Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

Title

Shouldn't this draft (and possibly later article) be called Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild or Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel? Calling it The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2 implies that it's the final title, which hasn't been confirmed. Icedmorning (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Icedmorning: Agreed. I'm in favor of Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, as that's the language used by Nintendo. —zziccardi (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with either title. But "Breath of the Wild 2" is the most commonly used title by the media (and fans) and since this is still a draft, it wouldn't be a big deal to keep the title for now. enjoyer -- talk 00:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

However, if this draft is moved to mainspace, the title should be Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel following Wikipedia's convention. enjoyer -- talk 01:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No clue, but IGN reports that there is a title, and it's kept secret. SWinxy (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could currently call the article itself "Untitled Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel", and in the bio/first paragraph refer to it as such: "The untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild (known as Sequel to Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in early promotion) is an upcoming…”

This may be too verbose, however. Mia Clifford (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Mia Clifford, the current opening paragraph is perfectly fine. "Sequel to" is just how Nintendo call it, don't treat it as an actual name. enjoyer -- talk 03:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My bad! I was referring to how Nintendo referred to it in its Youtube trailer’s description—with a capital Sequel, effectively treating it as a jagged, strange title. However, in hindsight, it may come off as confusing and unprofessional in a wiki article. Mia Clifford (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What about a title?

A title will be a same logo as Breath of the Wild 2 or a different logo as official announcement by Nintendo Direct/E3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.143.194 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No title has been announced yet. That's why it's at the current title. Sergecross73 msg me 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Questionable reception section additions

In regards to this addition:

1. Fans wanting a game despite delays is not noteworthy. That's how fans generally treat all games they're looking forward to.
2. Some Redditor creating fan art is 1) fundamentally not reception and 2) not worth mentioning on this page.

Please stop re-adding this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, I don't understand how saying that it is anticipated is not reception, but having a table of awards--all of which are "most anticipated game"--is. If you don't think that it is not worth mentioning, then remove either "despite the delays" or the awards table, because I see those two things as the same. As I've said in this edit, fans of games liking a new one in the franchise is not a given, nor are the reactions to delays. If you still think that anticipation is not noteworthy to mention, then remove the awards. You could also have moved or renamed the section instead of reverting if you thought it didn't belong as reception.

Making a piece of fan art is not the same as making a series of artworks. In this case, a significant amount was created for the sequel, and in a frequent occurrence to have an article written on it. If it's not reception, then move it. Please don't call my addition "questionable" or say that I am "re-adding" when what I did was revert your revert (which is not against policy), and don't say I should follow WP:BRD when a) my revision wasn't bold; and b) BRD isn't policy. SWinxy (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's great that you're using sources. Your additions aren't against policy in that respect. But having a source doesn't guarantee inclusion. It's your judgements calls in adding this content that I call questionable. Adding some redditor doing fan art in the reception section is a bad call no matter how you look at it. It's not reception. Reception is reviews or writers writing retrospectives making judgement calls about the merits of a subject. Not fans making art. And Zelda is a massively popular franchise. Millions upon millions of sales and some of the most positive critical acclaim of all time for video games. So forgive me for thinking that something like "fans are excited for the game (Gamerant source)" is a mundane comment. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'' sequel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Untitled ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'' sequel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ebbedlila (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Colloquial" name

@Popcornfud: Don't want to start an edit war over something silly 😊, but I do want to advocate a bit more to include: It was colloquially referred to as "the Breath of the Wild sequel" or "Breath of the Wild 2" until its official subtitle, Tears of the Kingdom, was announced in September 2022. I don't think this is WP:DUH -- this was effectively the working title in marketing [1][2], online, and in publications for around 2 years (!) so it's important context for the Development and marketing section (though certainly not the lead).

This wasn't marketed as "Untitled Legend of Zelda game" or something, but specifically as a "Breath of the Wild sequel" — subtle but noteworthy difference that's not explicitly communicated in the official title. (Makes me wonder... was Majora's Mask marketed as a "Untitled Ocarina of Time sequel"? That would be interesting, if so...) Also worth noting it's wording based on a quote from the WaPo. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Fully agreed. As I said in my edit summary, it's been referred to as variants of a Breath of the Wild "2" or "sequel" for the last 3+ years, and it got its final name mere hours ago. We write for general audiences - not everyone has their eyes glued to the Nintendo Direct news cycle. It's going to take some time for people to understand the name has changed. Will it be necessary in 2026 when the games has sold 20 million copies under the Tears of the Kingdom name? Probably not. But does it need it for recognizability right now and short-term? Absolutely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it particularly enclyclopedic to include the fact it was informally referred to as "Breath of the wild sequel"? What does this add, exactly? It was never an official name, or even a working name - it was simply an informal term that's so obvious in what it is, it doesn't really need to be stated. If it had a more distinct name (like how the Wii was originally the Revolution, for example) I could see the point. It's not like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan says that it was referred to as "Star Trek Sequel", even though it probably was before it was given its name. — Czello 18:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It received coverage for years under those sorts of names. Nintendo uses variants of it on its official release schedules too. Simple Google searches show it. We're not talking about silly pet names by the fanbase or something. I'm generally opposed to including that sort of stuff. We're talking about what the entire industry, Nintendo included, called it for years. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

