics of the handheld are far inferior to the console (ie. 8-bit vs. 64-bit)?

3. Is there a way to denote recognisability or popularity?

A. By the sales of games the character was in?

1) What games should be used?

a) In games that have both characters, should other characters from the same seiries be used to decide which style was most popular.

B. By the number of games the character is in?

4. If a character is not in the most recent game but was previously created in the most recent game's style should that style be used?

AndrewTJ31 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this argument grown old and trivial? Most of the points that have been raised about "recognisability", "popularity", "sales", "style", etc. are being used in a context of original research and largely violate WP:NPOV. E.g., there's no set definition of "style" throughout the series. Nowhere does Nintendo assert that there is a "cel-shaded Link" or a "OoT-style Link" or anything else; sure, they or third-party sources may say that the games have certain graphical styles, but for us to extrapolate such points and create these made-up definitions of "OoT/MM Link", "TLoZ/AoL Link", etc. is nothing but original research and therefore unsuitable to be used to decide something in an encyclopedic context. Fundamentally, I don't see why we can't just go with PH Link for now, as that is what Nintendo is using on the official Zelda website and what we already have a fair-use rationale. As far as I know, artwork for Spirit Tracks hasn't actually been released yet. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Haipa here. The only solid policy which won't cost hours of ultimately pointless work would be to use the most recent appearance, which is pretty much always the one Nintendo uses as well. The entire list above is pretty nonsensical and arbitrary, in my view - for one, "what constitutes a canon game" isn't even in doubt, and I see no reason why "graphical capability" or "home vs. handheld" would have any bearing on this - for one, the style Nintendo uses is the style they intended to use, and for two, when's the last time we used a screenshot as a lead image here?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven Links

Ok, i was just playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and on Snake's stage fighting Toon Link, his codec info tells him that there are seven diff. Links from diff. eras and homes. It also states that the essence of the triforce always stays the same. Check it out for yourselves, and see if you should put it in. User: Kazaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.78.16 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

She says "several" not "seven". Video is on IGN. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Important reference to beef up the article

http://stars.ign.com/articles/860/860908p1.html Lets reference this as much as its worth.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Query

1. "in other media" - because it is wrong, and proved so in that very sentence. "Other media" would include the TV series, and there's no good reason to over-generalize it.
2. Majora's mask image: because we have too many images on the page already, and it was new. It didn't seem necessary enough to keep it, and looked like it was mainly there for ornamentation, which is against the fair-use guidelines.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. "in other media" applies to the comics also, not just manga.
2. Each image has a purpose thus far; they illustrate the different Link encarnations. Any more pics would be too much, yes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The American "comics" is still considered a manga, but you agree that we shouldn't just use "other media", correct?
2. Fine, but it seemed like it had been arbitrarily added, since it was a recent addition according to the edit history.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes. I saw your point afterward (manga is also known as "comics" in Japan so figured using that term)
2. What exactly are you saying? I linked the "as of 2007" per WP:ASOF. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this diff, which is the one I checked, the image was new. I may have missed the diff where it was removed by accident.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rinku → Rinkū

I have changed the nihongo to demonstrate "Rinkū" because not only does Rinku Town do this, Rinku Gate Tower Building does the same. Was this a bold move? I made a similar edit to List of YuYu Hakusho characters#Rinku. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It was incorrect, if that's what you're asking. The "ū" is for when the kana form has a double "u" (like if it has been ri-n-ku-u).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What was that for? If you're going to revert a good faith edit with undo, please leave a reason why per the undo message: If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're honestly throwing a fit because I gave the reason on the talk page only, and not in both places? Do you realize how ridiculously bureaucratic that is? And then you reverted it for that reason alone?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And then you revert both the article edit (which is false information, by the way - I could give you a corresponding little "vandalism warning" if I was as bureaucratic as you're trying to be) and remove my comment here? Very mature. Someone disagrees with you, so you try to censure them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But here, I'll lay it out even clearer than I did the first time.

Link's name is spelled リンク. Ri-n-ku.

The town is spelled りんくう. Ri-n-ku-u.

Now, those in our viewing audience with rudimentary counting skills will notice that there are three letters in Link's name, and four in the town's. The even smaller number of us who have actually been through even the most basic Japanese classes, and have the authority to know what the hell we are talking about, will also notice that the character's name only has one u-base letter, while the town has an elongated one.

I know you were only trying to help originally, but when you deliberately and repeatedly insert false information into an article for mere bureaucratic, time-wasting, and wiki-lawyering reasons, you are in fact being just as much a vandal as those who continuously replace articles with "LINK IS TEH F*XORZ", and I have no patience for you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is called a personal attack. I suggest you should also read up on WP:CIV and WP:ASSUME. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately inserting false information for bureaucratic reasons is a violation of WP:POINT. And no, it's not a personal attack, as I did not unfairly insult your capabilities or accuse you of bad faith edits until after you made it clear you were wiki-lawyering. Yes, I was probably overly aggressive, but again, I have no patience for people who obstruct the project by being obsessed with bureaucratic rules.

Let's review:

1. After I explained on the talk page why your edit was unfortunately false, and reverted it as such, you deliberately re-inserted false information for the sake of proving a point, violating WP:POINT.
2. You then accused me of a bad faith edit, when I simply didn't see the need to be redundant, violating WP:ASSUME.
3. You have also violated 3RR long before I did (well, maybe my first edit counted as well, so possibly we tied for it), with no justification for it besides wanting to make a point, violating WP:3RR.

