Jump to content

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

If you complete all of his quests, then he mentions that he was the hero once, thus him being a previous Link. 12.207.127.76 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is fan speculation without a reference, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. Another bit of proof is to check Dead-man's stance, especially his feet. Notice how they shift around? Now, pop in OoT, get yourself an Adult Link, Z-target something, and check his stance. Sword up, shield up, moving feet. And he's not a skeleton, is he? He just looks like a semi-transparent... rotting corpse... XD Kuro Yoake 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
He's also left handed (in the GCN version). >_>; Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We're never going to be able to cite this without low quality self-made screens which were shouted down b4. Could we not at least include the claim it makes to being a previous hero as three non sps have separately seen it? BigHairRef | Talk 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you man. But there's two things about him that confuse me:

1.Why does he wear that Ancient Roman armor instead of the green tunic?
2.Why does he actually talk, when in OoT and MM, he doesn't talk at all? --Yellow Stripe 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, he doesn't talk in any of the games; that doesn't mean he couldn't. Play Ocarina of Time again: note that he's able to actually convey his name to people, like Princess Zelda, even though you can't hear... or see him speak. As for the armor, I'm not entirely sure, but maybe he finally realized that he needed some instead of a simple tunic to protect him. Kuro YoakeSpeak to me!! 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But apart from that, he's also bigger than any Link we've seen by now. And it should be noted that not EVERY hero known in the Zelda Universe is the Hylian Link. There have been many others (as everyone who played OOT should know). It could be mentioned in the article though. But could anyone add to which songs he responds? I think that would be very good "evidence" material.DreamingLady 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very true, and admittedly not something I had originally thought of... As for the songs, it's listed Here in the LoZ Songs article. I think it's missing one, but it does include the Song of Healing, Requiem of Spirit, Prelude of Light, and even Zelda's Lullaby. "Our" Link played all of those, right? *laughs* Kuro YoakeSpeak to me!! 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Having mentioned this someone appears to have made note of this in the characters article here. I think that we can put a small reference to his claim to being a previous hero somewhere in the article but making claims that he was once link or indeed which one he was shouldn't be included imo. The only problem is to where to add the info? BigHairRef | Talk 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. So far there is nothing outside speculation to support this meaning inclusion would violate WP:OR. We would need someone who worked on the game to state that he was Link before inclusion would be acceptable. --67.68.153.38 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we say that he's Link, simply that he claims to be a past hero and let anyone who reads the article make their own inferences. It;s not OR id we simply state what he says.BigHairRef | Talk 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I know you were not saying that but some other people in the discussion were and that was directed towards them. I have no problem with your suggestion. --65.95.16.32 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; misunderstood. Sorry about that.BigHairRef | Talk 04:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Right I've seen a bit on the peer review that makes sense and would put in a place for the mention of the claim by the skeleton thingy whatever it is. I've tried adding it in but it's not the best bit of wiki I've ever written. Can I get some help tidying it up or even moving somewhere else if you think?BigHairRef | Talk 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that this guy is the first hero, but not the hero from OOT(because he knew all the skills OOT didn't and he said that he waited and could not tell later heroes until know of the secret) it seems that this could be foreshadowing on the part of the zelda franchise (and i remember somewhere that they would say the next link would look completely different) this guy could be the next hero and the very first link, and they then tell the story of the gods and triforce and probably use shadow link for some reason. The armor is new, and no other game has someone wearing the similar fashion. the only references would be the wolf form of the swordsman and the fact that the twili believed a hero would bear the form of a wolf, although legend. DingusMcClor 11:25, 3 January 2007
I honestly can't say I share your view but that doesnt mean I'm right:). Personally I think he's a previous Link but
  • A) There's no way to know for certain if he is. Hyrule might have other 'heroes' and
  • B) Even if he is we've absolutely no way of knowing because we've never seen what the canon timeline is for the series which apparently exists somewhere within Nintendo HQ, therefore we've no way if knowing which game immediately precedes it and which comes directly afterwards. We've been told it's a century after OoT but how do we know another game now or a future one won't be in between it?
Either way anything other than what he says directly is speculation and thereby OR and won't last 5 minutes on wiki before someone takes care of it.BigHairRef | Talk 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Now i remember, this took me a while, but i finally remember which character this is. In Zelda II there was a swordsman who taught link moves, and taught him the downward stab(ending blow) and other such moves. If he is not used in the next game as the main character, then this is probably the character, meaning that A link to the past, Zelda, Zelda II, and link's awakening are before Ocarina of time. '''This is proof that the timeline is settled, and this game tells what order the games come under'''. the swordsman is the swordsman of Zelda II, if i am right. DingusMcClor 22:19, 5 January 2007

That's not right - ocarina of time takes place before zelda1 & 2 (maybe also before a linktothepast - but im not sure) - nintendo had said that, when ocarinaoftime was released 88.117.84.19 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's outdated now, but before OOT came out Miyamoto told Nintendo Power what he considers the timeline:

"Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time."
Based on that, this appears to be the order:

erm, that quote was given long before Wind Waker was even being thought of, Wind Waker is clearly the last in the series seeing as Hyrule has long since sank under the sea, and at the end of the game Link and Zelda are told to let it stay there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.102.227 (talk • contribs)

Finally! Someone who is smart enough to see the Wind Waker is one of the last in the series! Many thanks(whoever you are)!Superbub 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Superbub

Did you ever think that Hyrule was eventually unflooded? TJ Spyke 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You say Wind waker is the last... have we forgotten of Phantom Hourglass! --TheGreenLink 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you two! First off, saying that Hyrule is "unflooded" just doesn't make any sense. It defeats the whole purpose of the fact that Link and Tetra set off to find a NEW land.

Hyrule IS destroyed at the end of TWW, Spyke. Let go of the lost kingdom, and move on.

As for you, GreenLink, what-ho? Is that NITPICKING I see?! I did say "one of the last" didn't I?! --Superbub 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Windwaker isn't "clearly" the last one. None of them are "clearly" the last one. It may be the last one. I don't think it's the last one, because of the landscape. Twilight princess and Ocarina of time's landscape seem to take place in the same Hyrule. Then, it gets flooded, windwaker happens, they find a new Hyrule(one in Zelda 1, then 2, and Link to the past). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.191.125 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

To everyone who STILL doubts that the skeletal warrior is the OoT Link: Have a look at his shield. It's the Kokiri shield. Which removes every doubt. --Takfloyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.205.37 (talk • contribs)

Still original research unless Nintendo says it is Link. TJ Spyke 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as the Kokiri Shield. Unless you mean the Deku Shield. Whatever the case, that isn't the Deku Shield. The Deku Shield isn't metal and it has a spiral pattern on it. The spirit's shield has a sunburst pattern on it. Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 20:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole conversation is really lame. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that incredibly fascinating and useful comment. Anyway, if it becomes a large enough discussion within the fan community, we could include it as a phenomenon of that; however, it doesn't show any more signs of heading that way than Nintendo shows desire to clean this mess up anytime soon.David 11:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Speculation, original research, and nerd autism turn my stomach. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the skeliton dude is link's father. everytime you go to gain a skill he says he is going to teach you something that only members of his bloodline shall know, and since no two links are related unless otherwise stated because he's reincarnated. and after you learn the 7th skill he says something like "go my child" or something of that nature. i don't know the exact words and i really don't feel like playing through it for the 8th time. could some one else check this out for me. sorry about the poor spelling and grammer. zabbethx feb 28 07

Not to try to disprove the theory, but does anyone else think it's weird that the skeleton guy says,"Currently you dishonor the tunic you wair." As if he weren't Link or had a lot of pride. Also those locations when you enter his mini world thing appear more closely resemblant to those of OoT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animasage (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it's odd that he says something about, "Do not falter, my child". Child, meaning maybe since the "Hero" in Legend of Zelda appearing in every game could be a different person EVERY time, there must be some special bloodline that is more likely to have their next son be the Hero of Time rather than some other family. Mr. Bones here could be Link's great great great grandfather, but there is no way of knowing, so let's leave it out. --Hyukan 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Game Ending? (No Real Spoilers)

After the credits, it freezes on that image of the Triforce, with the words "The End," and then it goes to the "Press Start" screen. Is that the end, or do I continue to play the game as in Wind Waker? Or maybe I fight Gannondof again as if it had never happened? Can anyone fill me in?

