Jump to content

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition

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

Not being sold in public is false

[edit]

I was able to purchase this in a store a while ago. (74.132.203.18 (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'll second that. That's how I got mine.Larphenflorp (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What store? Christiangamer7 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please restrict discussion to the article. If there are no reliable sources documenting this, then there is no point in talking about it here, as Wikipedia does not allow original research. Pagrashtak 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ostensibly, if a store sells this, then they'd have information somewhere on the Internet that would indicate this; most brick-and-mortar stores have SOME kind of Internet arm. This would definitely count as a valid, non-OR source for this statement, and hence would be VERY valid for Wikipedia. Knowing what store that sold it means that a search could be done for this source; discussion of citable sources is definitely discussion about the article. Nottheking (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia

[edit]

It might be worth noting that here in Scandinavia, Nintendo of Europe doesn't really exist in the same way - although the compilation was still available through the GameCube bundle, the local distributor, Bergsala, instead chose to set up a limited-time offer where people could buy it through their website(s) by depositing a small fee to cover shipping and handling. I'm not really sure how to incorporate this into the article, though... --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

480p and 240i

[edit]

According to the second paragraph of Contents, it is claimed that the game ran in 320x240i on the N64 and can run in 640x480p on the GameCube. In fact, the game on the N64 would have been running at either 320x240p or 640x480i, but not 320x240i. 76.19.222.89 (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just came in to post about making the change.. NTSC doesn't have a 240i mode, it's 240p (262 w/o even/odd generation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.44.2 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was also sold wih GC and Mario Kart

[edit]

I also own this collection and it came with the Gamecube + Mario Kart Bundle that I bought in Germany for €149 in late 2003. hth. -- Repetition (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd quest (Zelda I)

[edit]

I may be wrong. But the location of the 6th palace in this version seems not to be correct. Can anyone verify that this is not a bug in this version??? thanks

continued deletion of this article

[edit]

first of all, this "merge" was never ever discussed or voted upon; nobody was aiming to seek a consensus here. second, as i explained in my previous recreations, there are numerous other articles highly similar to this, and they strangely go undeleted; and third, as this content was never reinstated, the continued deletions qualify as unwarrated removal of content.

Axem Titanium, i find it funny that you ask me to bring forth a justification for reinstating an article that was deleted without anyone really explaining why. or does Merging. (may 20, 2010) qualify as a sufficient explanation in your opinion? maybe it is just that you can do whatever you want if you are a mod/some other random important guy on the wiki? Asdfsfs (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you're too familiar with Wikipedia mechanics, so I'll explain. Wikipedia is not a WP:VOTE. New Age Retro Hippie performed an extremely competent WP:BOLD merge of a very short article on May 20, 2010, which was not contested for nearly a year, which shows general consensus. Beyond that, there are at least four editors in the article history who have shown a preference for the merge, which also comprises a consensus. As for similar articles, see WP:OSE. For every article that you point to that hasn't been merged, I can point to another which has been(ex. Final Fantasy Collection) and many more that probably should be. This is why articles are judged on their individual merits, rather than in comparison to other articles, since there are so many which haven't been given a critical eye yet. The content is not removed either; it exists at The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Wind_Waker#Bundling_and_legacy and The_Legend_of_Zelda#2000s in a more efficiently written form. Ultimately, the decision for merge vs. not merge in these cases should be the existence of sources to support a full article. I don't think enough sources on development and release exist to justify this article's existence. Compare The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection for one that does justify its independent existence. One final note on etiquette: it's generally polite to leave the article in the version it was reverted to until after discussion is finished. I've left a note at WT:VG to grab a wider opinion. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a re-release without any substanital changes. Those items do not merit separate articles when the content can be summed up in a parent article.∞陣内Jinnai 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asdfsfs does have a valid point about NARH's merge that was performed without even a courtesy explanation on the talk page. NARH wasn't obliged to make any explanation per BOLD but I think this issue highlights the importance of following the general good practice of providing a rationale for potentially controversial decisions like this. As Asdfsfs points out, the edit summary for the 20 May 2010 merge was exceptionally bare-boned and if NARH's edit was BOLD then Asdfsfs' REVERT demands DISCUSSION prior to restoring the BOLD edit.

