Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Nintendo To-do:


This article is part of WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's articles related to The Legend of Zelda series. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Not Cel Shaded

The DS cannon handle cel-shading. I think this game just uses solid colored textures. Cel Shading is only possible from Playstation 2 on up. I believe there was a game for the PSX that used this "trick". Cel shading is very processor intensive and to call it such is inappropriate.

Actually, according to the Nintendo DS article, the 3D hardware is capable of cel-shading. The DS game Tony Hawk’s American Sk8land is even used as an example of cel-shading in games on the Cel-shaded animation article. Since the game looks very much like it's cel-shaded, is generally described as being graphically like Wind Waker (which was definetly cel-shaded) and since there's nothing to the contrary, I say it should be left up there. If you think it's not so, provide a reference. Also, this is just me being picky but the first cel-shaded game was Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast, so it can be done with power less than a PS2. Corbo 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel To Wind Waker?

With the celshaded graphics and Link doing some boat travel, plus the ending of wind waker, it makes me think this is a sequal to wind waker. Does any one have an article to back this up? --DidYouLoseASock 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, considering none of the Zelda games have any continuity (besides OOT/MM and OOA/S). Plus, all post-WW games have portrayed Link in his cel-shadey style. Well, the sprites look different, but the artwork of him looks like the WW Link.
Oh, and I hope there won't be a lot of water in this game. I wasn't too fond of all the time you spent sailing in that game. -- gakon5
Sailing looks like fun with the stylus, though. -AtionSong
This is an encylopedia, you're not supposed to form an opinion and then go looking for sources to back it up. Please keep speculation out of Wikipedia, as it is 1) unfounded and 2) POV. Guermantes
That was the whole point of me saying "Does any one have an article to back this up?". --DidYouLoseASock 06:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because sailing is involved does not mean it is a sequel. He has a new boat and Navi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 21:56, March 25, 2006 (UTC).
Links boat, The King of Red Lion, terns back into the king at the end of Wind Waker, so link loses his boat. As for the fairy, it was added so there is a cursor on the screen. So it could easy be a sequel as easily as it could not be a sequel.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.124.224.103 (talk • contribs) 16:42, March 28, 2006 (UTC).
I seriously doubt it's a sequel... There is no evidence; this is all speculation! I'm going to delete that 'story' bit unless someone can prove to me that it's a sequel! On the other hand, Twilight may be a sequel to Phantom on the grounds of the new fairy... or it may not... It's all speculation! 19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Tingle
Prove it? No problem. Perhaps you should have bothered to actually click the citation link and read the info? There’s a reason I included that link when I wrote the Story section. In any case, here it is again: Phantom Hourglass on Nintendo’s official E³ website. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a direct sequel. Check out this article. In a recent issue of the German magazine N-Zone, Eiji Aonuma says "PH is often called a sequel of TWW - that's not fully correct, as it merely makes use of the same graphics style." -- wisekris
While he does seem to imply that it's not a sequel, it's not absolute. The article actually later goes on to say that the official page still describes the story as a sequel to TWW and speculates that Aonuma means it is more in the way of a side story like Majora's Mask. It could also be simply because the gameplay styles are so different. Either way, it's still a single, vague, translated source against several official sources and announcements. If Aonuma says anything about this again it should probably be mentioned but right now, it's still almost certainly a sequel. Corbo 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. Check a recent issue of NP, they confirm that it is a direct sequel to The Wind Waker. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a sequel to The Wind Waker, because it takes place a few months after that game, and it has the same characters. Surely all of you would know that... Link 486 @ 3: 47 p.m, Nov. 6th, 2006.

[edit] Fairy is Navi?

Woah, really? Hey! Look! Listen! Watch out! Hey! Hey! Listen! Hey! Didn't see Navi. But it's probably some other fairy anyway. -- gakon5

One simple answer: no. Though you could give it several explanations, I think the easiest is: Navi is Blue (yellow when targetting), this fairy is white (red when targetting). -- Hyrule
Actually the fairy from OoT was red in the beta of the game, when targetting an enemy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.27.26.118 (talk • contribs) .
That still doesn't make Navi white though. Besides, I don't see how they can pull it off timeline-wise Hyrule 21:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, why was this sectioned off? And to clarify this, I don't think the fairy is Navi. Although it does seem to point to a Kokorian Link. You know, the Kokori or whoever. The forest kids. -- gakon5
Making it fit with the timeline isn't a problem. Navi could have been in Hyrule Castle when it was frozen in time, thus being frozen with it. I know we don't actually SEE her when Link goes there during Wind Waker, but that doesn't neccesarily mean she isn't there.
As for the colors - considering she's able to glow in several different colors in OoT, it's certainly possible she can glow in other colors as well. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

hh

[edit] Overhead perspective?

It's clear from the video that it doesn't just sport an overhead perspective, as mentioned in the introduction, but other views are seen, such as when sailing and fighting the octopus monster thing. --Dirtie 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Go for it. cave 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I did, but my wording is quite horrible, I'm guessing someone can convey it a little better than I did. --Dirtie 04:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please, don't begin adding too many external links. There were 4 pointing to the same site. One is enough, point to the game article and not to the home page, screenshots, trailer and analysis. -- ReyBrujo 23:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I added one link to gamespot simply because I saw the coverage first there and its one of the most reliable sites for gaming these days I find. -- razorwave 23:09, March 27 2006
Oh, no problem with the link to Gamespot, I was referring to this. -- ReyBrujo 17:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving through touch screen

Guide Link using the touch screen as a directional pad. (Proof of this would be the menu and item options only accesible by tapping them.)