The Swagga 03:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It reverts back to before you beat the final boss. It prompts you to save after the 8th dungeon, so if you didn't save at all in the final dungeon you will have to do it again to beat the game again. But if you save in the 9th dungeon, it will save that progress. You just can't save progress against the final boss. Scepia 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a bit like the original Paper Mario game (if you've ever played that)? The Swagga 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. HeroOfVirtue 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just like Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker (if you don't start the second quest), Link to the Past, and most Zelda games. JONJONAUG 14:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To bad it couldn't be like in the Oracle games.--Animasage 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What?

Twilight princess is on a time line that doesn't includes the most of the events only the beginning of [9] Ocarina of Time,or Majora's mask....link grows up to live a normal life when he went back in time to the present Ocarina of time and he did it once again on Majora's mask meaning the events never happen...the sagas are the only ones that knew of the legendary hero location and the hidden the power of the triforce of courage with him even Link doesn't know of his adventures notice the skull kid and the postman are also on this game and Link have no memory of them because on this time line he never met them

This is the opening paragraph for the plot synopsis. I have only a loose idea of what this person was trying to say, so would somebody with a better idea please fix this? - Mellesime 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, it needs to be removed. It's speculation, and entirely wrong, since this game's Link isn't the Link from Ocarina at all. --Guess Who 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question (small spoiler?)

How come Zelda doesn't have a beast form when she's in the twilight? when you first meet her you're in the twilight realm and she's in human form. I thought that everyone who steps into the twilight has to have a beast form? Don't say it's because she has the triforce because link has the fricking triforce too? Any ideas? 88.105.105.56 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually almost everyone who entered the twilight became spirits (ghosts). Link was the only one that became a beast. The game never specificed why Zelda was not tranformed into anything but it could have been the triforce but we do not know for sure. --70.48.108.100 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because we know that one of the tree Triforces turns the owner into a wolf as a preotection doesn't mean all three do. Just because all three are golden triangles doesn't mean they all respond the same way. E946 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because Zant wanted her to stay normal?--Purplepurplepurple 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Link's transformation into a wolf is destined. Not only does it protect him in the Twilight Realm but it allows Midna to recognize him as the Hero. According to Midna, it is said that the Twilight Realm would be saved by a sacred beast. 70.51.178.26 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell(spoiler to some)Zelda transfered her triforce to Midna. This got rid of her form and she became a spirit.--Animasage 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's anything like MC, it's because she has the power of light in her that doesn't make her change... just a guess.--168.212.252.30 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, seeing that Dark Beast Ganon strongly resembles Link's wolf transformation, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that he also transforms into a beast when in the Twilight Realm. The fact that he was attacked by Midna's Twilight magic furthers this; it's also reasonable to assume that seeing that Ganondorf is extremely powerful, he can also take his giant fiery form.

Three things about the article/game that someone with better knowledge might know

1. Why does it say in the paragraph about the enemies that the dodongos walk on four legs as opposed to two legs before?

2. Does anyone know why this game was rated Teen, the first Zelda game to do so (or should that at least be mentioned)?

3. Why is the paragraph about the Kokiri, which do not even appear in the game, have a longer section than either the Gorons or the Zora?--68.163.216.178 05:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1. They always walked on 4. I think. Lizardos have always walked on 2 feet tho. 2. "Twilight Princess is the first game in The Legend of Zelda series to be rated T by the ESRB, for animated blood and fantasy violence." 3. I think that's a bunch of speculation and original research. I removed it. Scepia 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in Ocarina and Majora's Mask, Dodongos have only two legs. They kinda drag the back half of their bodies around. --Herald Alberich 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
But considering that baby dodongos have no legs and the king dodongo has four, those are surely 'tadpole' dodongos. The dodongos in this game appear to be a side-branch of the family, like 'dodongo snakes'.
I didn't see a single drop of blood. I'm sure the T rating was for the great fairy, and they didn't wanna emblazon that fact across the box.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.208.51 (talk • contribs)
The ESRB doesn't mince words. If the documents and videos they're given (they don't actually play through the games) say there is blood, that's the descriptor they put. If the blood isn't obvious, or even in the final build of the game, that doesn't change the rating. As for the dodongos, that's an interesting idea, but all we know for sure is that these dodongos are the graphical update of the species in this game; the Poes look completely different, too, but they're still Poes. --Herald Alberich 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What reason is there to believe that *spoiler*

It just seems silly to me to believe that Ganondorf actually survived. I don't see what reason there is to believe this. What evidence is there that he might have lived? And why would it be more reasonable to assume that he "may be alive" than assume that he has simply died?

Zelda characters are usually reincarnated anyway, so even if someone dies, they will most likely return anyway. Death doesn't seem to be permanent in this series. EvaXephon 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a new Link and a new Zelda every time, yet it is genreally accepted that there is only one Ganondorf. The games' also pretty much say that, and Ganondorf has memory of all the old events in every game. JackSparrow Ninja 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the games actually support that. It's mostly widespread conjecture. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You never actually see Ganondorf die. Link stabs him, he gets up with the master sword still impailed in him, and he just stands there staring off into space. Then the credits roll and no one mentions him. Now there's really no doubt in my mind that he died in some way, but what happend to his body. He could have just teleported back to the dark realm to plan his next attack. That's just my thought and it serves no real purpose but he always comes back. zabbethx

If they didn't show him dying, it because they didn't want you to see him die. If they didn't want you to see him die, then there's a reason behind it. Because that reason may very well be that he didn't die or was still protected by the triforce or something, we can't say that he did. E946 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly see evidence that he didn't die. His eyes closed, he stopped moving - that's generally associated with death. So is falling over and laying on the ground, but I always figured that the last shot of him has him standing up because dying while still standing on two feet is just so badass.

I don't think it'd be very bright to leave a plot hole like that, or never bring any closure to 'what happened to Ganondorf', so I think we're supposed to assume that he's dead. Then again, there is no evidence either way, I suppose, so although one outcome seems more logical to me, I guess there really isn't a way to prove that he died. EvaXephon 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

THis game takes place before WW. Ganondorf is in WW. Ganon is not dead. --Purplepurplepurple 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That statement has not been confirmed. It was stated before, but in any of the recent interviews with Aonuma and Miyamoto, that it NOT stated. There is an idea that there are 2 timelines, but that is total speculation. Scepia 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If you assume that the two-timeline thing is true (which accoring to nintendo it is) then this game would more accurately follow the child link/Majora's Mask timeline, so it is actually unknown whether or not Wind Waker follows this game or not. E946 06:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hang on a sec, when did Nintendo confirim a two timeline theory? I've never heard anything other than we'll let you in the future. BigHairRef | Talk 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm assuming that the game follows OoT, not MM (there was a discussionj about this above), and so it has to be before WW. Otherwise, Hyrule would be flooded. Plus, i'm pretty sure that an interveiw with one of the developers stated that the game takes place about 100 years after OoT.--Purplepurplepurple 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How could it follow Oot and not MM, wasn't MM the exact sequel to Oot? I remember reading "after Link puts the sword back he goes to look for saria in the lost woods. gets lost, attacked by skullkid and then ends up in a parallel universe." somthing to that matter --TheGreenLink 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Saria? I always thought it was Navi. Both lived in the Kokiri Forest, so Link could have been searching for either of them, I suppose...EvaXephon 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an alternate timeline theory, starting after OoT. MM is one of the two supposed timelines, I'm assuming TP follows the other.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepurplepurple (talk • contribs)

A theory that Nintendo has never supported. TJ Spyke 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor denied. Nintendo NEVER gives away such secrets.--Purplepurplepurple 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should ask Miyamoto. He gave the timeline (which he, as creater of the franchise, considered official) back before OOT released. Sine then, however, we've only gotten small tidbits (like TWW being hundreds of years after OOT and TP being after OOT but before TWW). TJ Spyke 03:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tj, thanks for proving my point. After OoT, befor WW. Ganon didin't die. --Purplepurplepurple 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy plot summary