But the name wasn't used as some kind of working title, it was purely descriptive. I'm not surprised Google searches show it - what else would people search for? We don't normally say that a sequel to X was referred to as "X sequel" until its title was actually revealed. — Czello 21:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of it. Contrary, I do believe it is encyclopedic to elaborate on as part of its marketing. SWinxy (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources used this term, because it goes without saying that it was used. The untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild was referred to as "the Breath of the Wild sequel" before its title was announced? I'm sorry, but that has WP:DUH all over it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It may not matter how many sources refer to it, but it should be added if sources talk about how it was "formally known as x" even if x may be intuitive to you (WaPo makes this explicit, I can look around to see if other cites do this). FWIW I don't think this is a discussion around WP:COMMONNAME, but about WP:DUE. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And recognizability. They're writing entire articles about it. It doesn't hurt to have a single sentence alluding to it. It's such a basic, minor thing. I can't believe I'm getting pushback on it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If Nintendo referred to it as "Breath of the Wild 2" earlier in development — because that's an actual working title, not just a descriptive compound noun — then I don't object to mentioning that in the body of the article. In either case it doesn't belong in the lead because it's not very important ("a minor thing" as you say there). Any permutation of the sentiment "the Breath of the Wild sequel was previously known as the Breath of the Wild sequel" is totally surplus to any reader's requirements, though. Popcornfud (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't seem particularly notable to state that the Breath of the Wild sequel was in fact referred to as the Breath of the Wild sequel before it had a name. — Czello 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I feel convinced by this argument at this point, mostly because Nintendo never used the title "Breath of the Wild 2". We already have The first teaser trailer was released in the E3 2019 Nintendo Direct, announcing the game as an untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild which I suppose covers this aspect well enough. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly — the article already tells the story in its entirety. It's the sequel to Breath of the Wild, it didn't have a title for a while, and then it had the title Tears of the Kingdom. That covers it, doesn't it? Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay sorry to bring this back up, but now we have coverage from Kotaku [3], TechRadar [4], ScreenRant [5] and a few others since the title announcement still calling it BoTW 2. I understand it may be "obvious" to some but it's at least WP:DUE to note that some people are still calling the game BoTW 2 despite the new official title. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend: The game was announced at E3 2019 as a sequel to Breath of the Wild with some outlets using the colloquial title, "Breath of the Wild 2".

Yes, this seems a reasonable compromise. — Czello 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I support it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's a commonly used alternative name then you could make an argument to put in the first sentence as a disambiguating element, eg "also known as Breath of the Wild 2". I wouldn't buy that - but it sounds like that isn't the proposal above.

Instead it sounds like we just really want to record that this name is used like it's a notable fact in itself.

Is it? Do we have a secondary source that reports that outlets are using this title (thereby indicating its notability as a fact) or are we just recording the writing choices of these websites for some reason? Popcornfud (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku source above identifies exactly why I've been pushing for a mention of sorts.

Heck, far more people have discovered Kotaku’s coverage of the sequel by searching Google for “BOTW” than anything mentioning tears or kingdoms. People are going to be so slow to turn on this!

It takes more than an announcement to keep people from recognizing it from the colloquial name that has been used for years prior. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

OK that Kotaku source scratches the itch for me - worth mentioning in the article. (In fact I'd spell out what Kotaku reports there to indicate to the reader why this name is significant.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the Kotaku one is what raised it back for me. I added in my proposed wording [6] as it seems like we have consensus but it's a good point to add more . Popcornfud any thoughts on wording for that? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I added it to the article, but didn't spend a great deal of time on it. There's probably a better way of phrasing it so we can iterate from there if anyone has any better ideas. (I'm traveling and not giving Wikipedia my full attention right now...) Popcornfud (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Tears" vs "Tears"

Think it's important to note the difference between "tears", crying, and "tears", rips? There's been some discussion and Nintendo confirmed it's the crying one. Legowerewolf (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's just meant to be a play on words of both meanings. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 10:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's "Tears". — Czello 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If Nintendo isn't particularly concerned about confusion on the name (they came up with it if their own accord) the. I'm not sure it's worth us clarifying it.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I always read it at tears; it never occurred to me that it might also refer to or be pronounced as tears. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The katakana ティアーズ (Tiāzu) in the Japanese title and logo[7] makes it pretty unambiguous that it's tears as in crying. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it will be tears, as in rips, bcuz the kingdom of hyrule is legit breaking up and tearing itself apart, creating floating islands.