Axem Titanium has done the right thing in seeking further consensus on this issue from WP:VG although Asdfsfs seems to have expressed concern that this is an issue where the "importance" of editors making the case for a merge may be influencing matters. I think that perhaps NARH (the editor who originally performed the merge) should be invited to explain his actions and if Asdfsfs still has any concern over neutrality of WP:VG editors joining the discussion then perhaps someone can file with Proposed Mergers to gain even broader consensus. Personally I think that WP:VG should be sufficiently neutral for purposes of the discussion.

I have a few questions about the merge:

  • Four sources is enough to support an article but it's still pretty scant. Do more reliable sources exist?
  • NARH did in fact merge the material into The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker#Bundling and legacy. Has any meaningful information been lost in the merge?
  • Asdfsfs, would your concerns be alleviated if the "Bundling and legacy" subsection of "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker" were further expanded?

-Thibbs (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSes indicate notability. Notability and sufficient verifiability are the basic requirements for Wikipedia's articles. Given that there are multiple reliable sources covering the topic of the article in depth, the reasonable presumption must be that the article has a place on Wikipedia. You're certainly correct that this presumption can be overcome by other issues such as a consensus decision to IAR or something like that but there must be good reasons behind such a decision. Regardless of the merits of the case, Asdfsfs is justified in asking for a good reason to merge and in asking for the emergence of some kind of consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is why I really think the text proposal for WP:GNG that meeting those requirements is not enough. There are other policies and guidelines that may prevent it. It's also why I think we need WP:Notability (video games). *Sigh*. Thanks for proving my point once again.∞陣内Jinnai 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by "presumption"? Nobody ever said that the elements of the GNG alone control inclusion in Wikipedia. If you have specific policies and guidelines in mind that prevent this article then please don't be shy about making them public so that consensus might be achieved.
Incidentally, if you have some guideline or policy you know of that is a better starting point than the GNG for determining whether the threshold for inclusion has been met, please share it rather than sighing. I do use a GNG-like analysis to determine my first impression for inclusion/exclusion but I'm always happy to learn of better starting guidelines if they actually exist. -Thibbs (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Jinai is getting at, is that while there's plenty of sources that discuss the game/release/whatever, but they don't go into any detail about why this as an individual release is important. In reality, this is just another release as VC releases, or the GBA re-releases, etc. It just so happens that it's collection rather than individually. The games themselves have no changes (where as, say, OOT Master Quest DOES, yet it's still lumped in with the main OOT article), and thus there's no need for a separate article about a collection when there's no way to make a proper article in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if no sources can be recovered to demonstrate notability then per WP:GNG the presumption favoring inclusion is overcome. It's as simple as that. If that's the only issue here then I don't understand Jinnai's dismissiveness toward the GNG. It looks to me like this discussion showcases a triumph of WP:GNG in guiding matters. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly don't think its indivisually notable, but to play devil's advocate, since it seemed like that was being argued, the GNG just requires multiple independent reliable sources give signifigant commentary on it. In the sense that sense it would meet the GNG. Play Magazine and Nintendo Power are offline sources∞陣内Jinnai 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is ambiguity in WP:N about what makes something notable or "worthy of notice". GNG suggests a general presumption of notability for topics receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This presumption makes eminent good sense as the fact of actual coverage naturally implies the worthiness of the subject for coverage. Why would RSes take notice of something unworthy of notice? Who determines a topic's worth if not the reliable sources? But... in the end there are numerous disclaimers in GNG that this is just a presumption (see everything after "a presumption, not a guarantee"). Other policies like WP:NOT also apply and may easily overcome the presumption. Melodia suggests that there may be no demonstration of importance. I've only scanned the refs myself, but if this is accurate (e.g. if the refs are just directories/ads/etc) then the presumption from GNG is overcome and the article should be deleted. If not it should be retained, unless it fails some other policy or guideline or unless consensus favors merging/deletion (as under IAR).
As far as this concept of "indivisible notability" goes, it sounds like something that should be proposed for acceptance by WP:VG. To tighten the definition of notability site-wide would be to cut down dramatically on Wikipedia's scope of coverage. I don't see that as being particularly helpful. Smaller WikiProject policies/guidelines like that proposed in the "WP:Notability (video games)" essay would ultimately be the best place to clarify specific local definitions of notability (e.g. a bright-line "game compilations are non-notable" rule) that the Wikiproject has determined through consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the replies. my goal was to start this discussion, and as Thibbs said correctly, the problem was the undiscussed removal of this content. obviously i saw that NARH put a small note about this compilation into those two other articles, but i found it not enough to cover the subject.