The plot summary is excessive, and I'd like to trim it quite a bit. I thought I would mention it here first because it's a bit of a job. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you removed some of the "Don't add this or that to the plot summary" lines, some of those controversies are probably going to repeat themselves. EvaXephon 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags

The Computer and Video Games Wikiproject has a general consensus that Spoiler tags arent neccesary on sections labeled "Plot" or something else has obvious. I'll go remove them now, I think it will help get the game "Good Article" standing, although more is also needed.DurinsBane87 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link showing this or I think it'd best go back in as most of the game pages I've seen have the spoiler warnings? MOst notable Halo: Combat Evolved as a FA has the spoiler tags. BigHairRef | Talk 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhere in one of the archives, I believe, but to counter your example, these FA games DON'T have spoiler tags. Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X, Donkey Kong (video game), Chrono Trigger, Doom. DurinsBane87 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point about the other FA but how old are they? The newest one is about 4 years old especially compared to Halo. I'm not disputing your claim, I'd just like to see the link for it as it dosen't appear to have damaged the GA Standing when they had them in and I erpsonally would prefer them to be in the article. BigHairRef | Talk 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I also would like to see this consensus. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this shows that there is not a consesus on not using spoiler tags in game articles. Case by base basis is in fact what it says. I thik the point made at the bottom of the page about spoiler tags being time sensitive is true but I'd also suggest that they should be publicity based as well. The vader thing everyone knows but not everyone knows about the intricacies of the plot of each Zelda game, mostly because not that many people have played through the game. For me they stay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHairRef (talk • contribs)

Races

I feel that in order to trim the size of the article to Wikipedia's standards, we should add a link to the Legend of Zelda Races page instead of listing them on this page. Although that page does need some serious clean up, which I may attempt soon. DurinsBane87 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Princess E3 Trailers

I was watching the 2004 E3 Trailer and the were places and cutscenes that were not even in the game. The same thing was also on the 2005 E3 trailer. Did they do this because there wasn't enough space on the discs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.65.228 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Here is the 2004 E3 Trailer from Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73I-S49NFI

A year, and especially two, is a long time in game development, and you can't expect locations seen in trailers to perfectly match the final game. Locations probably weren't removed because of space, but because they didn't fit in the story as it evolved. --Herald Alberich 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Like the magic meter--168.212.252.30 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

There is one unsourced statement in the article. Please provide a citation, or remove the statement altogether. (Ibaranoff24 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Removed it. Hadn't seen it and it's not true as I've managed to find the 'glitch'in my PAL - EU game. BigHairRef | Talk 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ganon Gerudo?

I don't recollect Ganon ever being referred to as a Gerudo in Twilight Princess...am I wrong? And also, about the Gerudo section, should we make mention of the fact that Gerudos are a race made up entirely of women with the exception of the one Gerudo Prince that is said to appear every generation? I mean, this could largely attribute for the Gerudo's lacking existence in Twilight Princess, I mean, after all, without the Gerudo Prince, a society of only women can survive only so long... ;) AnujSuper9 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, that seems like something that should stay in the Gerudo section of the Zelda races page. TJ Spyke 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

http://zelda.com/universe/pedia/g.jsp This link, which is apparently official, states Ganondorf to be The King of the Gerudos. Whether or not the Ganondorf in TP is supposed to be the same one might be debated, but i'm pretty sure it's meant to be the same one. DurinsBane87 10:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, but I still don't really like the organization of that section... :-/ AnujSuper9 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, for an official website, it's pretty shoddy, but I guess I'd rather them have the good programmers and designers working on the games.DurinsBane87 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Ganondorf in TP and the Ganondorf from Ocarina of Time are the same person. The only major difference is that he's a bit bulkier in Twilight Princess. --Guess Who 08:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about only having one male - they use him for politicking, not breeding. Ocarina of Time says that they take Hylian mates to get pregnant, then dump them. (Or at least it says they take temporary boyfriends. You draw your own conclusions)128.211.254.142 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Race Section Merge

I'm all for it, It'll make this article much more presentable and less sprawling DurinsBane87 08:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

true, it will make the article shorter, but it could also be fine if it was left on the article. :P Pikasneez27 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Can someone fix the rankings for the GCN version? Game Rankings only require 10 reviews to be ranked, some people THINK they require 20 because that is the default search amount (you can have anwhere from 0 to 50). TJ Spyke 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

All right, who the **** keeps removing the spoiler tag at the top of the plot section? Yes, we know "Plot" implies spoilerz, but plenty of other media-related articles have them, and it wouldn't hurt. It's one freaking line. What's the problem? Wikipedian06 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, saying that "other GAs don't have them so we must not to earn that status" is stupid as hell. First, unless there is some kind of a POLICY suggesting that good articles should not have spoiler tags, there's no reason we'd need to take it out. Also, look at how old some of the other games are: FF4, FF5. This is a two-month-old game, and many have not played it yet! Leave the spoiler warning intact. Wikipedian06 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If they haven't played it yet, then they shouldn't be reading a section with hige bolded title reasing "Plot". E946 09:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Not an excuse. Can't hurt to add the single line of text.Wikipedian06 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedian06 has a valid point; spoilers are time sensitive information (i.e. EVERYONE knows that Vader is Luke's father), and claiming that "Wikipedia may contain spoilers" does not exempt the use of spoiler tags as a whole. Otherwise, the spoiler tags would certainly have been TFD'd by now. --Stratadrake 14:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Oh that's right, Template:Spoiler was TFD-listed, but the consensus was keep. --Stratadrake 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags should not be there since a plot section will contain spoilers (since it is about the plot, duh), and it's been at WP:CVG not to use them. I can't do it at the moment, so can someone please remove the warning? TJ Spyke 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Link to the page containing the policy, please. I don't see it. Wikipedian06

This says clearly that the tags are to be used on a case by case basis. Here I think they should be in. BigHairRef | Talk 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I've reinstated the trivia section. Suggest we sift through it, work out what's accurate, and attempt to incorporate the details into the relevant section of the article. --Oscarthecat 11:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section, taking out some things too minor and some inaccuracies. Now just to incorporate it. JackSparrow Ninja 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The seventh Howling Stone

I just realized why random IPs keep changing the number of Howling Stones from six to seven. There is a stone in the "Lost Woods" with a Triforce symbol that does indeed play Zelda's Lullabye; you find it on the way to the Master Sword, and howl the lullabye to make the Skull Kid appear. It's not an actual Howling Stone because it's not related to the Hidden Skills, but it is similar. --Herald Alberich 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for clearing that up! JackSparrow Ninja 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's Lullaby. Wikipedian06 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering about that. Neither of the spellings looked right to me. --Herald Alberich 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Areas, enemies, etc cut from trailers

Given the huge amount of criticism TP has received from fans as a result of cut areas, the wikipedia article should reflect this.

Almost everything from the 1st and 2nd trailers was either modified heavily, removed entirely, or simply removed to out of bounds areas that can only be reached with cheat devices.

For example, the much hyped forest shown in the 1st and 2nd trailers was completely absent, as were the large town and coral pool shown in screenshots released the day the game was delayed in Dec 2005.

The spider boss that chases you is not present in the game, as well as the sasquatch like creature from the 2nd trailer. Also, the spiders cannot wrap Link in webs as he was seen in the 2nd trailer.

Since these cut areas have resulted in huge criticism from fans, they more than warrant a mention here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.233.191 (talk • contribs) 22:08, January 28, 2007

How do you know these things were cut from the game and not just created for the preview? Can you provide any reliable sources that say that fans were in a tizzy specifically over this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The coral pool is the Lakebed Temple. The spider is likely an early version of Armogohma. Clearly the large town is also a very early version of the current Castle Town. Jeez, so the game changes a little.
Also several cutscenes were cut. Such as Wolf Link howling to the moon and when Link first figures out how he can see the ghosts in a 1st person view scene. The scene where he finds the cats in the woods are also taken out. And a bunch of changes from the E3 version. Such as how the town featured a rowboat Link used for getting the basket. And also Link can't use magic(unlike that screenshot where it shows a magic bar and Link forming some sort of light).--Animasage 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hylians/Ordonians

Here is what is currently written about them in the ariticle:

  • Hylian
The Hylians are a human race that reside in Hyrule. Most characters in the game are Hylian. The Hylians are distinguished from Ordonians by having long, swept back, pointed ears. Notable Hylians in the game include Link, Princess Zelda and all members of The "Group" except Ashei and Rusl.
  • Ordonians
As the name suggests, Ordonians are humans from the Ordon Province. They are distinguishable by having "normal" rounded ears and sharing their appearance with real life humans. In Twilight Princess notable Ordonians include Ilia, Colin, and Malo, Talo and Beth.