oh, and about the islands, why did the trees up there suddenly turn yellow, if they came off of the ground where all the trees are green? 74.51.31.110 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Like they said the Katakana makes it very clear that its the liquid tears, not the tears like paper. Also remember this is a place for discussion about the article itself, not the subject matter. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Per the above. Although the other tears would make sense based on what the IP said if that is a main aspect of the game. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

I will put the retail price of tears of the kingdom Senorleroy (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Lightoil (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:PRICE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Per PRICE itself though, it's fair game to include when there's out-of-the-ordinary third party coverage on it, which there almost certain is, since it's their first $70 Switch game. I'm indifferent on adding it, just saying there could be a valid argument for it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"since it's their first $70 Switch game" whose? Also, I don't really see how that would be enough to warrant including the price. There have been plenty of first $X prices for companies because that's just how these things work. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo's, and it very obviously elicited a lot of dedicated coverage. This is exactly the type of exception the PRICE you cited yourself is talking about, if I have to break it down for you... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm, well I guess its fine if it gets a lot of coverage, so long as the sources don't essentially just say "Nintendo is going to sell TotK for $70, which is more than they usually sell games for.", but that's just me personally. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

And that's totally fine. Like I said, I'm pretty indifferent myself, I was just showing there was a valid path to inclusion. Honestly, at this point, if it is included, it may be better to mention it in the context of reception too, depending on if reviewers address it. (Stuff like "(Publication(s)) felt the game (was/wasn't) worth the higher than usual $70 price tag." or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Leaks

How should we talk about the leaks? There seems to be conflicting decisions being made by people reverting edits. Rossilaz (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There's not much to say other than "(Source) reported that the game leaked." There's plenty of previews available for expanding the gameplay section, and I'm sure reviews will be out soon for the reception section - the game is out in 9 days and games that get positive reviews always have reviews come out in advance of release. Is there a particular conflict you're referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Story Leaks

Shouldn't we be commenting on the story, now that it's been leaked? MightyWeirdo (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi MightyWeirdo, welcome to Wikipedia! We don't actually comment on anything, it's what reliable sources say about a subject matter. If you mean that it should have a plot description, than we can use the game as a source. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I meant that it should have a plot description. If there's any policy regarding leaks, don't doubt on telling me. However, does the subreddit of the game count as an RS, for the purposes of a plot summary? There have been gameplay and story screenshots posted there. Thanks again. MightyWeirdo (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't use subreddit as a reliable source because it is user generated content. It's only seven days until the game is released so let's just wait until the official release date. Fieryninja (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup, correct. See the section directly above this too. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thank you for your help. MightyWeirdo (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Gameplay section

The game is now out worldwide. This article is desperately overdue for a Gameplay section, as the core/added gameplay features have been covered in a litany of reliable, third-party sources for several months now. — CR4ZE (T • C) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong...but it's not like that was an oversight or something - it's just that one's written one yet. Go for it! Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to if time allowed. I'm normally up for taking the plunge, but life unfortunately keeps me from here far more than I'd like it to. Happy to swing past and help out where I can, but I'll leave it just for now in the hands of the very capable editors who've already maintained the page so diligently. — CR4ZE (T • C) 17:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I started by moving the new abilities in the dev section over there. I'm sure by this time next week it will be in decent shape. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible incorrect grammar

There may be incorrect grammar in the articles lead, before the infobox. It states that "Link, the game's protagonist, is joined by Princess Zelda to defeat by a malevolent force seeking to destroy Hyrule." The 'by' in this sentence is not needed, grammatically incorrect and, if others agree, then it should be removed

83.177.155.88 (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Popcornfud (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Using "universal critical acclaim"