I think if anyone needs block warnings, it would be you. You are deliberately obstructing the insertion of correct information for your own personal whims - a much bigger "no-no" then violating the 3RR rule to remove vandalism. If you really want to keep this fight going, I really don't think you'll come out the winner. I'm not going to report your obstructionist and vandalizing behavior if you agree to just let it go, but neither will I roll over and let you get away with blocking me if you want to drag this out. Yes, I realize how incredibly stupid it is to fight over a silly little line over a u, but you're the one who turned this into an attack. So, truce?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tools

Shouldn't a list of tools throughout The Legend of Zelda series be listed somewhere? I didn't know where to post this so I thought this would be the best place. They should probably get their own page though. Pingwens (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A list of gameplay items would be inappropriate as it violates WP:GAMETRIVIA (# 6). --Silver Edge (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but some items throughout the game are very notable (The hookshot comes immediately to mind), and I don't think a simple, short list of staple items would be such a bad thing. By no means should it be exhaustive, but a sampling I don't think would hurt. The policy does leave that as an exception. But not in this article, I think.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG External Links check

This Featured Article has a total of three dead external links, which can be found here. Please fix them as soon as possible. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Accessdate are old, and 5 dead links are to be found, accessyear should be used with accessdate. — Dispenser 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A heads up for a possible new Cameo

While it may not be turn out to be link in the end, it looks like the portrait to the right in this screen shot from captain rainbow has link in his TP costume in it: http://x66.xanga.com/0a4852e449658204350410/w158754277.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirby (talk • contribs) 05:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who time travel

I believe this is the appropriate category someone tried to place earlier. May it be included? I really don't think it matters if the character does use some form of technology (see Cell and Kyle Reese). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should. If it's a problem that he time travels with items, the fact that the Master Sword is specially linked to him should matter - it's a combination of his abilities to utilize the weapon and the weapon's ability to travel through time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I had misinterpreted the category.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More suggestions:

Fictional characters who can duplicate themselves

Fictional farmers

Fictional fishers - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When was he a farmer? In TP he was a ranchhand for about three minutes, but that's not what his profession was in the game.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, slashed farmer. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Until I see a reference, I'm gonna have to say no to these. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the fisher category is for characters who fish as a profession only? If so, Link doesn't qualify for that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The duplication one already has a source, the Four Swords series (FS, FSA, and TMC) are all about his ability to duplicate himself, and this ability is mentioned in the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That one's non-defining. Naruto Uzumaki, Danny Phantom, Tien and Impy are more notable examples. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably the most significant feature of Link in three different games is him splitting into four. Three games were centered around the concept of splitting, while three games were centered around time travel. And on top of that, none of the time traveling games were obviously ABOUT time travel without having played them, while FS and FSA immediately establish that they're about splitting into four Links. I mean, heck, the whole concept of splitting is its own sidestory with the Four Sword. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why must you make everything complicated? The category says: "This is a list of fictional characters with the ability to duplicate themselves". Therefore, it's not a significant ability/skill of his. Read Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Include only the blatantly obvious categories to pages, not every possible one out there. For instance, just because Johnny Test flew by himself once does not mean he belongs in Category:Fictional characters who can fly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing a character who flew in one episode of one TV show to a character who has three games that are ABOUT his ability to duplicate himself. The fact that he hasn't done it in every game of his does not establish that it's not a significant feature - this IS what you argued with for time travel. Why is time travel a significant feature, but duplication isn't? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple, it's not a known ability of his. He can't perform it at will like the ones I've mentioned, it just happened as a result of pulling out the sword. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Minish Cap constantly had Link split into four Links at will. Link can't time travel in OoT, the sword just propels him forwards and backwards in time! It IS a known ability of his. There are sources for it, and I've established that Link has done it at will before. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of conflating a weapon's abilities with the those of the one who wields it. For example, Soul Edge. It would be nearly useless for us to categorize each of its wielders under its abilities, because it would eliminate the usefulness of categories.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. For instance, if we're gonna start putting Mario and Luigi in the flight category because they use "magic items", might as well add Aladdin because he uses his magic carpet right? It shouldn't be like that. A similar thread began here some time ago. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Link himself cannot time travel, he requires an object to do it for him. To speak of wielders is irrelevant, because there IS only one wielder of the Four Sword, and that's Link. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the Four Swords prologue.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no articles for anonymous characters in video game prologues. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

....and what relevance does that have to this?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess being completely and utterly 100% relevant just doesn't cut it, huh? There is no problem because the weapon is only used by Link. Why won't anyone explain the difference between time travel and duplication? Oracle of Ages, Nayru gave him a time travel object. Majora's Mask, Zelda taught him how to time travel. Ocarina of Time, Rauru gave him the power to do so. So when Link uses ONE weapon that he FINDS, it's suddenly a whole 'nother story? And besides, he could split into four without the Four Sword in Minish Cap. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

...no, it's completely irrelevant, and it's an example of wiki-blindness. Just because something isn't on wikipedia doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The backstory of the Four Sword makes it excruciatingly clear that Link isn't the only one to have used the sword. The Harp of Ages is primarily Nayru's item, so that's out as well. The Ocarina of Time is also used for time-travel, by Zelda, in game, so even if you ignore it's backstory, it's not just Link's. The Master Sword is pretty much the only one where it's ability isn't specifically mentioned to be used only by Link.

In The Minish Cap, he DID have to have the Four Sword. The duplication ability is specifically tied to the sword, and it only grows as the sword grows.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 10:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The duplication cat shall be removed per KrytenKoro's comments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only characters to wield it are irrelevant, unnamed characters. Hell, the character from The Minish Cap's intro that used the Four Sword was clearly modeled after Link. The Master Sword isn't Link's, it was created by someone else to fight evil, Link just happened to be the one to fight evil. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The AlttP/FS prologue, not the TMC prologue.