The problem? Those paragraphs pretty much contradict themselves, because Link has "long, swept back, poined ears", but is referred to as an Ordonian in the game...SilentWind 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It mistakes location for race. The Hylians live in Hyrule, but one Hylian lives in Ordon, which is otherwise human. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Manga?

Does anyone know if this game is going to turn into a comic like the others? --TheGreenLink 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, TheGreenLink, but I highly doubt that Zelda is going to receive a manga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onigiriman (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it will be made into a manga since it is such a hit. Although, like the others, I doubt it'll be dubbed into English. Meaning we have to wait forever for a fansite like zelda-infinite to do it.--Animasage 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn... --TheGreenLink 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having three seconds which do nothing but link to their respective articles, why not just put all three them in a See Also section? E946 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, links to a split article (i.e. {{main}} template) do not by themselves count as encyclopedaic content; a short blurb on each, along with the relevant links, is a more preferable option, as it does not take away from the article, while still providing links with more information. --Stratadrake 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - Green Chu Chu?

It says in the trivia section that there are green chuchu's in the game... I have beaten the game twice, on the second run completely... yet I have never seen them? And I don't ever recall seeing a magic meter on the boack of the box... but I'll look --TheGreenLink 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a few green ChuChu's in the Cave of Ordeals, when they hang on the ceiling and before they merge into a big black chuchu. JackSparrow Ninja 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't really know how this works or not, but can someone fix the fact that 8.8 links to this article? I mean I guess there's nothing better 8.8 should redirect to, but it's still kind of immature and lame.

What about the magic meter on the back of the box? I'm at school right now so I really can't check it out... --TheGreenLink 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I got the 8.8 redirect speedily deleted.
I lend the game to someone, so I can't check right now. Someone else check please. JackSparrow Ninja 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is indeed a magic meter seen on the back of the Wii version's box, in that old screenshot of Link fighting a Darknut in the Temple of Time. Don't know about the GameCube box. --Herald Alberich 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Also if you notice you can see some sort of light forming under Link.--Animasage 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I went to google and saw the magic meter... Thats pretty fricken wierd. I wonder why it wasn't in the final game?--TheGreenLink 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A few green Chuchu's? I went threw the Cave of Ordeals again and found Purple, Red, Blue, and Gold... no Green. But the mail man is at the end of the cave after you fight the four darknuts on the ledge in the last room of the great fairy. Just in case anyone wanted to know that... --TheGreenLink 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't tried it out yet, but I read that when a blue and a yellow Chu mix they form a green one... But I don't know if this is true? I'll have to try it out. P.S. If any of you people want to be a speedy Gonzales and find this out fast, Report it immediatley if it is true or not. --TheGreenLink 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did you see the mailman at the end? I beat it and didn't see him...
Anyways, I remember seeing it there. Whether it was there on the ceiling, or formed from blue and yellow, I don't know for certain though. JackSparrow Ninja 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no green chuchus in the game, only red, blue, purple, yellow and gold. You can find the postman in the cave of ordeals if you beat it a second time. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is video proof of green chuchus. Their jelly doesn't do anything.

The Postman is at the end of the cave on the very last ledge before the final great fairy. This has to be your second time threw the Cave of Ordeals to see him. It's really just a waste of time, you get nothing out of it... --TheGreenLink 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any place here to post about this MAJOR glitch?

I saw a couple videos on youtube ( one of which is linked as http://youtube.com/watch?v=XkB53h2M5Pw&mode=related&search=) and it showed one of the worst gaming glitches possible. This supposedly appears on the wii version only, but in case you don't wanna watch the vid, I'll explain it. If you save in the room with the cannon supposed to launch you into the city in the sky and turn the game off before you tell shad to leave, (or maybe telling him to leave doesn't matter) when you restart the game, you will be locked in that room with absolutely no way out, and unless you had a separate save file, you have to start the game over as there's absolutely no way out at all. I feel that the news of this glitch should be spread EVERYWHERE, so I'd like to know if there's a place here to post about it. Maybe under "Twilight Princess on wii"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeFan2006 (talk • contribs)

We had a section with that info, but a consensus decided it wasn't important in an encyclopedia article about the game, and it was removed. --Herald Alberich 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I know a glitch... in the 3rd temple on the bottom floor (i think) where you have to make the bridge float up to get the heart piece. When leaving the room instead of climbing the rocks to go around to get back to the door, the water fall in front of the door, you can swim up it Instantaneously by swiming into it on the left side, try it out, it amazed me! --TheGreenLink 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I fell in it. I actually was caught by this glitch. Just lost 46 hours of gameplay and there is no way to fix the situation other than restart the game for the very begginning. I came here exactly to suggest this glitch to be warned and exposed in the Twilight Princess article, and it amazes me that people could "in a consensus decided it wasn't important". It's a piece of VITAL information about the game, at worst as important as the "Trivia" section (which is 100% unimportant, but it's also pieces of information that people should have the right to know from an encyclopedia). I'd write te section myself if my english writing skills were better, but as they aren't and I don't wanna write cr*p on the trustworthy Wikipedia, I just wish someone will. It's important, people. Stratofabio 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay?

Why does it say "brian hobbs beat this" at the beginning of the Gameplay section? I can't edit it out, as it isn't showing up... 207.32.33.18 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't showing up because someone already got rid of it. Thanks for your concern. --Herald Alberich 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If you see something like that, it's usually vandalism (I took it out). You might have started editing right after I took it out (hence why you didn't see it). TJ Spyke 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LandoftheLegend

People, PLEASE stop adding that site as a source for the sales section. It references Wikipedia as its source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like JackSparrow Ninja wants to spam LotL so much that he would even ignore the fact that the list on LotL he's using is taken from Wikipedia (and even try to argue that it isn't). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubious claim

User:Sup blad just posted "Then you see Link at his home with Ilia and the children all smiling (if you collected all the poe souls, all the golden bugs and all the pieces of heart." at the end of the plot section. I took it out for now as unlikely; can anyone confirm this? --Herald Alberich 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*spoilers*

What really happened there? What was the significance of Zant appearing? Why did he bend his neck like that (snap) and what happened to Ganon when he did that?

If anyone knows the answers (or can at least get the community to agree on them) they should be mentioned in the article. --GreenEarthPFC 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is an official source, it would all just be speculation (which is a no-no). TJ Spyke 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two schools of thought on this matter. The first idea is that Zant willingly snaps his own neck, which kills Ganondorf. The second idea is that Ganondorf's death causes Zant to die.

When Midna appears to destroy Zant, Zant returns and states that he cannot be defeated as long as Ganondorf is alive, and that Ganondorf is sharing his godlike power with Zant, which Zant can use to sustain his own life. This leads directly to the conclusion (not assumption, but conclusion) that when Ganondorf's strength is waning, his power can no longer sustain Zant's life, and so Zant dies.

However, there are some who believe that Ganondorf is not simply sharing his power, but that their two life forces are 'linked', so Zant has the ability to kill Ganondorf at any time he wishes by commiting suicide. There is NOTHING that implies or supports this belief.

Understand this: if the writers of the plot wanted the viewer to understand that Zant chose to kill Ganondorf, they would have at least thrown in a single line of speech implying that Zant wanted Ganondorf to die, or some sort of camera shot implying that idea. Instead, we see NOTHING of the sort. Obviously, we were NEVER intended to reach that conclusion. We see Ganondorf struggling just to breathe, Zant's neck snapping, and Ganondorf cease moving. These scenes are obviously meant to imply that Zant's life ends as Ganondorf's life ends. There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that implies that Zant would ever want Ganondorf to die.

It is simply illogical and absurd to believe that there is any other conclusion. There is no speculation here; the answer is as clear as day and is reached by paying attention to dialouge and not allowing one's imagination to run wild with strange theories about Zant snapping his own neck somehow.