Axem Titanium said that you could assume consensus because the edit went uncontested for one year. well, the article was up for 7 years prior to that - and that's my main concern: wouldn't it be good practice to discuss the subject before simply "merging" (like i said, i don't think it was a real merger on his side, he just put down a small remark about this compilation)?

whatever consensus is reached here is fine by me, but on a small note, the template link to this has to be kept IMO, whether it's linking to the proposed description in the main zelda article, or to this article. Asdfsfs (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm also content with any consensus that emerges in either direction. I don't believe the article is necessary in any real sense. -Thibbs (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be merged or not

[edit]

So with all of the above, let's get away from the theoretical and weather proper process was followed, and talk about if the article actually should be merged or not. Now as I implied above, it seems to me that there's nothing in the article that can't be summarized in a paragraph. Anything actually 'lost' would be detail that doesn't really help explain much (such at the exact resolution). I think the big thing is that there's really nothing to add beyond what's there -- so the article could never even become a good article, much less an FA, which is the supposed 'goal' for articles. And again, it's really nothing more than a standard rerelease, which doesn't normallyget its own article (hell even remakes sometimes don't). Again, just because sites and magazines talked about it, doesn't mean much. Of COURSE they will talk about it, it's what they do. I honestly think the only reason anyone is arguing this at all is because it's multiple games, but that's why it works fine in the series article (and of course mention should be made in about a line or two in each of the games' articles). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, this collection is just a bunch of lazy ports (bugs and all) so there isn't much development info. It also didn't have a wide release so most sites didn't even review it. All the sources merely say that it exists, which I don't believe qualifies for independent notability. As far as I can tell, no information was lost in the merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources go into a bit more detail than that. They do cover it properly in depth. They aren't just trivial references. And I can see that there are several more online. The articles do cover differences between the games in the series and their progenitors (as required by "WP:Notability (video games)") but the differences all seem to be technical differences that would perhaps only be of interest to specialists. Frankly I think that there is probably enough coverage of this game to allow an article but I also think that a merge can be a completely adequate way to present the material. I think that the release must be covered by Wikipedia but that this can be well accomplished in a merge. In the end I think that the root of the problem here is that the authors of the RSes themselves are violating the spirit of WP:INHERIT. Not much we can do about that but it makes me completely satisfied to go with the merge. -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my personal preference would be to keep the article because of the aforementioned technical differences to the originals (emulation, framerate, new translation, resolution, censorship in OoT etc). as an example, the Mega Man Anniversary Collection would be quite comparable to this one (maybe with even less differences to the originals), but the article boasts quite a bit of references, so perhaps this should also be possible for this article? but if the consensus would be to merge the articles, i could live with that if additional information would be added. Asdfsfs (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The consensus has been that a significant development and reception section(or really, just overall abundance of coverage in sources) is needed for a port/compilation to be made into an article. These four sources are barely enough for a normal article to be notable, much less something of this nature. It was difficult enough to keep A Link to the Past & Four Swords and Ocarina of Time 3D split. There is no chance at all that this could be kept unless a very large pile of sources were collected(which is possible, but not likely). By the way, I support the notion that a discussion for merging is better then an edit war over whether NARH's merging was justified. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus changes according to whoever is around to comment at the time. Dream Focus 08:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Collector%27s_Edition&oldid=1203612547"