As this has been contested by one or two users, can we get a consensus on whether we should be referring to the game's reception in the lead as "universal critical acclaim". Firstly, this kind of wording is rarely ever used now in articles, not least because it's overkill when only either "universal" or "critical" is necessary. Some also contest the fact that, despite attributing it to Metacritic directly, the wording of "universal" implies that the game received complete acclaim from all reviews involved, when this might not be the case. Otherwise, the existing wording can just feel like an attempt to make the game's reception sound lofty and noteworthy. I link to a previous talk page discussing the use of this phrasing here [[8]], and ping @Sergecross73:, @Soetermans:, and @Popcornfud:. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Avoid. It's just hyperbolic — just "acclaim" (not even "critical acclaim") covers all we need to say about the critical consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Avoid. I'm generally opposed to "universal acclaim" unless it's done in the context of direct-quoting Metacritic. Otherwise, we don't need any of these extraneous descriptors like "widespread" or "universal". It's redundant - "acclaim" itself already infers common praise by definition. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some indication of how much acclaim it received? A positive reception of say, an 88 on Metacritic is also acclaim; TotK has a 96 score, and is considered universal by Metacritic. The lead is a summation of the article, can't we spare a word to give some flavor to it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's necessary. "Acclaim" means "a lot of critics really liked it" which I think covers it. I don't think the difference between a Metacritic score of 88 and 96 is very important for us — that kind of gets into the realm of hyped-up nerds comparing scores on forums. Popcornfud (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No, acclaim is already as strong as it really needs to be. Much like "very good" is sufficient, and "really very good" is redundant. MC doesn't differentiate between "acclaim" and "universal acclaim" either, right? Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Even "very" is debatable... "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." — Mark Twain Popcornfud (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

There is no section for this video game’s story. I think that many people trying to research it will turn to this website and get nothing about the story. 80.95.198.190 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - You're correct in saying it needs to be done, but you're not doing an "edit request" correctly. Edit requests are for someone to make a specific edit on your request. So, for example, if you wanted a story section, you'd write out your version of a story section here on the talk page, and someone would add that for you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Comparing it to Breath of the Wild

There have been many edits going back and forth about comparing the game to its predecessor. Since it is a direct sequel, I am in favor of it PhummyLW (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the article as well as the game stands on its own. We do not unnecessarily make comparisons to its immediate predecessor, nor to Ocarina of Time, A Link to the Past or any other Zelda game. The lead is the summation of the article, the reception of Tears of the Kingdom in regards to Breath of the Wild is only mentioned a couple of times. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

alright but we shouldn’t be directly opposed to comparing something that for the longest time was called the sequel to breath of the wild PhummyLW (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I'll have to agree with PhummyLW: the game was referred to as "Sequel to Breath of the Wild" for the longest time, and its gameplay is very similar to BOTW (akin to how Majora's Mask's gameplay is very similar to OoT), so some comparison could fit in (but not to a point where every line refers to BOTW, of course). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it's the direct sequel we should compare its reception? I think that's WP:SYNTHy behavior and just unnecessary. Majora's Mask doesn't compare its reception with Ocarina of Time either. Or BioShock 2 against BioShock. Red Dead Redemption 2 against Red Dead Redemption. Grand Theft Auto V against Grand Theft Auto IV. Tomb Raider III against Tomb Raider II. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain against Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes. Unless there are several reliable sources to go in-depth between the reception of the two games (which I doubt, 'hey look, these two games by a beloved franchise are both critically acclaimed, weird!'), it shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, let alone in the lead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, is it not something that reviewers are discussing though? Or even just years of previews mentioning it over the years? It shouldn't be written as a compare/contrast essay or anything, but it feels like it could at least be touched on if done right. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

From what I see, most reviewers compare the game to Breath of the Wild (favorably). If anything it would be inaccurate to not mention the comparisons. Obviously we would not use Wikipedia's voice, but something like:

John Smith, in his review for Generic Gaming Guide, favorably compared Tears of the Kingdom to Breath of the Wild, citing the map expansion and added gameplay mechanics as features that allowed Tears of the Kingdom to not simply feel like a rehash.

Would certainly be notable. With proper citations, of course. Juxlos (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I specifically mean that in the lead there's no reason to compare the two. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In the relevant sentence of the lead, if enough reviewers mention it, then it would be fair. Something like "received acclaim and its additions drew favorable comparisons with its predecessor" would be fine. There are no rules against it. Juxlos (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of having a paragraph (or at least some sentences) in the Reception section on the similarity of the game to BotW. It's obvious to anyone whose's played TotK just how similar the game is to BotW, and there has been large variance among critics about which parts that were similar were good to keep versus bad to keep, but none of these views are currently in the Reception section. It currently just focuses on the additions and the frame rate. Neuroxic (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023 (2)

Change initial release to release; game is out everywhere. Mr51000 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

OpenCritic?

Why don't you use aggregator OpenCritic too in the reception sections? https://opencritic.com/game/14343/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom 151.44.58.25 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been multiple community discussions on OpenCritic, and neither time has resulted in a consensus to include it on Wikipedia video game articles in general. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't be time to restart discussing about it? I mean, look even at this article, it's clear OpenCritic has become relevant: https://culturedvultures.com/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-reviews-metacritic-opencritic/ 151.38.77.188 (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You're free to start one up at the video games Wikiproject, but that source pretty much highlights a lot of people's lack of motivation to include it - it doesn't really offer any additional insight beyond Metacritic. It's pretty rare that one provides a meaningfully different aggregate score from one another. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated numbers on global sales out?