Let's look at an analagous example - the Master Sword's main purpose is to be a purifying thing, an item that evil cannot touch.

Should Link go under the category "Fictional characters that evil cannot touch" because he wields the sword?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional werewolves

Why is Link included here? IIRC, that was one game. Actually, the article says he became a wolf not werewolf. Thoughts before I remove this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Werewolves, also known as lycanthropes or wolfmen, are mythological humans with the ability to shapeshift into wolves or wolf-like creatures, either purposely, being bitten by another werewolf or after being placed under a curse.

I don't like it either, but it's correct, so there you go.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna remove it. If it only happened in TP it shouldn't be here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it DID happen, and it WAS major change for the character, therfor, important enough to be there until we get to the piont mario did, with to many cats--Jakezing (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Superhero needs sourcing in the article establishing him as, specifically, a "superhero character". - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is why i removed it a few hours before you posted this...--Jakezing (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And not why Sesshomaru removed it. Understand? Good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His logic was that one game didn't qulify it to be in, and, without any agreemenmt or even a vote, removed it and left up the superhero cata. Even for one game, TP was a massive change in gameplay simply because the fact it was a Wii game, and because he transforms into a wolf. Wht do tyou know, you are workable with link...--Jakezing (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru IS allowed to remove anything in good faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This article covers not one fictional person, but several. These persons are all different, but have some common traits. I believe we should try to restrict the categories to those that apply to the general concept of Link and not one particular incarnation. For example, left-handedness, unusual courage, being a child, skilled with a sword, wearing a green tunic and floppy, pointy hat—these describe Link in general. Pagrashtak 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. For instance, Link would more importantly be categorized under "Fictional were-rabbit" and "Fictional were-monkey" before being categorized under "Fictional were-wolf". The superhero category has more backing - Link has a plethora of magical abilities, both personal and equipped, and is somewhere between Green Lantern and Superman for how he works. It needs sourcing in the article, yes, but he's pretty much a superhero.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On that subject, the ability to split is an ability used by multiple Links, each game featuring it also featuring a unique Link. It's a commonly recurring trait, and its importance is significant - Link can also summon it at will. The issue of "it's not his ability, but the sword's" is not substantial, because it can't be demonstrated that anyone who has ever done it will ever have an article of his or her own, nor can it be demonstrated that any character that has or should have an article will use the ability. And even if they do, it's basically agreed amongst everyone that it should be, at the very least, a common feature of a character that is not minor, so Link fitting in the category doesn't create a slippery slope where future users of the ability or past users of the ability will also fall under it. Like I've argued, his ability to split is as relevant to the plot and an ability of his as Link's ability to time travel. Every method of time travel at Link's disposal is a method also employed by other characters, Zelda for instance with the Ocarina of Time. However, the aspect of time travel is a defining feature of Ocarina of Time, Oracle of Ages, and to a lesser extent, Majora's Mask (which was the mask itself, but the time travel aspect is completely essential). Four Swords and FSA are defined by that ability, and Minish Cap is not quite as defined, but the plot surrounds the ability and the weapon it's linked to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actuly, some links are from previouse games, second, it was fun trying to beat MM while only time traveling when i was forced to by the game, farthest i got was... i forget lol.--Jakezing (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but FS/FSA/TMC have, to our best knowledge, different Links. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghh...In the context of the series itself, Link is not a "notable person with the ability to split". If the category doesn't apply in the original context, why should wikipedia apply it just because we don't plan on having articles for the others in his same situation?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people consider the Four Swords plot to be a spin-off. It's mostly a sidestory, and a sidestory that gets three games is significant. More so than Link's ability to time travel. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...so...it's considered a spinoff because it's small and considered unimportant to the overarching plot, but that makes it significant and important to the overarching plot?

And I must stress again that Link should not be confused with his weapons. The only support for Link being in the time travel cat is that he is known as "The Hero of Time", which is still a confusion on the part of the citizens. (To be fair, he should also be in the "Characters who can control the wind" cat, due to his "Hero of Winds" title, and "Fictional mermaids", do to his "Mermaid Hero" title from OoA.) It is shown in several other places that he's only borrowing or latching onto this ability - the Master Sword, Zelda, Nayru, and the Ocarina of Time, or Naryu and the Harp of Ages.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When you think about it, in OOT, therers two worlds, the one where adult link beats ganon and then suddenly goes bye bye, and the one with kid link. even more compound! now... i do agree that the somewhat non canon 4S stuff isn't important overall.--Jakezing (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...the Four Sword series is explicitly canon by the "Word of God" of the official Nintendo sites, both English and Japanese. Again, the Zelda series does not have "side stories/gaidens" or any of that nonsense.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I guess Kryten is pretty knowledgeable - he managed to erase the fact that Majora's Mask was initially called "Zelda Gaiden" while in development. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That was it's title while being presented as a demo, a year before it was actually finished and released. There is no evidence that it is still considered a gaiden, just like Phantom Hourglass is no longer a Four Swords sequel.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing a complete change from one game concept to another to a name change. Just because it's not called "Zelda Gaiden" doesn't say that they changed it because it's not a gaiden. Saying that them changing it from Zelda Gaiden to Majora's Mask says anything is like them changing Zelda 64 to Ocarina of Time says something. There were no substantial changes in the plot, and the game fits the definition of a sidestory - the story of Zelda is the Triforce, Ganon, Zelda, Link, the Master Sword, the Goddesses, etc. The story of Majora's Mask involves only one of those in any substantial role, and as such, is a sidestory, or gaiden. Combine the fact that there's no reason to claim it's not a sidestory with the fact that it was once referred to as a sidestory in the official title says that there are sidestories in Zelda. Speculation that it was changed for any reason than it was a tentative title - a title that was chosen because the developers felt that it fit - has no place in this discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And this is by your definition of the main story, and your definition of a side story. Your argument above, as I read it, is that "though the Four Swords games are a sidestory, they're important because together they are a quarter of the games in the series" - which kind of negates the usual definition of sidestory, right?