Even though this sounds like true, it hasn't been confirmed. The fact that menus are accessible through the touch screen doesn't mean you can use the touch screen to control the character. In example, in Nanostray you use the touch screen to change the weapons and scan the boss, but you can't control the ship with it. -- ReyBrujo 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Aonuma has said something about this before. I'll look it up. Based on the new info though, you can't say this yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyrule (talk • contribs) .
Link's turning movement is very smooth and appears analog. He follows the precise path that the fairy takes. This may indicate that the stylus is used for movement, and that the fairy acts as a cursor for the stylus. This is further supported by the combat sequences, in which the fairy darts back and forth across enemies as Link attacks, and flies in a quick circle as Link performs a 360-slash. I'm guessing that the player must slash the enemies with the stylus to perform basic attacks, and draw special symbols to perform more complex attacks. --Poiuyt Man talk 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connectivity

Players will be able to connect to the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection to play a mini quest similar to Four Swords Adventures. [1] However, since we are in Fool's day, I won't be adding it to the article yet. -- ReyBrujo 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I got a friend checking the Japanese Nintendo site out now, just in case. -- Hyrule 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait. It's fake. -- Hyrule 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links again

Please, do not continue reverting changes. Instead discuss here. I must remind you both of the three-revert rule, which may lead to have you both blocked from editing. -- ReyBrujo 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ian Moody#Landofthelegend.net — Ian Moody (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that we're all together, I reckon this time there will be an answer. The only question I asked, which no one ever gives an answer to is: what is your problem with lotl/hyrule? (good as) all the links link to information that are not given elsewhere. What is the point in changing it if you don't have a personal problem you can't get past and want to bother Wikipedians with. Hyrule 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hyrule. The difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is the eye for detail. It makes no sense at all to remove details and links to details. As for the order of links, that should be about importance of the given information, not about the size of the website. I see many reverts being made with IGN for instance, while landofthelegend contains much more information about a given subject. Untill this issue is solved, I will change back the links to contain correct and detailed information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.251.114.0 (talk • contribs) .
I’m pretty sure you are Hyrule. In any case, it’s not about size, it’s about credibility. LotL is a great fansite. But a fansite is all it is. It’s not a credible professional news resource (like IGN, for example). Even if LotL has more info, that doesn’t matter because it has a lot less journalistic credibility. It’s not a personal vendetta on anyone’s part, it’s just the way things are. Plus, it’s just poor form to link to one’s own website in the encyclopedia. It could be considered vanity. If your site is really that good( and I believe it is, though still not credible), let other people cite it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
What makes it a fansite for you?[2] There are enough specified professional websites, so the "one subject"-thing doesn't count.
As for credibility, regardless of fansite/professionality, I can list you more then 20 professional outlets that think otherwise. And please, if you feel landofthelegend is not credible, show me how and where.
As I have mentioned before, I don't care where it is linked to, as long as the information is given. And if landofthelegend is the only one with, or gives the clearest, explanation, there is no reason for me to look for another website because I should be ashamed of lotl. If you want diversity, which I agree on, go ahead and look for the information elsewhere, but don't delete it. I contribute the information and I know where it can be found. If you think you have a better source, go ahead, but don't withold others from information. That is my problem and that has nothing to do with my or anyone's website. Hyrule 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Try to understand, when I say “credibility” I don’t mean anything having to do with accuracy. I do trust the information there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a bit more explanation.
As for being more than a fansite to me? First, it should be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article( it doesn’t have to have an article, just be notable enough). LotL.net may or may not meet that criterion, but even if it is, that’s not an automatic pass.
Second, it should be a reliable secondary source in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Third, the site and/or its staff should have several years of operating history, as well as professional journalistic experience and credentials, and the site itself should be the sole occupation of at least the main part of its staff. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If so is the case, let's please discuss credibility and/or fansite-ness.
What do you consider notable enough for a Wikipedia article?
The reliable sources article also seems, at least to me, to talk about accuracy, so I think we're on par with that. Though feel free to comment if you disagree.
GameLegend is a project that's been in the work/preparation for little over 2 years now, with GameFactory having started in fall 2004 and Hyrule/LotL being almost a year old. Though I don't agree with you on the sole occupation of the staff, since a lot of journalistic staff works on a freelance basis. Hyrule 01:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links again 2

The point of this discussion is that it should continue until a consensus is reached, and no edits shoud be made to the disputed text in the mean time. — Ian Moody (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Feigning ignorance now? I explained what the problem was with your edits, to which you then replied (Though I must admit you did so rather non-sensically while seemingly paying no attention to what I had said). However here it is again so you can read it (again):