Do you have newer numbers regarding global sales? The latest information on this article refering to 10 million sold copies within three days of its release is now already three weeks old. 62.226.94.95 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo only released the numbers monthly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add one if you found one, but Nintendo is only guaranteed to release quarterly sales numbers - the next one will probably be sales by June 30, and that’ll come out sometime in July or early August. Assuming they don’t tweet saying they sold 20 million that is. Juxlos (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

When they release updated sales, you'll know. All the video game websites report on it when it's big games with impressive sales. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It is I colgera

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Add about the bosses here??? Zora Champion Mipha XxColgeraIsCoolioxX (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Eh just sayin there should be a new paage or something mentioning colgera bcs colgera is awesome XxColgeraIsCoolioxX (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

How do i make sandbox on mobile? XxColgeraIsCoolioxX (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Vague suggestions like this are unlikely to go anywhere. Try suggesting things that are more detailed and...coherent. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok 😅 XxColgeraIsCoolioxX (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a very rare case of a roleplay account on Wikipedia, Sergecross73. I gotta say, I'm baffled. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they're pretty close to a NOTHERE block honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 04:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Colgera please, why are you doing this? It is my pleasure (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Bcs its fun i guess XxColgeraIsCoolioxX (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization

Shouldn't "gloom" be capitalized? It isn't actually gloom, and it's capitalized in both the game and most media relating to it. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

To the gameplay part: add a part describing the addition of caves and wells, Bubbulfrogs and their gems due to their frequency and importance in certain major quests 193.200.82.62 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

I want to change "action-adventure" to "open world action-adventure" Milovarki (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Open world is mentioned literally in the sentence directly after it already. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Impact source

• https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/08/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-has-reportedly-helped-boost-japans-gdp Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

The source for this: "Development of Tears of the Kingdom started in 2017 after Breath of the Wild was completed. Initially, new ideas were thought of for DLC but eventually it evolved into a new game when too many were gathered.[7][page needed]"

Should be this: "https://kotaku.com/breath-of-the-wild-is-getting-a-sequel-because-the-team-1835624233"

From the article: "Aonuma: Initially we were thinking of just DLC ideas, but then we had a lot of ideas and we said, “This is too many ideas, let’s just make one new game and start from scratch.”" GeminiContractor99 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi GeminiContractor99, how's that different from the wording currently? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's a suggestion for a new citation; I'll verify it and make the change. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Add to Game of the Year section:

Kinda Funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5jWxxrW2GA Siliconera: https://www.siliconera.com/siliconeras-overall-game-of-the-year-2023/ Shacknews: https://www.shacknews.com/article/138147/shacknews-goty-2023-zelda-totk Glentendo (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

→Change the word "The" (with capitalized T) to "the" in the lead, after "Breath of the Wild (2017)". Marcelo373 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 05:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, this is gonna be fun. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Just a nudge :) The Night Watch (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Man, I completely forgot about this review... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula do you plan to still look at this? No worries if you are too busy or are not interested in reviewing the article anymore, you can close the review if you would like. The Night Watch (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Got this dumb project I'm occupied with. It involves Peter Griffin and the Gold Rush. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars have occurred in the last month. Development is at a steady pace.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Cover art and gameplay screenshot images are tagged with the correct copyright status and are provided with a relevant fair use rationale. Image of Aonuma is under a CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Cover art is clearly necessary. Gameplay screenshot shows a crucial part of the gameplay. Feeling uncertain about the Aonuma image, but I'll allow it.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Link is sooooooooooooooooo hot!!^[hyperbole] <3 <3 <3 TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have time to review this article now. Yay me! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna pass this GA review over to @Vrxces. I have to go somewhere, and unfortunately I have to sleep early. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies @Dcdiehardfan: and @The Night Watch: I was not aware this was handed to me, although I note the nominator reached out, did ask and I replied, perhaps too ambiguously. I do not have the capacity to complete a GAN of an article of this complexity and re-read and re-evaluate the sourcing. However, I don't want to hold it up further. If you are comfortable with the proposed approach that I complete the review on the basis that TTWO has performed a review, and provided significant comments, I'm happy to pass provided the comments have largely been actioned and addressed. On a very cursory look I would say the only additional conspicuous fix is that the review template could be condensed to ten items as is the norm, particularly omitting those reviews that are not mentioned in the article. Let me know if this is a fair direction to close the GAN in a timely manner. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Vrxces. I think TTWO has provided a good amount of comments and I think it would be fair to close the review since most of them have been actioned. I have made the changes to the review template that you requested. If you notice anything else you can post about it here, though I'm taking a self-mandated break from enwiki, and I probably won't be readily around to address anything else. Dcdiehardfan might be able to action any further comments you have if he is not busy. The Night Watch (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, given this I'm happy to pass. Thanks to @TrademarkedTWOrantula: for undertaking the original review. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section adequately summarizes article. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No bare URLs spotted. Reference section easy to spot.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article uses some sources considered to be situational per WP:VG/S. However, they are rarely ever used. There are way more reliable sources than situational sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	According to the Earwig report, the top result is a Discord page. Most of the pages, if not all, are reported as a false positive; game names are highlighted in red.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The gameplay, plot, development, and reception are covered - material that is adequate for a video game article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars. Development is at a steady pace.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Cover art and gameplay(?) screenshot have a valid non-free use rationale. Image of Aonuma is correctly licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The gameplay screenshot gives a clear visual on what a crucial part of the gameplay looks like. Obviously, the cover art is relevant for a video game article, but I have mixed feeling about using the Aonuma image in the development section.
	7. Overall assessment.