"A side story in fiction is a form of narrative that occurs alongside established stories set within a fictional universe. As opposed to a prequel, sequel, or interquel, a side story takes place within the same time frame as an existing work.

Side stories are common in epic type series, especially war oriented series where it is possible to tell many stories from many different points of view. It is typical for side stories to be self contained, small scale events, insignificant in the bigger picture. They tend to be one shot stories with a beginning, middle, and end and focus heavily on character drama while the major action occurs mostly in the background."

The Four Swords games do not take place alongside the "major" games, do not feature another point of view, do not contain small scale events, are not one shot games, do not focus any more heavily on character drama than the "main" games.

They also:

1. Explain how monsters were loosed upon the world.
2. In some people's interpretation, explain how Link got his trademark costume.
3. Involve Ganon, and his sealing.
4. Explain where Dark Link's can/do come from.
5. Explain how Ganondorf got the Trident he uses in most of the "main" games.
6. Explain why the Four Sword is in the Pyramid in A Link to the Past.

This does not spell side story to me.

Now, I admit I let the discussion get somewhat sidetracked from this, the previous focus of the discussion. But I think you'll find that most of the games considered "sidestories" are a lot like this. Every game involves either Zelda or Ganon, only one or possibly two could be said to be more focused on character drama, none of them contain small-scale events, none of them are from different viewpoints or at the same time as other entries, and each of them has a noticeable influence on the major plot:

1. The Adventure of Link: establishes that there is a larger kingdom of Hyrule, that Ganon can be resurrected, and that there is a third piece to the Triforce.
2. Link's Awakening: the closest game to a sidestory, admittedly
3. Majora's Mask: splits the Child and Adult timelines, and is referenced in TWW as the reason for why the ToC is split, and where the Tingles all came from. The Goddesses and Zelda are also mentioned, sparingly
4. Oracle games - involves Zelda, Dark World, Twinrova, Impa, Hyrule, Ganon, and Triforce. Has a resurrection of Ganon, and seemingly leads up to Link's Awakening.
5. Phantom Hourglass - involves Zelda/Tetra, and the hintersea of Hyrule. Goes into more detail about the Light Force from The Minish Cap.

While these games are not as integral to the storyline as A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, they do not fit any of the criteria for being a sidestory, except possibly Link's Awakening, which fits a few of them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If Majora's Mask is a main story, that means that Nintendo either lied about it or were wrong. MM is clearly a "Gaiden", or else Nintendo would not have called it that as its tentative title. Nintendo has control over what a side story is in Zelda, not a dictionary definition. Going to the Gaiden article, "The term gaiden is commonly used in popular Japanese fiction to refer to a spin-off (canonical or otherwise) of a previously published work that is not officially considered a sequel nor a prequel. However, some gaiden are retold stories in the perspective of a different character, similar to that of a flashback." While most Zelda games are like this, there is a clear disconnect between MM and OoT. It's not considered a sequel because it is about a "side story" (basically, where Navi went). If it's appropriate to call MM a Gaiden, then that sets the benchmark for what qualifies as a gaiden. The Four Swords series is about an entirely different subject, the Four Sword and Vaati. It isn't "based" on any previous plot like MM was, so it actually exceeds MM's requirements to qualify as a gaiden. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If it's "true" that MM does not qualify as a Gaiden, the fact that it is considered a Gaiden overrules that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The official english Zelda site gives no current hits for gaiden or "side story".

Most articles which talk about "Zelda Gaiden", like this IGN news report, talk about it, still seem to look at it as if it's a true side story involving different dungeons set during Ocarina of Time.

Gaiden, on the other hand, which is best translated as "side story", only takes Ocarina of Time as a starting point and seems to offer plenty of new dungeons in addition to an all-new quest."

And in a way, it would be a Gaiden at that point - there was still considered to be only one timeline, so the MM story truly would be from a "different" point of view. However, the later retcon confirmation of the timeline split seems to be worded to make MM as legitimate as OoT itself - it holds the point in the child timeline that OoT's later half has in the adult timeline.

However, it's clearly true that it was considered a gaiden at one point, and I suppose there's no point arguing that it probably still is. So, I accept your argument that MM is a gaiden.

I am sorry I allowed the discussion to be diverted so much. So, I've got to say again, there is no "un-canon" official Zelda games in the series, I don't agree with your logic that the Four Swords games are a side-story (they're in Hyrule, they have Zelda, they have Ganon, and mention or are derived from many of the same elements in "main" games), and I don't agree with your logic that, even if they were, it would mean that Link should be put in the "fictional characters who split themselves" category, as the prologue makes a point of saying other people have been split by the sword - especially since Link can only control how much and whether the sword splits him in one of the games.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Master Sword

To defeat Ganon, Link usually requires the mystical Master Sword...