The problem is that most of your edits to wikipedia seem to consist of adding links to landofthelegend.net, which resumably [sic] you have some affilication [sic] with. This is considered linkspam, ie adding a link to a site so people will go to it and increase your advertising revenue. Now some of these links add to the article, and should therefore be kept despite you adding them for personal gain, however several don't or are used to replace other links or more authorative sources, not to mention the fact you seem to like adding them to the top of the external links section so they are seen first. — Ian Moody (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that though is the problem of ANY Zelda fan site links in Zelda articles. There are so many out there, how do we decide which ones to include? And what happens when a fan or staff member of another site comes along and finds links to some fan sites and not their own? They could well be tempted to add a link, and it could grow and grow with links to every fan site under the sun. The best course of action may well be to take out ALL landofthelegend links to prevent this happening (you'll notice I have left some where I feel they add to the article); I believe this was discussed somewhere on a Zelda talk page before, probably Talk:The Legend of Zelda series, and is why there aren't any links to fan sites in Zelda links sections (with the exception of particular articles which add significantly to the article, rather than fan sites generic game pages). There is also the fact that it is incredibly bad etiquette to link to your own site, and it also means the link hasn't been objectively included. Why not a link to zeldauniverse, or thehylia or zeldalegends or any of the hundreds of other fan sites out there? Who says landofthelegend is the best source for information on that game? You? You're clearly biased And what is with you accusing anyone who calls you out for your linkspamming of having "problems" and saying they don't want an accurate article. That's incredibly rude (a recurring problem for you), not to mention illogical and childish. — Ian Moody (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all 'mr. vandalism', I split this to make it better readeable. We can merge it once it's done with, but having too much level differences makes it impossible to read.
As to your talk-page, you inserted that comment after my reply, so don't go and cry.
About the links, you keep twisting and turning, refusing to answer: find me another link with the information if you're so obsessed, but don't delete information.
I think you'll find all other issues commented in above topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyrule (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
Better readable!? You can't even see which comments I'm replying to now! As to level difference, it was only indented 3 times. Anyway enough of that.
"As to your talk-page, you inserted that comment after my reply, so don't go and cry." Are you being deliberatly dense? Read the timestamps. Here I'll help: my reply at 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC), your reply at 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 41 minutes later. Stop spouting nonsense.
"About the links, you keep twisting and turning, refusing to answer: find me another link with the information if you're so obsessed, but don't delete information." What the hell?! Is this that deliberately dense thing again? I've answered, twice now, what is wrong with your incessant insertion of links to your own site. The only one who is "twisting and turning" is yourself. As to finding another link with the information, one of the main problems with your edits is that you replace source links to more reputable gaming news sites to point to your own site, which features the same information. The articles HAD links to information, you just changed the links for your own gain. In fact in one of these cases (Zelda Revolution) where the source at one point pointed to Joystiq (which is a more reliable source than your site), I attempted to stop our revert war by finding the link of the original interview which contained the quote both landofthelegend and joystiq used as the basis for their news reports, and changing it to point to that, only to have you revert it back to point to your site. Frankly, a large portion of your edits are a form of vandalism, and it would be no great loss to wikipedia if you were banned, especially considering your repeated rudeness and incivility and use of a sockpuppet during this dispute. — Ian Moody (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Two give two examples, with that also answering your Joystiq issue:
1. The Joystiq-article did not contain the extra comment of Shigeru Miyamoto. And your linking to the NoE site was senseless. Why would you link to a website people can't visit? That is bollocks.
2. You keep changing the Tingle RPG article to links that contain no information about the extra character. Again it makes no sense.
On which 'facts' do you base that Joystiq is a more reliable site then lotl? I can show you hands full of websites that think differently and even Joystiq has used lotl as a source.
You think you're right because you feel the need to use strong words, but you're just as much a vandal. I was the one seeking to talk and resolve this, you just continued to edit and spam. And anyone care to explain what a sockpuppet is? Hyrule 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. It's a source link to back up a specific statement in the article: that Rev functionality is confirmed for TP. Extra extracts from the interview aren't necessary for that. And when I added the link to the interview I also added the relevant quote directly into the article. You and joystiq used an interview most people can't read as a news source, why can't wikipedia use it as an article source? Also pointing to either landofthelegend or Joystiq is ultimately pointing to the same interview, just with an extra webpage in the way. Joystiq is more authorative because it is a general gaming news site and more likely to post important sourced news, as opposed to fan sites for particular subjects which are more inclined to post any rumours they hear about their particular area of interest. Also after having a quick look at the front page of landofthelegend is makes rather arrogant claims about being the "biggest Legend of Zelda site of the world", and uses rather poor English (to the point of nearing illegibility) in some of the news posts. Hardly creating a shinging image of reliability and impartiality.
  2. In Tingle I merely removed the link to your site in the external section, I left the link used as a source for the Oge news. Though it isn't really a great source as it doesn't say where it got the information from, Oge could be made up for all we know.
Sockpuppet. — Ian Moody (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the discussion is just too harsh. Remember, assume good faith. Let's see the points here:
  • Hyrule puts links to a fan site.
  • Ian Moody removes them.
The third guideline at Wikipedia state that, occassionally:

Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

So, one major fansite, or a web directory. Now, the question is whether Hyrule is breaking the third and/or ninth guidelines.
Remember, if at all, we are adding the link as an external link, not as a reference, since LotL is not quoting references for the information it is listing there. I am also interested to know, in few words, why Ian Moody deletes the link. -- ReyBrujo 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I share your interest for his motivation to delete the link.
The example that Shigeru Miyamoto gives is not mentioned on the Joystiq page, nor on the NoE page.
You can call it arrogant if you will. I don't believe that stating facts to give people an impression of where they are, is to be much of an issue though.
It's surely good to have the awesome amount of information that IGN provides in the external links then. Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you go and e-mail IGN what their sources are, I mean, they could just be making up news.
As I've mentioned often times before: provide another link with the same information and you won't hear a thing out of me. Besides the note that you're pathetic to go change all the links now because of some personal problem someone could have. I add/edit the information and provide a link to where I know it can be found. Or can't I help wikipedia because I am a webmaster? Do I have to be another cocky webmaster who thinks he's too good to do anything 'lower'?
I think a good point here is: what are the external links for to start with?
I'd like to have your (ReyBrujo) opinion on the matter discussed in 'external links again', about the definition of a fansite. Hyrule 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hyrule, your web site is well designed, but the problem is as Moody stated above - others will expect to be put on the external links along with your website. Additionally, the fact that most of your activity on Wikipedia is linking to your website does not help your position. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I could make a wiki-page for it, so that when people don't yet understand it, they'll get the idea of it. Besides, things are easily editted and looking at the past, this hasn't really been much if any of a problem. Those are things I'm not really worried about.
I link to 'my' site because that's where I know the information can be found and if you so much want to call it, that's my source. If you know another/better place, go ahead, just don't lose any information and/or details. Hyrule 13:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that your purpose on Wikipedia has been more or less to link to your website. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If so you think, you are free to do so. Don't expect me to agree though. Hyrule 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My definition of fansite is rather similar to the definition found in Wikipedia. The guidelines specify that we should link to the most important one. If you want, we can do a research to determine longevity, average hit count, design, sources and whatever you think should be suitable, rank every fansite that is currently listed against that list, and determine which one should go. Or we could search for a good web directory about Zelda that has links to all the current fan sites, and link to that place (that way people would have to insert their fan site in that web directory instead of Wikipedia, effectively solving the external link issue). -- ReyBrujo 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my question then. What is in your eyes the difference between a fansite and a professional outlet?
And what is (to be) the use of external links to start with? For instance, the link to IGN on Tingle RPG is as useless as *insert something useless*. I think it should be there to provide visitors with extra information on the subject, in which case a site listing has little use. Hyrule 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me answer you with your own comment: A professional outlet is a professional place. With this I mean, they are legally recognized as companies (or branches in a bigger company), there is a solid internal hierarchical structure (CEO, CFO, editors, support, etc), the members belong to a company that pays them for their task, and the people working in the site live with the money they earn from working on that site. IGN, Gamespy, Gamespot, Gameindustry, Gamasutra, all these sites fulfill the requirements to be professional sites.
External links are added to give the user alternatives after reading the article in Wikipedia. According to what should be linked, official sites, sites used as reference (these go in the Reference section of the article, though), different point of views of the same article if there is a conflict, sites with information not meant to be included in the article, like reviews, and sites that contain neutral and accurate information. Note that in this case, Wikipedia expects this link to be "upgraded" to a reference, in other words, editors should put useful information from these sites into the article, and once done, make the link a reference and not an external link. Now, LotL is not an official site, does not give different points of view (Zelda articles are rather straightforward), doesn't contain, nor is used as reference (you have added the links to basically full grown articles, meaning nothing from LotL have been taken in order to create the article). That leaves sites with information not meant to be included in the article, like reviews. If you think LotL fulfills this requirement, please indicate it with proofs. If you think I have skipped something and LotL fulfills any of the other points set in the WP:EL guidelines about what to include, please explain which one and why. As you know, I have removed your links from some articles, but left them in others following certain "guidelines" (like not linking three or four times to the site from the same article and putting it in a subsection dedicated to fansites, clearly separating it from the official sites). -- ReyBrujo 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
GameLegend is a company and also LotL itself is legally recognized as a company. The same for Nintendo themselves, who acknowledge us a professional media outlet, as well as the professional conventions as E3, GDC and Leipzig Games Convention.
In that case a lot of external links should be cleaned up. All over the place there are links that add a total of nothingness to the article.
If you wish to have a few examples, take a look at this very article of PH. Key features, items and enemies are extracted from LotL. As for external links, lotl offers the high res trailer for view and download, completely clean. IGN only has a marked high res. version for PAYED members. LotL's trailer analysis is 50 times more detailed then that of IGN.
What I have repeatedly mentioned is in Zelda Revolution the lack of Shigeru Miyamoto's comment on Twilight Princess in the article. Again the link to IGN is useless here.
Again a useless link to IGN on Tingle RPG, where the article is good as completely from my hand. Yes, a lot of finetuning, but the basic from it being more then one sentence is from my hand, extracted from LotL. As with many other things, we are the only ones to care about details, in this case the extra character.
Do you need more examples? Hyrule 05:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LotL issue summary

Here is what we were saying to you. None of us gave up and left the issue unresolved, you merely failed to acknowledge our explanations. There’s no point talking to someone who won’t listen. I am putting this here so that there is a summary of it all for a posterity.