Quickfail?

• Y This Earwig report isn't concerning (see comments above).
• Y Stable.
• Y No outstanding issues in previous GA review (because I had no time to come back to it).
• Y No cleanup tags or lots of citation needed tags.
• Y Skimmed over the article: nearly all sources are reliable, and no unreliable sources were used at all! Article is most certainly broad and neutral.

Lead

• ...and features a sky...

Done

• access to various devices

Done

• Remove comma between "exploration" and "and"

Done

• "Runes"? - It's been a while since I've played BotW (and I have legit no clue what to do after I get off the plateau)

Took that part out of the lead, the gameplay section goes into better detail I think. I also reworded the "Rune" part to be more in line with how the BOTW article refers to the powers as those of the Sheikah Slate, not as runes.

• Remove comma between "experimentation" and "and"

Done

• Why'd they struggle? Or how?

The source says that they struggled but didn't really go into detail on how, just that they struggled at differentiating the two games while they were developing TOTK.

• "for release" "to release"

Done

• Remove comma between "2022" and "but"

Done

• could further refine it

Done

• Tears of the Kingdom received acclaim, with reviewers considering it to be of similar quality to Breath of the Wild and some calling it a superior game. -> "'Tears of the Kingdom was acclaimed to be of similar or superior quality to Breath of the Wild."

Done

TrademarkedTWOrantula, replied to your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch: I have added new comments for gameplay and development. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch I helped you out on some of the stuff below as marked. Feel free to let me know if there are any issues and good luck on getting the article to GA! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping ^_^ TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to! There was some stuff that I feel I couldn't address but it should be easy for the OP to do so I think. This is actually a game I really like, so I'm honored to have contributed to the GAR. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Shouldn't it be "the player" instead of "players"?

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Semicolon at "areas" should be a colon

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• The game retains many of the characters and locales from Breath of the Wild - Kind of repeating the same sentence of the first paragraph. Change to "Characters and locales from its predecessor were kept and modified to fit the new storyline."

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't get why mentioning that Link can ride horses is important.

It was mentioned in the previous game as a core aspect of gameplay, so I decided to mention it again to reiterate how it is similar to its predecessor.

• I was confused about the word "environ" - maybe try something like "climate"?

Changed to "Region"

• Usually when I hear the word "boss" I expect something powerful (cut "powerful" in "powerful boss enemies")

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Remove comma between "illuminate" and "and"

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Treasure is valuable... isn't it?

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• until the player removes this effect by returning to the surface of Hyrule - Returning to the surface implies the cure (change sentence to "Inside the Depth is a harmful substance called gloom, which reduce Link's maximum hearts until the player returns to the surface of Hyrule.").
• for various purposes such as combat and exploration, or for solving puzzles -> "for combat, exploration, or solving puzzles"

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "and include" -> "including"

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Might want to mention what the Sheikah Slate did in the previous game

Any particular way how I could word this?

• to a shield or a weapon to change its attributes

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Just read the next sentence. I'm not sure how to reword this; my brain at this point of the night just schlumps...
• Why is the word rewind quoted?

 Comment: Not OP, but I assume it's a scare quote. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed

• by causing a falling rock to move skywards -> "recoiling a falling rock"

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a limit to what solid surfaces the player could pass through using the Ascend power?

There are some surfaces that are impossible to pass through.

• Remove comma between "Hyrule" and "and"

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "these items" -> "them"

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think you could cut "In addition these other features"

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Optional: add alt text for cover art and gameplay screenshot

Development

• When was development of BoTW completed?

Not specified in the cited articles but I assume in either 2018 or 2017.

• Also, is "BoTW" an acceptable acronym?

In the article it probably wouldn't be appropriate, but yes it is a common acronym for the game.