There is something wrong with this. Can you guess what it is? Most game do not include the master sword. In fact, only four do, if I remember correctly. Six if you count the Oracle games, but that's considered a different sword. So 6/16? How is that usually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.16.72 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

or some other similar legendary weapon,.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional musicians

Like the superhero categories, this one is unsupported in the context of the article (see WP:NOR, and especially WP:SOURCE). In spite of the category's "obviousness", according to Wikipedia policy, we don't just call anyone who plays an instrument a musician without actually referencing it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't "just" play an instrument. Instruments are a common item in the series, and are almost as defining as green to him. I mean, we can see the following using items (bolded for when they are important to the plot):

1. The Legend of Zelda - Flute
2. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link - Flute (I believe?)
3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past - Flute
4. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening - Ocarina
5. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Ocarina
6. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask - Ocarina
7. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons - Animal's Flute
8. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages - Harp of Ages
9. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - The Wind Waker
10. The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap - Ocarina
11. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - Various

Only two games actually lack a musical instrument, specifically FSA and PH. An important aspect of the gameplay in several games as well as the plots of those games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, but is there anything that suggests that being a musician is an occupation of his? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The definition of musician from dictionary.com, the secondary one that is, states that a musician can be someone skilled in music, professional or not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't answer my primary concern. If we're gonna start basing things upon definitions, then wouldn't Link qualify as other stuff, like a superhero? See this is why Wikipedia asks for sources, surely to avoid these types of situations. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm addressing your question that he doesn't need to do it professionally. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kinda, but you know where I'm comin' from. Can I be certain of that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits)

I would think that 11 games would go a little beyond just certainty. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And "certainty" isn't what Wikipedia is based on. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 12:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but were disputing somrething that is am ajor part of the character, his ability to play, magical, instruemnts--Jakezing (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I said beyond certainty... Perhaps obviousness. Eleven games, and they can be verified easily. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, two games are "about" musical instruments (OoT and The Wind Waker), and Oracle of Ages is about the Oracle, but also about the Harp. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So the Wind aker is... what then?--Jakezing (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A conductor? Which is used in music? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It kind of blows it out of the water that Link is not skilled in music. He has musical instruments that he plays with, but calling him skilled (when certain games even have specific actions to make fun of Link's amateur-ness, like LA) is like calling a toddler skilled just because they have a toy keyboard.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We see him playing many instruments with a certain level of skill throughout the series. That one Link got one comment about his musical prowess doesn't change that he has enough musical skill to play these instruments. OoT shows him playing the ocarina with ease, and in MM, he plays a variety of instruments - bongos, pipes, the ocarina, and the guitar. Link has no trouble playing any of these instruments at any time during these games, so at what point is he not skilled at using an instrument? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been various incarnations of Link that don't use a musical instrument. Not only that, as Lord has mentioned, what's to stop you from adding him on say "Fictional superheroes". You can't fight his character into that when not all of his incarnations have played an instrument. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Again: Tooting on an ocarina does not make you a skilled Ocarina player. He has to be taught by CHILDREN AND FROGS, for crying out loud, so he does have some trouble with it, and even then, he is only able to do a crude imitation before the magic of the Ocarina takes over. Seriously, listen to him play the bongos - he's not skilled at that, he's just slowly following the sheet music.

The Wind Waker, as I recall, also has some kind of "Link doesn't really know what he's doing" thing going on, doesn't it? Honestly, the only game where he really seems to "know" how to play is in Twilight Princess, where it's established that he's known how to do the bird and horse calls for a while. Every other game depicts him as an amateur.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

...Thats bec ause MOST links are these kids that set out on some adventure to big for their age, inexperienced and naive. Expecting the cel shaded link of WW to be able to play a musical item he's never seen before, and somehow know ALL the songs he could conduct, is unrealistic... and makes progress pointless. OOT link was tuaght by these people BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE SONGS, they could have jsut as easily been tuaght to him by a human, but the gamem akers decided to addto the FICTIONAL REALM instead. Fact is. just because hes enexperienced dosn't make him not a player, were all enexpereinced mein freund. Thats what makes us realistic. So, your arguements ahve no base, just fickle top level, realistic [problems you would have just the same.--Jakezing (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...I've got to ask at this point, to you read any part of a discussion before you post? The discussion is over whether Link can be considered a skilled musician. NOT whether he has ever played an instrument - that much is obvious. Please, PLEASE do not post to a discussion unless you know what the hell the discussion is about.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So considering your statement, does that mean you'll leave? Since, after all, you know pretty much bunk about this discussion apparently. You're presenting your own POV and nothing more to assert that he is not skilled as a musician, while his ability to play songs by memory, his ability to use multiple instruments (TP in particular), etc. trumps your idea that he's not skilled "because you said so". - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn my confusion tactict didn't work. I wanted to confuse the hell out orf you all while i regrouoed and thought of a thing to say.--Jakezing (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...I'm sorry, you mean mentioning the specific scenes that tell Link he doesn't know how to play are irrelevant? Or the fact that it's made explicitly clear that he's playing 3-note repeating songs, which the Ocarina handles the magic for, and not playing even a full song from memory? (Hell, I can do that, and I only did trumpet for a little while several years ago. This means I'm a musician now? Sweet!) And where, exactly, is all the NPOV quotes and details you're presenting?