  • LotL, while an amazing and quality site, does not meet the requirements set forth in WP:RS.
    • Because of that, LotL is insufficient as a source without a valid source such as IGN to back it up.
      • It doesn’t matter if LotL’s information is more extensive, because LotL doesn’t have the credibility to back it up. That is not a disparaging remark about the site’s quality, it is simply a statement of its status.
  • Your primary purpose in editing wikipedia has been to promote your site, often at the expense of other, more credible resources.
    • This was originally true, I think you are wrong to deny it. However, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that this is no longer the case, and your edits now are a genuine attempt to improve the quality of articles.
  • Because LotL is a fansite, linking it excessively would open the door for other fansites to demand they be linked.

I would like to quote a few passages from WP:RS:

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source.

Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

The gist of that is that Hyrule.net is only a valid source for information about you or about LotL itself.

Now, the following is stuff that I am saying. I cannot speak for the others, but it is my feeling that they would agree.

  • LotL is problematic as a source because it is your personal website, and therefore it says whatever you want it to say. If we accepted it as a source, you could write in the Twilight Princess article that Link hunts purple elephants for food, and link to a news post on LotL that you created saying the same thing as “proof”. Not that you would, but the fact that you could and there isn’t a full staff of editors, overseers and fact-checkers at GameLegends to stop you means that it’s a conflict of interest.
  • LotL is problematic as a source because it doesn’t cite its sources. Many of the articles are based on things you heard from an unspecified source or saw at E³. As such, using the information in articles violates WP:NOR.

You asked what it would take for me personally to consider LotL more than a fansite, so I will try to explain again, more clearly:

  • It should meet all criteria for a reliable source as set forth in WP:RS.
  • The majority of the staff should do what they do for the site for a living, as their primary profession.
    • That is, it’s fine to have freelancers, but freelance reporters should make a living as reporters, freelance photographers should be professional photographers by trade, etc..
  • The heads of each department and other “big bosses” should have the site as their sole or main occupation and source of income.
    • Meaning you or the other main staff should not have a “day job” other than Hyrule.net.
  • It should be notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia.
    • I’m not saying LotL isn’t, in fact, it probably is. But I can’t make that determination on my own. Perhaps you could test this by creating an article about it and seeing whether it gets deleted. However, even if it is deemed notable, this is only one criterion, it still has to meet the other 3 to be more than a fansite.