• Recommend changing "involvement" to another word

 Comment: I just reworded a bit of the prose all around -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "has held" -> "had held"?

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "the end of the 2000s" -> "the late 2000s"

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure why there's a "Game name (year of release)" thing

 Comment: I've seen it as a convention across Wiki articles for media projects in general, and I practice it too. I removed it to remain consistency. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• said that he was inspired by Wii Sports Resort (2009) to use the same world but add new mechanics. -> ...said that he took Wii Sports Resort and added new mechanics. - IDK but this sentence sounds really unclear to me

 Partly done I changed the syntax to more closely align with the suggestion, but omitted the "same world" part as I'm not sure what that meant -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• "diving from the sky" -> "skydiving"?

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Aonuma cited inspiration from the open-world games... - Also, I think a wikilink would be sufficient here. Not sure which one, though.

 Done Wikilinked open world since that had an article -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• surface; Instead, - Hold up. Wait a minute...

 Comment: I'm confused what the comment is alluding to, I altered the syntax a bit, is it good? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Should've been more clearer. There's a semicolon and the letter is capitalized. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I believe it should be fixed by now. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• The team extended the exploration areas into the sky and underground. -> The team expanded the world to include the sky and underground.

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• due to the limitations of the hardware for that game, the developers were not able to achieve a seamless descent from the sky to the surface -> ...commenting that its hardware limitations hindered a seamless descent from the sky to the surface.

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• With the capabilities of the Switch - Nintendo Switch could be linked again

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• could now provide the freedom of -> "gained the ability to"?

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworded again. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Aonuma said that the development team was trying to create something new but also something similar to the previous game and realised that some aspects "were already as they should be". -> "Aonuma said that the development team was trying to create something new while retaining the (another word for "concept" or "vibe" here) but realized that some aspects were "already as they should be".

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fujibayashi also said

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• there were occasions where they struggled to differentiate between the two games -> "they would occasionally struggle to differentiate between the games"

Y

• I'd suggest using a better word for "large"

Replaced Used "vast", would that work? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It works. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 21:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lot of MOS:SAID now that I'm reading it

 Fixed I went ahead and revised the prose to cut down the amount of "said" -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• to make them unique to their respective environments "just like traditional The Legend of Zelda games" - Readers (like my dad or sister) might not understand Zelda games as well as I do.

Reworded some. Does this work?

• The dungeons were primarily created to showcase the range of Link's powers and gadgets as a way to maximize the gameplay. -> "The dungeons were primarily created to maximize the gameplay by showcasing the range of Link's powers and gadgets."

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• to be accessed seamlessly rather than being closed off - Three things here. One: first part ("to be accessed seemlessly") sounds kind of awkward. Two: Closed off how? Three: What's being accessed?
• "dive from the sky straight down into the dungeon" -> "descend from the sky into the dungeon"

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• and step out again at any point -> "and conveniently enter and exit"?

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• This gave the development team the confidence - Kind of sounds promotional

 Comment: Reworded that entire content to make it more objective -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• to create their own unique gameplay experience - Word "create" is repeated

 Comment: Ditto -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• What are Zonai devices again?

They are mentioned in gameplay, they are the things that can be used to make vehicles.

• greater experimentation -> "creativity"? "imagination"?

 Comment: Changed the overall diction -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• this also required

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'd recommend dropping "to be set"

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• allowing the player to be creative and maintaining limitations to ensure players were not able to break gameplay. -> "the player's creativity and limits to prevent the player from breaking (or cheating?) the game."

Y I used the word exploit -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why is hands quoted?

 Comment: Another scare quote, I think -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed

• Dohta was already introduced in the second paragraph. The third paragraph uses his full name and reintroduces him as the technical director.

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure why "joining hands" is in quotes

 Comment: Probably another scare quote, not sure if it has an actual meaning in-game -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed again

• "aspect" could be replaced in "is a major aspect"

Replaced I used element -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• to use his hands to create items -> "to create items by using his hands"

 Partly done Eliminating "by" for brevity -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• but it is

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• but is also used symbolically to solve puzzles and open doors - ???

Not really clear, so removing

• "is also present within" -> "is in"

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• agreed that

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "cheat" -> "quick way"

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Its implementation posed other challenges, such as ensuring that the player would not ascend into an empty space due to data loading problems. -> Its implementation posed other challenges, such as ensuring that a player would not land on an empty space due to loading issues.

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• story elements, and a 2022 release window

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• was essentially complete

Y And "completed" -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Any information on sales? I'd recommend moving the sales section below the release paragraph.

 Comment: By release para, are you referring to the last para in Development? If so, I personally like where Sales is at, as that information does tend to be in the Reception section of articles. On this tangent, I also did some edits to better section the Reception section. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot

Note: It has been a while since I've played any Zelda games (or video games in general D:). Expect me to get nothing.