There is no need for debate, no need to wait for an answer from an 'official source', and no need for this issue to be dragged on any longer. There is only one logical conclusion to be made, and no room for any other possibility. It's about time this subject was laid to rest. Ganondorf's waning strength caused Zant to die, because Ganondorf's power was allowing Zant to stay alive after Midna's mortal blow to him.

I move that the article should be adjusted accordingly. EvaXephon 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is original research. I think Nintendo left it open like that so people can decide for themselves. TJ Spyke
What EvaX said is fully correct and does not constitute original research. Try snapping your own neck and see if you could do it. Seriously, this theory is just plain retarded. Wikipedian06 11:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know why Zant would want to snap his own neck. Besides if you ask me he doesn't really control if he can die or not. If he killed himself to kill Ganondorf then when you killed him the first time Ganondorf would've died to. Killing yourself and being killed will basically have the same effect if your immortal.--Animasage 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we finally put this matter behind us and just update the article to read that Zant dies because Ganondorf loses his power? EvaXephon 11:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs?

why have the easter eggs section when there is a trivia section? it seems odd to me DBZROCKS 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia was turned into Easter eggs, and then somebody else created the trvia section again. TJ Spyke 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Has Trivia been removed?--Animasage 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

score

Who's the idiot who keeps changing the rank on game rankings to 18th because it is actually the 15th? Stop it, it annoying.RammaYB 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't call people idiots. Please behave like an adult. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't call other Wikipedians children. Behave like a civil Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That's because it is 18th, not 15th. Game Rankings only requires 10 reviews to be ranked, not 20. The problem is that their default search amount (since they let you choose how many reviews you want required, so you can choose games with only 50 or more reviews) is 20. If you change that to 10, you will see 3 games ranked higher than Zelda. TJ Spyke 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You can choose to even have 1 review though, so unless there is a wikipedia guideline in the Video game Wikiproject for this we probably should go with the default. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox for the game the site even labels it as the 15th best. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
On the very front page (which they have a "featured" game), Game Rankings says "A title needs at least 10 reviews in the database before it is placed into the overall rankings". I don't know why the default search amount is 20, but they only need 10 reviews (which would put 3 games ahead of the Wii version). Please stop changing it back since you now know you are wrong. TJ Spyke 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Truee but not only is the default 20 but the site uses the 20 review as the official one As can be seen here, Also when a game does not have at least 20 reviews the infobox does not contain a score As seen here. I'm not sure what you found particulary objectionable to my edit as I refered to both rankings. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the minimum used to be 20, they probably were just too lazy to fix it. Nevertheless, they only require 10 reviews to be ranked. So the Wii version is 18th ad the GameCube is 4th, no need to use any other ranks (unless you want to say what they would be with 1 review, or 50). TJ Spyke 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While it says it requires 10 reviews to be entered into the database no where does it say that 10 reviews are the standard for ranking. On the contrary both the links I provided and the default search show that GameRankings considers 20 reviews to be the dividing point. While you may disagree with their logic its hard to ignore that fact. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, they probably just never bothered to fix it when they decided to make the minimum number of reviews to be 10. Take a look at Halo: Combat Evolved for how there can be errors, the default search method ranking and the ranking you see by clicking on it are different. I know you may disagree, but their front page clear as day that 10 is the minimum. TJ Spyke 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gamerankings official Top 20 (which can't be changed by the user) lists Twilight Princess as number 15. [1] Jedi6-(need help?) 03:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That's no the Official rankings, that is under the "Best/Popular" section. Under the Rankings section, it's 18th. It's a little odd that GR contradicts itself. TJ Spyke 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
All time top 20 = Official Rankings. I've provided 3 different sources showing that the 20 review limit is the official one so far. I believe its far more likely that the blurb about 10 reviews to get into the database is refering to something else or might be a typo in itself. If you look here [2] Metroid Prime is listed as the #1 GameCube and Resident Evil 4 as #2, skipping over the higher scored Twilight Princess. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You have not provided 3, you have shown 1. Those listings on the individual pages are most likely automated based on whatever they set as the minimum. I do remember it used to be 20, so they likely have never gotten around to changing the programming. I find it more likly they would rather leave that alone since they think people will see they only require 10 reviews since that is what they say on the front page (wheras nowhere on the site does it say 20 is the minimum). TJ Spyke 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[3] Right there they say a game needs 20 reviews to get in the data base. So there is a contridiction here so we can't rely on what they say. Instead we have to rely on what actually happens which is that its based on 20 reviews. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not just get rid of the ranking altogether? I don't see any other Wikipedia articles doing it, the review average is enoough, and we won't have to keep changing it if games get a higher score. Is that a good compromise? Just list the average score. TJ Spyke 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If I can say something, I think that's a good idea. Something like that could be used for Ocarina of Time perhaps, since it's number one, but for Twilight Princess, it's not valid anymore. It's initially been posted anyway, only to (try and) indicate it might become number one. We're past that point now. JackSparrow Ninja 07:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - Snowpeak mountain music

The backround music from Snowpeak mountain sounds remarkably similar to the song Cluster One by Pink Floyd, and i believe it should be noted in the Trivia section, however, i think it should be discussed before i make a change(again...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku9821 (talk • contribs)

Unless you have something official, it would just be original research. TJ Spyke 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
... no. It's just one of the numerous remixes of the Hyrule Field main theme. Wikipedian06 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk about dungeons under "Gameplay" section

According to nintendo, dungeons are "the meat and potatoes" of this series. The gameplay section should mention that there are nine dungeons and describe the general types of puzzles and puzzle elements, e.g. block-pushing (Sokoban-style), fans (in CitS), magnetic ceilings, et cetera. Wikipedian06 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

DS Trailer Music

According to the article, "The [official] soundtrack also features two bonus tracks. The first bonus track, known as "DS Trailer Pack", was the theme that was to be used instead of the present Hyrule Field Main Theme."

First I'm assuming this "DS Trailer Pack" song is the background music from the menu. If that is the case, how does anybody actually know the track was intended to be the bacgkround music of Hyrule Field? I saw lots of speculation about this when the track was made into an online version for the first time before the relase of the game, but that's all it amounted to.I don't believe there has been any confirmation. Nicklegends 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what those bonus tracks are? can someone please explain this to me. I have both soundtracks, the Target on and the NP one, and neither of them seems to have any additional tracks besides the original 6/7. Where are these supposed bonus tracks, cuz i would like to hear them. I'm really confused on this. The Great Morgil 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Time Lines (over all...)

You guys are always talking about time line this and time line that, on all the zelda games... I'm not sure if nintendo actually says there is a timline or not, but did you ever think that mabe their is no time line, and nintendo is just making great games. --TheGreenLink 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a timeline. This was stated my Miyamoto around the time of OOT's release:

"Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time."

Since then, they have said other things (like TWW being hundreds of years after OOT, and TP being after OOT but before TWW). TJ Spyke 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

you say Oot then tLoZ I thought that MM was a direct sequel to Oot... --TheGreenLink 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

thus alternate timeline theories. Purplepurplepurple 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the comment right below? This is what Miyamoto said (not me), and he said it around the same time that OOT was first released (so MM hadn't even been announced yet). TJ Spyke 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that I said Miyamoto gave that quote around the release of OOT, so MM hadn't even been announced yet. TJ Spyke 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Touché --TheGreenLink 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Review box

The review box has got too long again. It really could do with a trim down, what do you guys think? Personally, I don't give a shit about what X-Play, Wired News or GameTrailers has to say, these aren't exactly Titans of games publishing are they? Also, 1UP reviews are sometimes reprints of EGM reviews, can someone check if that's the case here? If so, then that's another redundant publication. - hahnchen 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I wonder if there should be a trvia section for the page. There are some interesting point that can be found about the game e.g. Howling Stones play Zelda Melodies as well as Horse Grass playing Epona's Song (I recognised Zelda's Lullaby, Reqiem of Spirit, Song of Healing and the Majora's Mask version of Ballad of the Wind Fish) Sam 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there used to be but it was removed.--Animasage 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Limited edition tins

TJ Spyke claims the following is non-notable. I can find no reason that it's non-notable, and no reason for it not to be included at the end of the "Twilight Princess on Wii" section. Instead of putting it back in and watching TJ Spyke just delete it, again, I'd appreciate your comments. Tim (Xevious) 11:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Limited Edition tin

The limited edition tin, only available at the Wii launch

A special limited edition tin containing a standard copy of Twilight Princess was available to the first 200 customers at the UK Wii launch event in HMV, London. This limited edition tin is embossed with the game's logo, along with Nintendo and Wii logos.Bramwell, Tom (2006-11-29). "Wii launch event details". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2007-02-28.