Many of your edits fail to provide a source, or only provide LotL. When I ask where LotL got the information, it’s almost always from your personal experience rather than anything published in a credible newspaper or website. You have taken to telling me to leave your unsourced edits alone or “let wikipedia decide”. In the spirit of letting Wikipedia decide, I have a challenge for you: I challenge you to find ten established Wikipedia editors who believe that LotL meets the requirements of WP:RS and is in and of itself an acceptable source for information without support from other sources. Since “established” would otherwise be open to interpretation, I will define it thusly: editors who have been active on Wikipedia( with an account) for at least 6 months, and have an edit count of at least 1,500 edits as of now, 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC), including significant edits and edits in the talk and project namespaces. In other words, people who have enough experience to be familiar with how Wikipedia works. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded with an explanation, which was left unanswered. That is leaving the issue unresolved.
If you would, please answer me these questions:
  • So the fact that I am passionate about my work, that I like to take part in the community, makes LotL an unreliable source? And besides, who says you are not some IGN editor? The fact I am honest about who I am and that I like to actively participate in everything related to Zelda (and future to come games) has nothing to do with quality of GameLegend. (answer the IGN editor question)
  • How often does IGN or Gamespot cite it's sources? When as a media outlet you are the source, It doesn't happen.
  • IGN is apparantly considered a reliable source. Why? Because they have published over a dozen of fake releasedates? Stated numerous untrue facts?
  • Why do you deem yourself more important then Nintendo, who acknowledges GameLegend as a professional media outlet. Why do you deem yourself more knowledgeable then the dozens of media outlets who consider GameLegend a reliable source?
  • How often do you need to be proven wrong? Tell me one untrue fact that LotL has published (there is a team of editors btw, I am not the only one to post news) and weigh it to the numerous ocassion LotL has been correct. Like only recently again with the releasedate of PH.
  • And I'm sorry to say, but your behaviour on regards of the differences issue is laughable. I have shown you the actual video footage where Shigeru Miyamoto answers the question and you are still making a fuzz about it. What do you think you are doing?
I'll ask someone else to make a wikipage about GL then. I'm not going to do that myself, 'rules' you know.
I am sorry, you have a good knowledge of Zelda, but I am not going to sit by and have you spoil these things because you are too hard-headed. I am not responsible for others not doing their work, but that does certainly not mean I'm not doing mine. Hyrule 09:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is spoiling articles, it’s the one adding unverified information. And the fact that you are in charge of LotL with no measures in place that prevent you from writing what you want is problematic, yes. Sorry, but it’s the way things are. More to the point, however, the other concerns about LotL would still apply even if you weren’t affiliated with the site at all.
I say that I am not some IGN editor. I live on the oppposite coast of the United States! Even if I were an IGN employee, IGN has in place a large network of editors, managers, etc., and if I deliberately posted false information, other sites would probably call us on it and, regardless, I would be fired promptly.( As happened with those Newsweek and New York Times guys.) Is there someone who can and would fire you from Hyrule.net? I also notice you ignored my questions about a dedicated staff.
“Reliable” source might be a misnomer, but IGN is definitely more credible that LotL because of its structure, practices, and history. Perhaps WP:RS should be renamed WP:CS. Like I keep trying to tell you: at this point in the site’s life cycle, credibility has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or scope of your information.
How exactly does Nintendo acknowledge GL and LotL as a professional media outlet? Sending press releases? Access to the press site? Invitations to press conferences? Nintendo( and Sony, Micro$oft, and third party game developers.) also often extends those courtesies to Penny Arcade( an entertainment site), Planet GameCube( this is similar to LotL, but is a general site with greater credibility as it has a more extensive and significant history and more notable staff), and GameCube Advanced of Advanced Media Networks( somewhere between PGC and IGN). Also, note that PGC and GCA, both older and more credible than LotL, DO still cite their sources regularly; and when information is not yet available through official channels, PGC, GCA, and IGN will usually include a disclaimer in their articles to the affect that is a rumor or not yet official.
As for the footage, is that Mr. Miyamoto? I thought it might be but I certainly couldn’t tell. Also, the question was not included in the video, and yes, there was a description of some differences, but there was NO STATEMENT that “these are the only changes” or “everything else is the same” or anything to that effect. While I personally tend to think that’s the case, knowing Nintendo, it is improper to state it as fact without a source. In addition, you said that video’s forbidden for publication, so you can’t really cite it as a source. I guess someone could post it somewhere, it would then be available to the public and become an acceptable source. But if Nintendo wonders where it came from, they’d trace back to you, who edited it, and your friend who( if I understand correctly) shot it. And it still would be irrelevant to the claim that those are “the only differences”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm bussy at the moment, I'll keep it with a short question for now.
"Perhaps WP:RS should be renamed WP:CS"
Don't you think there's a reason Wikipedia choose RELIABLE?
Because credible sources are presumed to be reliable. But accurate information doesn’t automatically give your site more professional credibility. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has deemed that to be a reliable source, you must be accredited or your information must be verifiable through an accredited, independent party.. Since this matter is a Video Game issue, you must be an accredited video game developer, industry member or press outlet. Land of the Legend is not accredited - they are not listed in any trade magazine for the industry as an accredited press outlet, a developer, or member of the industry. When I see their name in one of the major video game trade magazines, or published in an official publication besides a blog or pseudo-news site (PlanetGameCube, GameCubeCafe), then they can start stating they are a reliable source. The special circumstances are when there is an EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION or FACT on a site that is VERIFIED through a second or third independent party. If Land of the Legend got an interview with Shigeru Miyamoto, and Nintendo or IGN confirmed it or published it, then Land o the Legend's interview becomes a RELIABLE source. Because The information generally posted by Land of the Legend comes from OTHER SOURCES, or is something not verified by other sources, in the eyes of a site like this, their information to an average person is unreliable. We all know LotL is a great site and very reputable, but this page is not meant for ONLY ZELDA FANS in the ZELDA COMMUNITY. This page is beyond that niche, and you need to realize that. An Administrator of this site has been called to this issue should hopefully resolve it within a reasonable time frame. But from past incidents with other people over stuff like this, what I say has been the general ruling of informational and educational authorities. --TSA 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what 'major video game trade magazines' are you talking about? Of course, after answering that, it should be no problem to show where IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer or MobyGames(!) are published.
Besides that, you are forgetting one very important thing about reliability. Reliability can not be bought, but is to be earned. As long as IGN is considered a reliable source, when even at the moment of speaking they are talking bullshit about the Zelda games, sources that are by many other deemed to be reliable, can in no way not be considered reliable.
The talk about credibility is a wrongful use of two therms. First of all, WP:RS states: Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. Besides that, reliability = credibility:

credible -> authentic or convincing
authentic -> Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief.
reliance -> reliability Hyrule 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fine then. But my site then, should be in the references since we were the first to report much of the info in this article that came from Nintendo Power, and we provided the scans to prove the information was real. And whoever keeps editing links back and forth - the references can just be made a div class with only access to it by certain people. --TSA 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Moody vandalism

Yes, you are vandalising. Instead of answering the discussion, you just continue your revert war, with the pathetic excuse of sockpuppets or whatever. I've been following this discussion for a while now and this is just a joke. Ever thought about the posibility that not everyone has a sick hate against that site like you do? Please stop this vandalism or I will report you to wikipedia. 24.132.153.183 18:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Phantom Hourglass pictures

There are some new Phantom Hourglass pics here:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/e3_2006/ds/04_zelda/ss01.html

As they are 'proper' screenshots instead of stills from a relatively low quality movie file, maybe it would be an idea to replace the existing pics with these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaunt (talk • contribs) .


[edit] Chasers/Darknuts edits

Ok guys. Stop the edit war, and get together. Once and for all : in the multiplayer mode, are the other three characters called Darknuts or Chasers ? It's been changing from one to another, once too many in my opinion. I personally don't mind them being called one or the other, but not one then the other then the first again... SmegEd 20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a little closer look, and they're two different enemies actually. The chasers appear in the normal game, while the Darknuts are -so far- only seen in the multiplayer mode.[3]
Funny. I would have said the opposite. So we'll call them Darknuts ? Everyone ok with that ? SmegEd 09:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The Wind Waker had several Darknut variations, both in colour and adornment, this is the same. — Ian Moody (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The Chaser has a completely different appearance, while the multiplayer enemy is clearly the same as we've seen the Darknut in The Minish Cap. Hyrule 14:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If you say so. I'll leave a comment in the page asking people not to change the name back to Chaser again. SmegEd 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually Nintendo Power had an article on this game that said in multiplayer one person is link and the other is 3 chasers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.92.20 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Why is Land of the Legend referenced?