• Tears of the Kingdom takes place a number of years after...

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "from which gloom" sounds kind of awkward

 Fixed Changed the syntax so it's "a poisonous substance called gloom"

• "is raised upwards"

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Link is rescued by a disembodied arm, which had been restraining the mummy, - What arm? Was it just lying there?
• and on the Great Sky Island - He teleported???
• "the mummy" could be replaced with "it"

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Zonai"?
• Could replace "meets" with "finds" in "He meets the spirit of Rauru"

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "wrought chaos upon" -> "wrecked havoc on" - IDK it just feels right

 Done I definitely agree, love that phrase haha -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Remove comma between "Hyrule" and "and"

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• and sets out to investigate

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• and the president of YunoboCo, a mining company - Why's that important?
• a young Rito archer and the son of Teba - Same thing here
• "Gerudo, and alongside them..." -> "Gerudo. Alongside them..." (split sentence)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "ventures into" -> "explores"

 Done Good word choice imo -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• With the defeat of the monsters occupying the temples -> "After defeating occupying monsters..."

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• The spirits of sages from ancient times -> "Ancient spirits of sages..."

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• passing down the artifacts, secret stones, which they once wielded. - What

 Comment: I believed it's implying the sages once owned secret stones as a power artifacts in the past, and they are now giving it to Link. Leaving unchanged as I'm unsure and deferring it to OP. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Afterwards, after -> "After..." - After after after after aft-

 Fixed Tautologies, amirite haha -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dragon's Tears - Dragon what now?

Clarified that they are items

• transported through time to the distant past -> "sent backwards in time"

 Done I think the diction is a bit awkward but is acceptable for now, I also wikilinked to time travel in fiction.

• There, she meets Rauru, revealed to be Hyrule's first king, and Sonia, Hyrule's first queen. - He's... in the past now? Did he time travel or something?

 Comment: I believe that's what's implied in the prose, that Zelda time travelled into the past and met Rauru and Sonia,. not sure who's "he" referring to. I'll clean up the prose a bit here to further clarify these events occured in Zelda's timeframe. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the past, Ganondorf kills Sonia, - Is Link flashbacking, or is he in the past? If it's the first one, change to past tense.

 Comment: Was Link who you were alluding to above? I'll leave my edits there but defer it to the OP to finish. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I thought it was Link. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sidon, Tulin, Yunobo, Riju, and Mineru, -> "his clan"

Replaced -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• and regains his original right arm - Wait, so this entire time, he fought with one hand only, and he's left handed? Awesome...
• "fade away" -> "vanish"

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• "fall to the surface below, where they reunite" -> "fall and reunite at the surface below"

 Done A bit of altering diction for less "and". -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll address these comments shortly. Been busy recently so it may take me some time to respond. The Night Watch (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch I've went ahead and already addressed most of the simple prose stuff above, marked as above. Anything that is marked  Comment: or blank is what I deferred to you, as I'm not as familiar with the plot and trust you to clarify those things. I think the big issues is with the clarity regarding the time travel part and other plot elements. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again @Dcdiehardfan, I'll look at the comments again sometime tomorrow. The Night Watch (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• The first paragraph should only contain aggregate scores.

 Comment: I tried to rearrange some stuff, OP should definitely take a look and revise as needed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "through its story and mechanics" -> "for its story and mechanics"

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• cut "to make a fresh experience"

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

TrademarkedTWOrantula I believe that Dcdiehardfan and I have addressed your comments. Sorry for the long delay. The Night Watch (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

TrademarkedTWOrantula just a nudge :) The Night Watch (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll try to finish this review as soon as possible (I'll be going somewhere). @Dcdiehardfan: Hope you're ready for my barrage of comments. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To save some time, I'm going to copyedit the rest of the article, do some spotchecking, and then I'll promote the article. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024

Update the awards and nominations for GDCA 2024

| rowspan="8" | 24th Game Developers Choice Awards | Game of the Year | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost | style="text-align:center;" rowspan="8" | |- | Best Audio | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Best Design | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Innovation Award | style="background: #9EFF9E; color: #000; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes table-yes2 notheme"|Won |- | Best Narrative | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Best Technology | style="background: #9EFF9E; color: #000; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes table-yes2 notheme"|Won |- | Best Visual Art | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Audience Award | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |}

source: https://gamechoiceawards.com/recipients Jebkerman420 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done; though the source isn't needed, the existing sourcing covers this info. ― novov (t c) 08:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

Are the sky and sky islands capitalized like the Depths are? 2601:547:CC80:4F00:A943:C5C9:F465:CE4A (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Zelda 20" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zelda 20 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Zelda 20 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 § Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)