Request for comments

Does anyone have any comments as to why this is non-notable, or indeed notable? Tim (Xevious) 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's just say TP sells 4 million units over it's lifespan. That would mean 1 in 20,000 of the game is this limited edition. There are indeed 200 broken Wiis that were sold, there are indeed 200 glitched Ocarina of Times that were sold, but they aren't notable because 200 is such a small number. Scepia 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I really don't understand your analogy here. These aren't broken games, the number of which is unverifiable, these are a limited edition (which, unlike many 'limited editions', really are limited). Things produced in small numbers are no less notable just because of their scarcity - see Inverted Jenny. Tim (Xevious) 17:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, of course this is notable. Anyone into Zelda, with the right mind would know that. This is a now incredibily rare Zelda item, as only 200 were made for those first lucky people that bought a Wii with the game, and ONLY at that UK launch. That makes it just as much if not even more note worthy than the Zelda: Twilight Princess Collector's Boxset of which 7000 were made. Not only that, but these Zelda tins were reported on Google News like 8 times prior to the Wii launch in the UK. There are very few Zelda items that rival the rarity of this one,(go ahead, try to find one on eBay) so of course this is worth mentioning at the end of the section. No question about it.65.54.154.46 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is notable in that it relates to the gold cartridges on first editions of previous games. --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

Yeah, I agree. However, nearly everything Zelda collectible does that in some way or form. Zelda is almost always associated with gold.(In fact somewhere in the world are 7 official Zelda GBA SP's made of actual gold and autographed by Miyamoto!) So I wouldn't really say that this is what the tins should be mentioned for...

(spoilers) photo

I honestly don't see what's wrong with it, and I have reasons to back up my opinion:

1. There are spoiler tags.

Which only warns the reader that if they read the text, they get spoiled. At no point does it help the reader not see this image.

2. Why would an extreme spoiler phobic with at least half a brain go anywhere near Wikipedia before getting through most of the game anyway? It's just totally obvious that an article like this would have spoilers.

So we should punish people by unnecessarily adding a spoiler image to this page? Also, someone not wanting to be spoiled to the presence of a character who isn't even mentioned in the game until they are far into it does NOT make someone "spoiler phobic". That's almost as bad as someone calling people complaining about Phoenix Wright spoilers crybabies.

3. A lot of people know what he looks like anyway, his humanoid form has changed very little throughout the years... he's almost identical to what he looked like in OoT

Do you even understand what I am saying? His PRESENCE in the game is spoilers. The fact that he looks like he did in OoT is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

4. If you're just skimming the page, you'll see virtually no details due to the decreased size.

Of course you will. I noticed the image while skimming, and all you can say is you don't think that this could ever happen.

Why must this be a fight? What I find odd about this is that it seems to only be one person who's causing trouble here. SilentWind 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Causing trouble? What universe are we in where the people who are unnecessarily spreading spoilers are the heroes, and the people telling them to shut up and stop ruining the game are the bad guys? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You two need to settle down. I don't care whether or not the picture is included, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about it being in. TJ Spyke 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides me? I've already removed an image in the past of Ganondorf on the basis that it spoils the article, and I was spoiled by its usage. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides you I mean. Is it really a spoiler though? Ganon has been in almost every Zelda game, it would be like saying it's a spoiler that Bowser is in a Mario game. TJ Spyke 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
A Link to the Past, I have noticed you have been going around a lot removing things without discussion. And you shouldn't be changing other people's comments like that. Pastel kitten 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do me a favor and explain why me changing someone's numbering to # instead of 1. is changing comments, but outright deletion of mine is not noteworthy.
And I'm sorry, silly of me to assume that an image with no fair use rationale, source, and one that serves only to spoil a fact that does not come up until a significant amount of time into the game is not good for this article. If it went to FA, it would not make it with this image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, why praytell would a user with three edits - none to the mainspace - have knowledge of anyones' edits? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been anonymously doing a lot of looking around on Wikipedia. I just decided to sign up a few minutes ago. Why are you being so mean to people?Pastel kitten 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People who disregard the wishes of Wikipedians to not be spoiled are a lot "meaner" than I have been to anyone in this conversation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My intention was never to be "mean". I'm sorry. I'll just go now...SilentWind 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh SilentWind, don't take it like that... why did you leave Wikipedia? Pastel kitten 23:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Eiji Aonuma's 2007 GDC Session Information

A lot of new info and facts about the development of Twilight Princes have now been made public through Eiji Aonuma's Keynote. I got every single detail on this checklist of his info here. [4] I'm busy working on my site updates, but if anyone wants to pick that apart and use it to update this page...good stuff.--TSA 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

LotL accused plagiarism

Would anyone comment on this?

[5]
[6]