Why is there URL continually being re-added? All information on this site is now on Nintendo.com or other official sites. Care to explain what it specifically is responsible for that no official site had? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TSA (talk • contribs) .

There was a discussion about that somewhere, but I can't remember where. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of this info is from Nintendo Power, The Game Developer's Conference Presentation, Electronic Gaming Monthly's E3 coverage issue and from the Press Packet for Phantom Hourglass given out at E3. Land of the Legend thinks the "control" information is exclusively from them, which is not true. I've noticed in several articles they keep putting their article above official sources. A lot of Wiki and Zelda members are complaining now, so it may have to be referred to a Wiki admin to begin locking out that site's URLs because of abuse of this site's editing. It's nothing personal, we just don't want fan sites being used as official sources when official sources exist. They're not accredited - that's what I mean by official. --TSA 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on landofthelegend.net links in Zelda articles

Prior discussion:

  1. User talk:Ian Moody#Landofthelegend.net
  2. Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass#External links again
  3. Talk:Mogitate Tingle no Barairo Rupee Land#Motion to lock this article from user Hyrule
  4. Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess#Latest edits

Related prior discussion:

22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The discussions speak for themselves, but for me it comes down to a few points.
  1. As discussed, the main problem with citing one's own personal Web site is the potential for abuse. There is no reputation, no fact-checking, no editorial board, just the Web site owner citing himself. I would turn the other cheek, if it weren't for the fact that examples of such abuse have occurred with respect to LotL, specifically in the Zelda Revolution and Zelda Wii issues. Rumors were fabricated on the LotL, then listed as fact in the article with LotL as the citation. Both of those articles as well as the information in the main article had to be deleted.
  2. The user adding the links has sometimes been informative and helpful, but more often has been vulgar and combative.
  3. On more than one occassion it appears that the user adding the links has used sockpuppets in order to add supporting discussion or to get around 3RR violations. I can't really prove this, but the anonymous IP posts that show up supporting this user read suspiciously, and I'm not the only one catching it.

I realize the last two are more about the user than the Web site, but in practicality it is all the same issue.

The Yar 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this uncivil user is trying to link to his own website, with a few red herrings (e.g. [4], when the Nintendo site already says "2 player simultaneous"). If it is a continuing problem, consider filing a User RfC. Most of his edits seem to be related to the website, with a few speculative game mentions thrown in. A website could be an okay source if it were active, widely known and such, but this one looks like it could be just him and maybe some friends, despite the assertion that it has grown since May 2005 to be "the number one source of Zelda information around the world". —Centrx→talk • 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend of Zelda Four Swords DS was NEVER planned

If you look at this article , you will see this stated:

GI: Will there be any connectivity with the Nintendo DS?

Aonuma: No there won’t be any connectivity with the DS. We do have another Zelda game up and running on the DS, but unfortunately, because our goal is to get this one done by the end of the year we can’t focus too much attention on that one.

GI: Is that Four Swords DS?

Aonuma: No, it’s not Four Swords. Actually, the interview that I was talking about a DS Zelda and Four Swords, I was explaining that with Four Swords we worked with two screens, and because of the experience we had with working with two screens we could easily adapt a system like that with the DS and do different things with it. But I never said that we were actually developing Four Swords for the DS.

In light of this, I believe the Four Swords DS article belongs in the development section of Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass Judgesurreal777 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the correct link to the article: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200505/N05.0525.1742.45225.htm Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looks familiar...

In the trailer, near the end, there is a creature that is on a tornado. Is that Vaati? It is very similar. Tentacles, blue/white color scheme, swirly symbol, though it does not have an eye. Einstein runner 18:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's called an Octorok ;-) JackSparrow Ninja 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retailers and their releasedates

It's something that have been ofted said, yet apparantly not here yet, so I'll restate it.

Releasedates or ESRB ratings by retailers are never reliable. They are known to randomly generate a releasedate to get customers to reserve a copy of the game at their store.