"Well, it's an Ocarina, but you don't know how to play it..." (Link's Awakening)

"Ribbit! Ribbit! Hey, man, I'm Mamu, on vocals! Brother, you look like you don't know squat about music! Ribbit!" (Link's Awakening)

"Young lad, you play the Ocarina well... Mmmmm...! That melody is so fine...ribbit! We all should practice it, ribbit! Take Rupees as a souvenir! If you come up with another nice melody, please drop by and play it...Ribbit ribbit!" (Ocarina of Time, Don Gero's frogs)

"You obviously have mastery of the air. And now that we've established that you're quite the Wind Waker..." (The Wind Waker, Zephos)

"Great, great. For a beginner, you've got a nice wind-sense about you. I like you, kid!" (The Wind Waker, Zephos)

"In the hands of a Wind Waker like you, my adorable little cyclones will be as happy as can be!" (The Wind Waker, Cyclos)

"That was not bad for your first time using the Wind Waker! Not bad at all!" (The Wind Waker, Zephos)

"Your flute's song fell flat." (Oracle games)

"What feels good?!? That wretched, senseless racket?!" (Majora's Mask, Gorman, late-term quest)

"I'm glad I got this new song done in time for the concert. You did great, Mikau. And even without any practice. You really are a musical genius..." (Majora's Mask, Jappa)

Note: All other quotes involving "music" or one of the instruments are simply about Link's ownership of one. None compliment him on it.

That's it. In the entire series. And this is just quotes, not the gag scenes shown when you screw up on the ocarina or don't know any songs.

So we've got four quotes telling Link he's terrible, one saying he's good from frogs, four about the wind waker, which isn't even an instrument, and one about when Link was channeling the soul of a musician.

I'm sorry if this doesn't exactly scream "music virtuoso" to me.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an instrument. The person using it is conducting the music, which many would consider the conductor as a musician. Link's ability to conduct music well shows musical skill, and saying that "the Wind Waker doesn't count" is merely an attempt to discount these examples, which applaud his musical prowess. Let's examine your quotes: 1. It doesn't matter that he "doesn't know". He still picked up on it quickly. 2. Clear example that he eventually grew to play the Ocarina well. 3-6. Conduction in music is a musical talent. That he doesn't perform the music is irrelevant. 7. Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't that a message that plays when you do the flute wrong or it has no effect? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't count, just like if I get 100 game overs, it doesn't mean that Link's terrible at fighting. 8. And the context is not explained in any of these. Is this from someone extremely skilled in music? 9. Clear applause for his musical talent.

That's a total of six compliments to his musical prowess. The second quote establishes he eventually grew to master the Ocarina, so the first quote is only relevant to when he first gets it, not at any time in the future. The next one you cite is, if I recall correctly, is a message to the player, not a message from a character to Link. The only one that actually may be a critique of his abilities to play the Ocarina is the eighth one. Regardless of it all, your few examples of his musical immaturity do not cancel out the several examples of his prowess, and the recurring element of almost every Link in the series using an instrument in one game or another. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I added context above.

"Link's ability to conduct music" is moving a stick up and down, side to side.

1) It kind of does matter that he doesn't know, since the same thing is repeated with the walrus before Dungeon 4 (disappointed that you're not as good as Marin), and Mamu after dungeon 5 (quote 2). 3) Frog's. He's copying back what they ribbited. However, I'll admit that they're supposed to be highly musical frogs. 4) Admitted. This is, however, only one incarnation of the character, and he's being complimented during his very first lesson with a godly instrument. There is also the game's explanation that the waker merely commands the powers - they are still Cyclos' cyclones and Zephos' winds, so there is the strong implication with this that Link is merely calling on them, hence, why he can't just play the instrument and do the thing without meeting the person in the first place. 7) And yet, the game doesn't tell you "Hey, you're terrible" if you get 100 game overs. The actual function of the flute doesn't seem to matter from skill anyway - it's the tune which the flute automatically plays which the animal responds to. 8) It's from Gorman, who basically lives at the concert hall/milk bar, and is the leader of the circus troupe. So, yes, he has lots of experience. 9) Clear applause for his musical talent while in the body and somewhat soul of a musician. The game makes it clear that these masks borrow the users abilities.

There is this, when Link plays to Jappa (I think):

"You've got a good sense of melody! We'll play my new song at our next show! Take this in thanks!"

But from the context of the scene, it is Link playing a ditty Mikau and his friend had written to the band's writer. Link did not compose the song, and to me Jappa is merely seeming to say that the tune has potential, not that it was played superbly.

I'll admit that Link does sometimes get complimented on his ability to play the instruments - but he also gets booed, and sometimes the compliments are merely him taking credit for someone else's ability, or the instrument itself is naturally enhancing. There is also the fact that Link never really uses the instrument as his main profession, like Nayru, Guruguru, the flute boy, or countless other characters actually do.

If others agree that he's complimented often enough to be considered "skilled", then I won't object, but I'm myself hesitant to claim that the use of magical items to perform agreed upon summonses constitutes proficiency or mastery of that item, especially proficiency or mastery of that which it actually uses to work.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Marin is an extremely skilled singer. It's like comparing one singer of lesser experience to another, and saying that one is not a musician because they're inferior.

After Link does the conduction process, you see him doing more than "holding the baton in a certain direction".

For one, it doesn't say that because it doesn't need to be. The message's purpose is to tell the reader that the flute did nothing. And for another, where do you get that it just "automatically plays"? Just because the player doesn't have to input it, it doesn't mean that Link isn't doing it.

So, a good judge of someone's skill is a bitter man who is obviously into higher quality music in a bar? The context is not sufficient - at first glance, it's a scathing comment on his musical ability, on second glance, it's a scathing comment on his musical ability from someone bitter and scorned.