These images - are they taken by different people, or are they just different versions of the same image? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from talk page
It has nothing to do with "physical impossibility".
If it was a picture directly of Miyamoto, then yes, it would have been clear the two pictures couldn't be the same. But it wasn't a direct picture, I can see that right away. It is a picture of a screen, just like those big screens they have at E3.
If you've never encountered such a screen, I won't blame you for not knowing, but a picture of a big screen (like that) is exactly the same from 99% of the possible angles. Take a look at video footage from E3 shows, cut out the screen, and other then size, see if the angles are different. JackSparrow Ninja 07:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the same? You are saying that from a different angle, LotL took a picture that had absolutely no differences from thehylia's? The odds that you took the picture at the exact same moment in time is highly unlikely. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Try it please, and you will see and understand.
If you're familiar with Miyamoto, or maybe I'm just a Miyamoto freak to know, you could know that he's a fairly calm person in expressions. As such, this -or at least one that is similair to they eye or hidden behind the mic.- could have lasted for seconds. As the moment of him taking the award and smiling is THE moment that people want to take a picture, it is not that unlikely. JackSparrow Ninja 07:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Will you stop talking about "similar"? This is not "similar". This is a 0% difference between the timing of the picture. Unless Miyamoto is able to stand without moving at all, this is not a different picture, and I'd like to see some evidence of it. I assume that they didn't get lucky and take a picture that had only the screen in it? Then show me the original version of the picture. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying I've seen it happen before, and considering the background of who claimed it, it's not that strange. See below again why.
I had a friend of mine, who is into 3d graphics stuff or so, create and run a little test by the way, for fun. Did you know that at E3 press conferences, taking a picture from nearly 150 seats and cropping the screen -not that strange to do it in my opinion, but ok- gives the exact same screen image, regardless of the seat/angle. JackSparrow Ninja 15:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The assholes not only stole this shit, but now they stole media from our exclusive clips on the beta footage of PH! JackMoron_Ninja here refuted my discussion entry on the Phantom Hourglass page saying my story had NO NEW NOTABLE INFO, yet he edited the page with INFO FROM MY REPORT COPIED BY LAND OF THE LEGEND WHO WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE THERE AND THUS HAD TO COPY INFO FROM OTHER SITES! Seriously, get this asshole banned from here please, and somebody from Holland report these assholes for being content thieves and frauds. Remove all their links, seriously...so damn pathetic you losers. --TSA 11:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can back-up your claim of lotl not being there. I await your answer.
You do realise that they posted 'their' screenshot before you posted 'your' video right? Mind explaining?
Your initial posting hardly contained this info clearly. It were blurbs I couldn't made out. You just re-editted it, and now it makes sense yes. That was after their posting though. JackSparrow Ninja 15:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So you ask other people to prove that LotL was not at GDC, but ignore me when I ask you to prove they were. You're so confident that it was taken by LotL, but you have yet to prove it. I asked for the original image, you ignored me. I asked for evidence that they went to GDC, you ignored me. What you have done amounts to saying "try to argue against my non-facts and non-logic while I get a soda." You have not even lifted a finger to show evidence to show that the image is LotL's property, and yet you demand everyone to supply you with as much evidence as you wish. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Mind explaining how I can proof that?
All I say is that it is not impossible, I've actually seen it happen, for two similar/identical pictures to be taken off-screen at an event. And considering how TSA is throwing the term plagiarism around like candy, those claims hold little value without proof.
I don't ask you to proof Lotl were or were not at GDC. You and I don't know. TSA claims he does, so he is the one that needs to back up that claim. JackSparrow Ninja 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to believe that they did. Has LotL ever mentioned it? You have insisted that despite the fact that the pictures would have had to been taken at the exact same moment in time, that we should assume they are different pictures. Again, where is the non-cropped version? Until I see even one iota of reason to believe that they went to GDC and until I see the uncropped picture that LotL supposedly took, I'm not going to assume that the image is not plagiarized. I've seen adequate reason to believe that the image on LotL's page is not authentic. The fact that they would have had to have been taken at the same time creates plenty of reason to assume that the image is not LotL's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If anything could proof them being at GDC, it's the fact that they put up that beta screenshot before anyone else, including TSA. JackSparrow Ninja 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What "beta screenshot"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This one from this news item.JackSparrow Ninja 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Any evidence that LotL took those pictures? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're thinking like that, any evidence The Hylia took their footage? JackSparrow Ninja 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not being used as a source, so who cares? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying, if someone is the first to publish something, that is pretty much the evidence they made it. You can't magically make something appear. IGN, Gamespot, 1UP; everyone only posts the footage (though Wii will prolly change that in the future), so there is never that much HARD evidence it is 100% theirs. JackSparrow Ninja 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no evidence to suggest that they even posted it first. Regardless, this discussion is off-topic - whether or not they can GET into GDC doesn't tell me why these two images have absolutely no differences. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is why we as outsiders shouldn't be bothered with this sort of things. Our only concern is whether we can trust the information to be correct, based on history of providing correct information.
I tried to give you an explanation because I've seen it before. That's all we can do, assume, and that's all the evidence there is either way. JackSparrow Ninja 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
With reason to believe that it's plagiarized, why should we assume it's not just because there's a slim chance that it's not? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As said before, it's a picture or pictures from a screen. Something anyone can take. If you want to believe slim chances and all, that's up to you. Considering the accusing factor has been flatout lying to us about it before however, aside from the irrelevance of it all, this is all a waste of time. JackSparrow Ninja 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack, is there a good reason why you keep focusing on the angle? How many times do I have to ask you: "What are the odds that two pictures were taken at the exact same moment?"? And you seem to be misunderstanding - YOU are telling us to assume that a very unlikely scenario is true based on nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood that was still an issue.
I'm not telling you to assume anything. You just ask how can it be, I give you an answer, how I see it. Maybe a better example are the oscar awards, or any awards really. Have you ever noticed how all pictures always capture the same smiles and expressions? They seem different through the angles, but they are not. That, as well as this, is capturing a moment. Not just a random moment which passes in a milisecond, but a 'lasting' moment. This is what photographers look for and aim for.
What I am curious about is, why do we keep wasting both our time on speculation on an irrelevant subject? JackSparrow Ninja 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying that a 0% difference between the images is just speculation? I'd say the concept that two different photographers would, by chance alone, get the exact same shot - not a hair different, not a batted eyelash, not a finger movement - is speculation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about low-quality picture of a face behind a microphone. That is just how I see it. JackSparrow Ninja 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
...You don't think there's something strange about the fact that they're the exact same picture? No differences? I see it as you grasping for straws to show the slightest possibility that LotL took this picture (even though the law of logic and averages says that they couldn't have). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We're running in circles like this. I've explained to you my view, if you think you can look for things in a low resolution posing shot, go ahead and be happy with it. JackSparrow Ninja 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be you looking for differences. I've pretty much shown that there is NOTHING distinguishing these images, and that's all I need. Why won't you show the difference? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If that's all you need, then I'm happy for you. JackSparrow Ninja 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a good reason why, in this entire conversation, you have never answered any of my requests. Uncropped image? You ignored it. Difference between the images? You ignored it. Evidence that they went to E3? You ignored it. Seriously, I think the fact that you back up LotL yet never provide evidence of its verifiability screams "spammer". - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I will no longer make personal attacks. However, I am glad to announce NOE - all it's divisions - will be blacklisting Land of the Legend from all future European events, and NOA has blacklisted them from North American events. Good luck getting into E3 this year ;) --TSA 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Source on that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How could I give a source on that? I think time will reveal the truth on this when they can't provide any coverage of these major events. --TSA 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, how did you find out that they got blacklisted? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
One image is a copy of another. This is blatant fact, that someone can argue that they managed to take exactly the same shot, or that Miyamoto holds his face in poses for entire seconds is beyond me. One shot is just a crop of the other, arguing otherwise is an insult. Why I don't understand is why this conversation is taking place here, it seems irrelevant, and if so, I'm going to remove it later. - hahnchen 12:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image #1 is not technically a crop of image #2 nor vice versa, they just appear to be two different photos, taken at slightly different angles and moments, during the same event. --Stratadrake 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's cause he's just replaced it to not look like a thief. 204.104.55.242 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That image 1 wasn't the original image they used. I have a screen capture of the site when they first uploaded it. Also, they stole screen captures of my video footage of the Eiji Aonuma session, which I also documented. My source was reps at NOA PR and NOE (Germany/UK personel). I wasted 3 hours of my time at GDC to get this resolved with them. When they heard somebody was harassing one of the Wii Ambassadors, they got right on it. They asked me not to post in public any of the conversations, and that I not post on my site anymore about the ordeal. That's why I removed the story off my site. I'm only bringing it up here anymore because JackSparrow_Ninja's Reliablity page seems to think that stealing content has no relevance on a source's reliability, nor does he give a fair and balanced look at the sites he has on his listing. Land of the Legend's cons far outweight their positives, and vice versa for The Hylia. You're honestly going to look me in the eye and say my GDC 2007 coverage was unreliable? That a "fan site" has coverage like we did? LotL's last 5 days of updates are cookie-cutter news posts based on info from The Hylia and other reputable news outlets. If they were so reputable, where is there original coverage of GDC? Even JEUX-FRANCE was there, I played a match with one of their staff in Phantom Hourglass. I spoke with them about their theft issues and they explained to me that France has different rules and that it was viewed as acceptable to take information like it was found anonymously. However, they said they realized citing sources was very important and they would work harder on it. So they at least earned back some respect from me. --TSA 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