Just remember it. JackSparrow Ninja 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, but what is the source of Land of the Legend's claim that the game has been delayed? It obviously has been, but the article there appears to be just drawing the conclusion from nowhere without any official source referenced.
Ask them JackSparrow Ninja 17:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If they don't openly cite their sources and I have to ask them, they don't seem like a good direct source to cite. But since the link's been reverted, I guess it doesn't matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.114.186 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Do you ask IGN for their sources? JackSparrow Ninja 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
...Must I denote that with a response?
Land of the Legend lacks verifiability. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If we cannot verify that LotL is a good source for Wikipedia, it cannot be used and shall not be used. End of discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do denote that with a response. I don't see any verifiability at IGN, and despite the countless of incorrect information that has come from them, they are considered verifiable. A source that so far has always been correct, seems verifiable enough for me then. JackSparrow Ninja 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I mean, even though IGN is consistently used as a source, that IGN is one of the biggest gaming sites that has ever existed, that IGN is more well-known than most other gaming sites, doesn't matter. LandoftheLegend rox!
Verifiability, not truth. IGN is not trusted on every single thing without question despite being verifiable, but there's only one extreme. If a site is verifiable, it can be used - which doesn't mean it ALWAYS should be used when it can be reasonably assumed that they are not correct, such as when they listed Magical Starsign as being released December 31, 9999. However, an unverifiable site is not to be used under any circumstances. Read up on what Wikipedia is not. LandoftheLegend does not meet the criteria for usage as a source. There is no dispute. The idea that LotL is even near the verifiability of IGN on their best day is one of the most absurd ideas I've heard all day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
However, an unverifiable site is not to be used under any circumstances.
You fail to explain IGN's verifiability.
The wWin link doesn't really make sense, but I know the sources page.
What is most important, as should be obvious, is that reliability is more important then status/size. IGN's reliability is low, they are the source of a dozen too many rumours and not (just) on obvious topics.
What matters is, in the time I know that website lotl has proven to be reliable, IGN has not. If you can prove me wrong in both cases and I'll give you a cookie. For now, I'll eat them myselves. JackSparrow Ninja 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So basically, being a fan site is so strong, but being the most well-known video game website around along with GameFAQs, 1UP and GameSpot is nothing. I guess being verifiable doesn't make a site verifiable, huh? I can verify that IGN is well-known and highly popular. You can talk about IGN being a bad site until your face gets blue, but policy is more important than your opinion. Verifiability, not truth. IGN is consistently used as a source on Wikipedia, and has never been successfully removed as a source around Wikipedia. IGN gives more than 22,000,000 results on Google, and is in the top 200 web sites on Alexa - ALL web sites, as in among the likes of Google, Amazon.com, eBay, and Yours Truly (Wikipedia). You do not seem to understand that the rule of verifiability being more important than the source's truthfulness MUST be followed. If you do not wish to acknowledge the rules you are required to know and follow as a Wikipedian, then you should not be on Wikipedia. IGN is verifiable, and by that fact, they are to be used. At no point have you shown that Land of the Legend is verifiable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess being verifiable doesn't make a site verifiable
No, indeed it does not. I am not a human because I am a human. I am a human because my DNA is human-ish.
And how can verifiability not be about truth? What do you want to verify then? JackSparrow Ninja 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How verifiable a site is is determined by how well-known a site is. VGCharts was struck down as a source because it was not verifiable, not because it was untruthful. And if you don't like that IGN is held as a verifiable source, take it up with WP:CVG and on the Main Page. You are not in any position to decide that a source which has been deemed reliable by more or less the entire CVG community is not reliable because you disagree with the idea. If a site is verifiable, it is verifiable. And by that fact, it is a good source.
IGN = Verifiable.
Land of the Legend = Not.
Fun fact: Policy (AKA - that thing that you are told you HAVE to follow unconditionally) says that being verifiable is most important, and being unverifiable immediately cancels it out. We can verify how well-known IGN is and how well-trusted it is. It is constantly used as a source for news on web sites, in magazines, and on Wikipedia. It is trusted as accurate. It is well-known. It is used as a source. Logically, it is verifiable. You cannot prove otherwise. Doing so would mean to claim that Google results and Alexa results are useless, or would require you to find some way around one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. Good luck. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
JackSparrow_Ninja, you have absoluely no fricking clue about the gaming industry and North American retailers. You're Dutch, you don't live in North America, and you don't work for the gaming industry or retailers here. I work for a gaming company, I know exactly how it works, and one of our employees is a former district manager of North American gaming retailer GameStop/EBGames. How it works is a company dictates to the retailers when their product will be for sale. All updates come from THE GAME COMPANIES! They are sent to management offices for EB/GameStop in Grapevine, Texas (near DFW Airport, I used to live there), and each week they send updated "lists" to all stores in North America. If you see a "BS" date, it is from the COMPANY giving a timetable. For example, the March 1 date on EB/Gamestop for Phantom Hourglass was a date given to them by Nintendo of America, Inc to show the game will now come out in Q4 2006, as previously announced. GameStop/EB can't put a game as "TBA" in their inventory or their billing system will not accept any orders. Since Phantom Hourglass has received a healthy amount of pre-orders, they wouldn't cancel them all. So, NOA gave them a new target. It is obvious that target is wrong because NOA's press site has release dates going up until the end of March 2007. I don't know where the hell Land of the Legend gets its info from, but I spoke with NCC and a game tester for Phantom Hourglass at NOA at San Diego Comic Con in July 2006, and they both told me there was no way Phantom Hourglass would be out in 2006, and that their latest updates from management said Q1 2007 was the target date. Makes sense now, that in Fall 2006 when Phantom Hourglass was shifted to Q1 2007, retailers update with March 1, 2007, doesn't it? Again, both you and Land of the Legend have no fricking clue how it works here. If you'd like to report on the European release, be my guest, but all the major European publication shifted Phantom Hourglass to 2007 based on NORTH AMERICAN RETAILERS AND NOA'S PRESS SITE. Want to know how up-to-date NOE's press is? Their press room says the release date for Phantom Hourglass is 11-30-1999 and the game description is Twilight Princess'. There's reliability for you. NOE's site says TBD, too. This ends this debate. --TSA 21:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Legend_of_Zelda%7E_Phantom_Hourglass_5f05.html"