Are you implying that him receiving criticism is enough to say he isn't skilled? Would you also assert that Snoop Dogg isn't a musician because some people think he is bad? There are several compliments to his musical ability that aren't discounted by the presence of criticism. There's no suggestion that any instruments outside of the Goron Bongos, Deku Pipes, and Zora Guitar require no skill to play and are played through magical ability (or in the case of the Mask instruments, others' knowledge of them). Several Links have indeed shown skill in instruments - TWW Link, TP Link, and LA Link (an expert on music complimented, and only when he first received it did any comments arise about his lack of skill). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Musicians are said to have been researching the magical things that music can cause to do. However, certain songs must be played on a certain ocarina, for example, the Song of Time must be played on the Ocarina of Time, not just any ocarina, that strongly implies that it is not the musical ability of the player, but the instrument itself. The Wind Waker operates similarly - clearly Link is not making the noises of a ghostly chorus!

Yes, and Link is playing the song that Marin taught him. If he was a moderately skilled musician, he should be able to reasonably imitate it - after all, he is not being asked to improve the song, only to repeat it. Schoolchildren with little musical experience are asked to do the same thing.

Granted.

Then why say "your song fell flat"? Why not say "No one heard", or "There was no effect"? It specifically comments on the quality of the song. If we want to get into a discussion of "what is the gameplay purpose of this line of text", then most of the article loses its meaning.

So the only good judges are those into low quality of music, or with little experience of it? You could conversely say the same thing about those who compliment him - they have something to gain from encouraging him to play the songs, so why would they tell him he's terrible and should stop playing?

Not only receiving criticism, but having that criticism come from those who are skilled in the arts that he is trying to imitate. For nearly every case, these are not random people on the street criticizing him, these are his teachers. The teachers aren't going to criticize what he's playing, because they chose to have him play it. They're going to criticize how he's playing.

Where in LA is his music complimented by an expert? As I said before, those two were the only quotes in LA with "music" or "ocarina" in them that said anything more than "You got the Ocarina"/"You can play music with it!"

The reason why I believe that its important that his skill level is critiqued is that, currently, the fictional musicians category seems to be limited to those who are defined by playing music: leaders of rock bands, those who use music to fight, those who are instruments, those whose love of music is a large part of their character and devlopment, and basically those who perform music as their main goal, not as a means.

The official Zelda site seems to show no hits for music involving Link, only involving other characters, or the games themselves. A general google search seems to paint the same picture. The opinion that "Link is a musician" does not seem to be sourcable. This is one of the few sites that mentions music as something Link does. And the few sites that call him a skilled musician are apparently wikipedia mirrors anyway, or are talking about how the ocarina could be played well by someone who knows how. This last link does have a site calling Link a "skilled musician", but...it's a fan-fiction. There is also a poll linked to from that search...

"I think link from the legend of zelda games is by far the greatest living guitar player of all time he can also play the ocarina really well.

Here is my top 5

1. link 2. navi 3. epona 4. that one dude 5. the guard of the western termina gateway"

The only google news search hit reveals this quote:

"Also, are you at all familiar with the music on the Legend of Zelda? That big eerie fanfare on "Jamie's Jam" reminds me a lot of one of the reoccurring themes from the original Nintendo game.

No, Eric might know about that since he is our official computer game expert/geek."

It's clear that we're not going to get the idea that Link is a musician from a secondary source, and as far as I can tell, it's not clear that we can get it from a primary source - after all, his entry in the official Zelda site doesn't mention music at all, and while Link can play simple tunes in the games, its not at all clear that he has true musical skill.

However, looking at the fictional musicians category some more, there are some odd ones, like Jean Luc Picard. If we could start a discussion there to figure out what the criteria is, and if it turns out to be anyone who's played an instrument as a notable part of their character, then I have no further objections.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, you fail to establish that he's not skilled, while there are enough references to his skill to include it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...no. There are plenty of times when his musical skill gets denigrated, about as much as it gets complimented, and there's the simple fact that, especially with that circumstance, calling him a "skilled musician" would be OR, since there's absolutely no second-party sources to support it. However, I did fail to concretely establish that the category disregards those who merely play instruments a few times, which is why I asked if we could start a discussion there for clarification, as the category did contain several characters who didn't even mention music in their articles.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's calling whom a skilled musician? If a musician is someone who is skilled as a musician, then a musician is someone who is extremely skilled. No one implied that he's the greatest musician or even great, but he is a musician - he's shown the ability to take to an instrument on many occasions, and in TP specifically, he clearly is a skilled musician, not just some guy who's repeating notes he hears. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm... yes... where exactly did we et the idea you had to be GOOD Music player to be in the catagory, music is a defining feature of him, wether or not HE is the one causing the effects, the ocarina won't be teleporting itself unless he makes it play he music... no? --Jakezing (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

From User:A Link to the Past, here:

"The definition of musician from dictionary.com, the secondary one that is, states that a musician can be someone skilled in music, professional or not."