End Credits

Out of curiosity, the article says that Link is riding away from Ordon at the end of the game, but I thought I saw him riding into Ordon. Which one is it, 'cause I can't think of a reason for him "riding into the sunset". Bucky 09:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's a typical cliched ending (the hero riding off into the sunset), and The Wind Waker ended with Link/Tetra/the pirates sailing off for new adventures. It's been awhile since I watched the credits though. Maybe i'll beat Ganon again and watch them to check. TJ Spyke 09:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you? Thanks. I guess it could go either way, though. Ilia was watching him dramatically "ride off into the sunset", even though he...lives...in...Ordon...It's wierd. But my first thought was she had been checking the pass every day to see if he was coming, and then he finally returned home at the end. Possible thoughts in Ilia's head (Original Research, so don't put this next bit in): "He's several days late! He is so gonna get it! I'll bet he's galavanting around with that princess chick and that midget! There's no telling what they're doing! OOOOOOOH, HE'S GONNA GET IT!" Bucky 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Twiligt Princess didn't strike me as a chiched story. WindWaker was another post-apocalyptic variation on Noah's Flood, but Twighlight Princess seemed original to me. Whyhave a chiche ending to a non-cliche story? Is the word "cliche" starting to lose its meaning through overuse here? Bucky 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I wrote it. He's riding away - if you watch the ending and watch the geography, you will see it is the very North Part of Ordon/South part of Faron Woods. --TSA 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I just beat the game and at the credits it looked like Ilia was waiting for Link to return and Link was heading into Ordon not away from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.195.158.95 (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I hope I didn't open a Pandora's Box by bringing this up. I know that incivility is very frowned upon by the Wikipedia community, but I've seen little things like this degrade quickly into accusations of retardation. Consensus on whether he is riding to or from Ordon seems to be as hard to come by (Spoiler Warning!!!) as whether or not Ganon's death killed Zant or if Zant killed Ganon. I think that Zant was dead (Still a Spoiler Warning!!!) when Midna popped him in the Twilight Zone, he couldn't have come back, and his appearance while Ganon was dying was some kind of metaphore for something, but I digress. (Spoilers End Here) Is there a way that we could get definitive proof either way, or get some kind of compromise, or something? Bucky 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean Zant couldn't of come back? He says as long as Ganon is alive he can always come back. --TheGreenLink 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He said that has long as Ganon is alive, Ganon would resurect him, implying an beief that Ganon gave a flying crap about Zant's existence. He believed that as long as he did Ganon's bidding, Ganon would keep reviving him every time he died. However, a character analysis of Ganon says that the chances of Ganon caring that much about someone that he didn't need are zero to none. Zant thought that Ganon would want to revive him, but we all know that that's bullcrap, unless he needed Zant for some reason. Bucky 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not up for debate - take screenshots and compare the ending shot and in-game scenes - he's riding away. --TSA 06:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're that adament about it, a'ight. I'll accept it until I can confirm it during the summer. Bucky 05:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place for original research, but I can provide you screens/video footage if you want proof. --TSA 01:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Loose ends

At the stands at Hyrule Castle-Town, there are three items that give you the impression that they are of some relevance but don't really go anywhere. First there are two apples at two different stands that you compare to eachother for some reason. Then there is "a pretty flower, and not to expensive" at an unmanned floral stall. Perhaps they are subplots that were dropped halfway through. Also, what is the deal with Link and Ilia, are they friends, boyfriend-girlfirend, or what.

This would be interesting if you could find a source for the claim that they were "deleted scenes." As for Link and Ilia, (the following is Speculation) the writers probably figured that that particular subplot would take away from the story, so they left it out. If you've ever seen the 1996 Doctor Who movie, you'd see what they probably feared. Bucky 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Time set after OoT

Alright, I know it was stated in an article that TP takes place only decades after OoT. But with all the in-game references, it's extremely obvious that the time difference is a lot longer than that. I don't understand how that shouldn't be mentioned at all in this article. That fact about the time was made a while before the game came out. There was more than enough time for them to change directions with that. There's also the possibility that it was a mistranslation. Nintendo isn't familiar with this at all, now are they? Let's not forget the same deal with TWW. The original statement was that it was a century after OoT. But most people generally agree that it actually takes place many centuries after OoT and that the article was mistranslated. How can that apply there but not in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.120.90 (talk • contribs)

The original statement about TWW was hundreds of years after, Nintendo made that clear. What in-game references are you talking about? Unless their is something in the game that says hundreds of years, it would be original research. The only official statement regarding the timeline is that it's set decades after OOT. TJ Spyke 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

References to OoT such as "wearing the garb of the ancient hero" and the picture in the fishing hole with the fishing guru from OoT with the statement about him being hena's "ancestor from a previous era" among other things. Last time I checked, they didn't use words like "ancient" or "a previous era" to describe a couple decades ago.

Go look at your Nintendo Power or where ever the original article was for TWW. It specifically said 100 years after OoT which is why there's been 'controversy' and debates about it in places such as the NSider forums and such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.243.104 (talk • contribs)

  • I.E. you have no real source. That is original research, which isn't allowed. The only SOURCED info is that it is set decades after OOT, and this will not be changed unles you have a source from Nintendo that says something different. TJ Spyke 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The article in which Nintendo said it was a few decades was published long before thegame was released, so why should we assume it is correct? There are plenty of out-of-date statements about games that are never officially taken back, and there is substantial, albeit hard to cite, in-game evidence that the game is far more than decades after Ocarina, including the fisherman's ancestral status and the ruins of the temple of time among other things. Why can't it be replaced with something less exact, since the precise time is not known? If it isn't completely sure, I don't think it should be taken as fact in an article. Panserbjørn 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I will say this again, the only OFFICIAL info regarding the date is already in the article. A couple of fans on WP saying Nintendo is wrong about their own game is no enough to overide that. If you have any reliable sources stating otherwise, present them here (OR isn't reliable). TJ Spyke 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the main Legend of Zelda page cites the now well-known interview with Aonuma that Twilight Princess not only takes place in a separate timeline following the Child Ending of Ocarina of Time but also some hundred years after this ending contrary to the earlier statement that it took place decades after Ocarina of Time and before The Wind Waker, the "set a few decades" statement should be updated because it no longer holds to be true.

article Bam. I say we update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.16.184 (talk • contribs)

Zelda's Adventure speculation...

The producer of the extremely bad game "Zelda's Adventure" was named Lee Barnes. Is it possible that Barnes and his stupidity were named after him? After all, Nintendo considers those games horrible (and Barnes is an idiot), and I think it would make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.111.237.24 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I doubt it. It seems like a very obscure reference to me. --64.229.72.184 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Speculation JackSparrow Ninja 22:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Bad speculation - the people who developed TP hardly considered Zelda II to be bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant the CDi Game. JackSparrow Ninja 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I'd think they'd find someone even worse than the producer of an obscure bad game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I DID mean the Cd-i games. The one you guys are thinking of is LINK's Adventure or Adventure of Link. That game is great, and I would never use it badly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.35.72 (talk • contribs)

Please use this space only to discuss the article. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry. Heh heh. But, truly, does anyone else agree? I don't find it very strange, becuase Nintendo does make several obscure references (Mushrooms in Mario are a reference to Alice in Wonderland.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.35.72 (talk • contribs)

Alice in Wonderland is significantly less obscure than a CD-i game barely anybody played. Jeff Silvers 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zant/Ganondorf?

Am I the only one that finds it odd that Zant wears almost the exact same clothing that Ganondorf was shown wearing sometimes in WW? I'm not saying that Zant is Ganon or some insane theory like that, but there must be some connection considering Ganondorf, who is the selfish and evil lord of darkness in Hyrule, decides to aid Zant, the suffering worm-like Twili. --Hyukan 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he just used zant for his hate, and maybe cuz (and this is just a therory.) But everyone has an oppositeish person in the twilight realm, like

Zelda=Midna Ganon=Zant

And umm... well that's it. =/ Saint Edge 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use this space only to discuss the article. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

Were does link always go at the end? I mean he just leaves, without saying anything, And were does he have to go? I all ready got everything... It just bothers me... Saint Edge 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I always like to think he took up permanent settlement in Castle Town. They really don't show Link at the end, though. --Hyukan 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

it showed him riding off, away from Ilia. And, the game needs to let you save at the end, that bugged me to. Saint Edge 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The last thing you see of Link is yeah, him riding away from Ordon village on Epona. Whenever I beat the game, it always gives me a slight feeling like the end of Majora's Mask where he also just rides off mysteriously on Epona...65.54.154.43 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use this space only to discuss the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything about Link at the end of the game, so I believe Saint Edge was asking so he could put it in there. --Hyukan 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It did, but a user removed ot. TJ Spyke 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I did, because it was an unnecessary detail that was being argued about with both sides using original research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The aticle is great. =D

But really, There isn't anything in this article about the end at all, but then agian the game doesn't give much to work with... Saint Edge 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Glitch section?

Should we add a glitch section to the article which would include some of the many glitches in the game? Especially like the "Arbiter's Grounds Title Screen Back In Time Glitch". Just wondering.Unknownlight 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this going to be based on personal experience and forum talk or reliable sources? – Steel 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It'd be based on glitches that have been proven to work (i.e. videos on youtube or something).Unknownlight 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, then. – Steel 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why won't proven glitches (such as with videos) be unnacceptable? ~Entegy 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources, then they can be. TJ Spyke 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't gameplay videos dedicated to this type thing prove their existance? ~Entegy 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From what i've seen, YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. Something like IGN or GameSpot mentioning a glitch would be a RS. TJ Spyke 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess/Archive_5&oldid=1137237081"