I apologize if your words were not meant to be taken at face value, I've never been great at interpreting subtlety.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything I say has some hidden comment in it, most just don't notice.--Jakezing (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is another one of those debates about something trivial. The essential question is whether a reader who wants to find out more about fictional musicians - for example, a person writing a paper about them - would find this an interesting and relevant article. Does this article adequately describe Link's role as a musician? If so, they might, depending on what exactly their focus is. I could really go either way on this. Dcoetzee 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add a picture to the legend of zelda webpage of the ocarina of time version of link

please I cannot describe my frustration for no picture of the ocarina of time version of link please add a picture of him to the page. Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.192.167 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It has artwork of the Majora's Mask version of him, which is close enough. If the article included images of every iteration of Link, it would become impractically cluttered. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that the image of Adult Link aiming his arrow is fairly famous. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What piucture are you talking about; only famous OOT image i can think of is the link holding the master sword and hyrule sheild wit hte sword outward down.--Jakezing (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The one as I mentioned above - the one of Link aiming his arrow. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recently added content and the dispute surrounding it

Hello,

I've recently added some basic information to the "Characteristics" section of the article. This content I've added has been quoted directly from a primary source, namely the official website of the Legend of Zelda series[2]. I've added this information with the intention of lessening the impact of original research and fancruft on this article, by adding in overviews and analysis which come directly from reliable and verifiable sources. Oddly enough however, user Sesshomaru has repeatedly reverted these edits. This continued even after I pointed out that this is information being quoted directly from the character its creators, an argument which has yet to receive any actual counter-argument at the time of writing. Soon after, this user then went on to describe this official www.zelda.com content I've added as "fancruft", and then as "vandalism". I have no idea as to the causes of this irrational behavior, but it seems to imply a conflict of interest of some sort; this is quite literally the first time I've ever seen another editor challenge content which is being quoted directly from a primary source.

As such, I am calling for outside mediation on this issue, for I feel this user's actions undermine the integrity and quality of this article. Please feel free to add in your two cents as well. 84.196.66.167 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The edits that I saw of yours did not enclose it in quotes. If it is indeed quoted directly from another site, that's plagiarism and a copyright violation, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a fansite: extremely detailed information about the character would be more suitable for a Zelda-specific wiki, of which there is one over at Wikia.

Also, you have reverted three times. Please make sure you don't violate the three-revert rule. Hermione1980 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with User:Hermione1980 - even if the text were enclosed in quotes, extensive quotations are not permitted under fair use. Content must be written in your own words. I also think you're giving too much weight to the "officialness" of the text; it's a glowing description of Link but not a terribly accurate one - "an undying symbol of courage, strength and wisdom to all who cross his path"? Come on. The list of titles is fine and a more interesting addition. Dcoetzee 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. As I had told the anon, the information is nothing but WP:FANCRUFT. I am undoing his/her edit now based on this agreement. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong information

Hello, I'm just passing through and found a great quote to use in my dissertation on this wiki page, but after looking at the source, it's not there at all. Thought I'd just let you know. It's the line "Voice acting in the series has been deliberately limited as to not "contradict players' individual interpretations of the character".[11]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.14.217 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I have since removed it. Thanks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

toon link

can't we have a toon link section in this article. to sorta seperate the two incarnations of the character. or even an appearance section with this stuff in it.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

...it's still "Link". If we do "Toon Link", we're going to have to do "SD Link" from the original games as well. And since the games explicitly tie together the plots from OoT, ALttP, and TWW, that would be largely nonsensical.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd be largely original research, too, as Nintendo haven't made any explicit definition between which Links are "realistic" and cel-shaded. Anyway, the name "Toon Link" is only used in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so it wouldn't even be applicable here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuity

When Zelda II was released, there were several continuity errors in the storyline of Hyrule regarding the war, Ganon, and Link. An early interview with the developers explained that the history of Hyrule had numerous heroes in different eras, all called 'Link'. This would cause problems with the idea that Link is an individual character, however I can't find the interview. It seems that someone else must have heard of this, so if you can find anything, please bring it forward. It seems that, lately, Miyamoto has said something else on the subject that may provide a continuity, but otherwise there is still some question. Scoundr3l (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. Link from Zelda II and Zelda I are canonically the same character, and always have been.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows there are different links, and that some are the same. What do you plan on doing with this information? We arent going to split the article or anything. --Blake (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Here are the different links:

• Link (The Legend of Zelda, Adventure of Link)
• Link (A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening)
• Link (Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask)
• Link (Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages
• Link (Four Swords)
• Link (Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass)
• Link (Four Swords Adventures)
• Link (The Minish Cap)
• Link (Twilight Princess)

I'm pretty sure FS and FSA are the same Link. For example, they both have the exact same relationship with Zelda (childhood friend), and in FSA, the internal narrative explicitly says that you know what will happen again if you pull the Four Sword out.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure if these are right or not. I got them from the ZeldaWiki. --Blake (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

About muteness

Being mute typically means incapable of speech, not merely choosing to be silent. Or more realistically not having an audible voice because, I suppose it would be troublesome to get voice actors. Link grunts and speaks, albeit as text, though so I do not see how this belongs in the category even if it were to go by both definitions. RP9 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going by what Wiktionary says, which also defines it as "One refusing to speak." I don't know, it might be a bit contrived, actually, but the category makes no definition as to either way. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that Link is refusing to speak? I would think that being mute; unable to speak, would be a much more defining characteristic then choosing not to speak. How exactly would we define that? By always not speaking, not speaking most of the time? I think we should define the category one way or the other to avoid further confusion. Also, does wwwwolf have any input? RP9 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, he can and does speak. We just dont hear him. You can see in most games, there are cutscenes in which people ask Link a question or talk to him, and react like he said something. --Blake (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Miyamoto himself, he does not speak for a reason. It's not due to budgeting, it's to "make him a "Link" between the player and game world" (we really need to find, add, and cite that quote in the article.). He's intended to be a non-speaking character, ergo he qualifies as a mute. On the other hand, looking at a good number of articles in the category seems to imply that it is meant for characters who either are physically unable to speak, or have decided to never do so (for example, a mutant who causes explosions when he speaks). Link does not seem to go to such extremes, so unless we can find an actual source calling him mute, I don't think we can add the category.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

...and he can be heard saying "Come on!" in Wind Waker. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5