User talk:Badlydrawnjeff/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was previously considered for deletion. An archived record of the discussion can be found here. |
|
This article was previously considered for deletion for a second time. An archived record of the discussion can be found here. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga (3rd nomination) - result was delete. But userfying to give chance for concerns to be met.--Docg 19:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Deletion
This article seriously needs to be deleted. That's all there's to it. Just delete it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seldane (talk • contribs).
- Been there, done that, community consensus is to keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Its informative, it should be in the games section, where else could you find info on this?69.29.63.159
[edit] Formatting
I'm not good with Wiki formatting, but could somebody touch up what I wrote up for this. Remember, do not revert back to the eBay stuff. Triforce Saga was the development name for Oracles from 1998-1999. That info needs to be left up, or else this article should be deleted (as it is a bit redundant and it all can be found in the two Oracle articles). --TSA 00:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, regardless, you certainly probably shouldn't have removed the links to the information of the eBay cart. I have no problem with this being as accurate as possible, but you seem to have decided to transform this into something it isn't, and these "do not revert back" commands without any discussion is a little bizarre. In other words, your information should be in an article for "the Mysterious Tree" and not here, since you're talking about something else entirely. --badlydrawnjeff 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I just went to look at the IGN links, they're subscription, and I have no way of verifying it to see what we're talking about. --badlydrawnjeff 02:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
My bad about IGN Insider...I can copy/paste what is important:
"They didn't know it back in 1987, but Zelda 2 was going to be last Zelda game for the Famicom system. Although Sega's Master System posed no threat to the NES dominance in the '80s, Nintendo knew that it had to come up with something new to continue its console gaming reign in the future. With both NEC and Sega nipping at its heels, Nintendo was busy cooking up the Famicom's successor, a powerful console that it claimed would redefine gaming. Not just a puny little Famicom -- a Super Famicom. Whatever concepts were thrown around for a third NES Zelda game, they were quietly converted into an even bigger project for the Super Famicom: a full-fledged sequel to the original Legend of Zelda called The Legend of Zelda: Kamigami no Triforce (The Triforce of the Gods)." - Peer Schneider
The eBay auction is down anyway, so the URL is pointless. The URL to Radeoto (spelling?), Joystiq and the Nintendojo article where Silicon Knights commented on the auction should be linked to.
Here are all the URLs:
eBay Auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/Nintendo-Zelda-III-3-Rare-NES-Prototype-NR-1990_W0QQitemZ8227288756QQcategoryZ62053QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Joystiq Article: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000357064460/
Pic of Cart: http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000050302.JPG?0.3213011481204663
Nintendojo Article: http://www.nintendojo.com/infocus/view_item.php?1130521213
Hope those helped. --TSA 06:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it does. Those merely repeat what I had that you decided to replace with your information. --badlydrawnjeff 17:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The best I can give for you on the NOA Mike bit is his quote from Nsider Chat at Nintendo.com, but I think you want a linkable source. When I get time, I'll dig through the old ZHQ website (run by Niels Hooft) and find our news updates which had information on the Triforce Saga, and I'll look back through Nintendo Power.
However, in all honesty, I think this article should be deleted, now that the Zelda III thing was proven by just about everyone to be a hoax. The relevant info here should be moved to the Oracles articles. --TSA 17:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just because it possibly (probably?) was a hoax doesn't automatically mean deletion. We still have testimony of a cart existing prior to the eBay thing in a link you deleted, and it created a bit of an internet phenomenon as it went along. The part you unilaterally deleted reflected all of this. I'll be out of town for a couple days regardless, so, hopefully, you'll find something we can use, but you seem hellbent on trying to attach "relevant" information to it that actually has nothing to do with what this was originally about. And, damn it, this was JUST ON AfD. What does putting it back up there accomplish again? --badlydrawnjeff 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why wasn't this article merged or deleted?
The relevant information is already discussed in the Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages pages. Zelda III cart hoax information is nothing more than the creator of the hoax trying to prolong his five minutes of fame. It contributes no useful information to the Zelda series or for the advancement of knowledge for anything related to Zelda III. It's pretty much just a big "advertisement" page. TSA 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the page should be deleted. I mean, I'm trying to believe this Joystiq guy, but he's making it hard to. If the only screenshot is the unfinished title screen, it is very possible that this page was created to raise hopes of a new gba game, apparently redisovered. If the owner of this game can provide one other clear screenshot, I, and possibly many others, would believe him.
[edit] Old v. New
Okay. Here's the situation as I see it:
- The current article appears to suggest that the "Zelda III" is the "Fruit of the Mysterious Tree," and holds info already listed in other articles.
- The current article replaced a verified phenomenon that may or may not have been a hoax.
My personal opinion is that the text in this article, as it stands, be placed in the "Fruit of the Mysterious Tree" article, and that the old text is restored and cleaned up. That way, we have a log of the bizarre cartridge found in October, the claims made about the unfinished game, and the surrounding finger-pointing about the sale.
Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- As I said in my User Talk page about this; 1) The info I added is already in the Oracles pages, so anything extra from my input should be added to Oracles. 2) Any info from the original article on this hoax should be moved to A Link to the Past, and it should merely be a brief paragraph, and one external link to the Joystiq article. --TSA 18:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, so if the info is in the oracles page, why did you replace an entire block of text that survived the AfD process so that you could duplicate information? I disagree that it should be a "brief paragraph," as there's plenty of information and, as you mentioned in your talk page, it appears to still be ongoing, with the possible SK suit and NOA's involvement. It would be more helpful if you added to what was here as opposed to trying to wholesale remove the parts you think don't belong. --badlydrawnjeff 18:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was under the impression Wikipedia is striving to provide factual information as a reference site. Hence, I added to the existing information about the working development title of the Oracle games, which was a trilogy of games based on each piece of the Triforce. I was summoned here from the Legend of Zelda article to add some more info this this. When I saw the Zelda III NES game info, I overrided that with up-to-date info which summed up the hoax. Upon further review, I believe what I added to the top should go to Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, and what I re-wrote on the bottom should go to A Link to the Past. I do not want the info deleted, I would just like them filed into the appropriate areas. This information as a stand-alone article is not how this information should be accessed.--TSA 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and what I had was factual, sourced information regarding the alleged cart, including what people claimed was in the cart as well as factual, sourced information regarding the emergence of the eBay cart. You, on the other hand, have replaced all factual, sourced information with your probably factual, but unsourced and inappropriate information about an entirely different thing. This page, IMO, should be about the rumored 3rd Zelda game that became LttP and Awakening, and the controversy around the alleged eBay cart, and your information sent to your other game. If you can come up with a legitimate reason why it should be your way, please, by all means, present it. --badlydrawnjeff 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I put back up everything relevant to the Zelda III Beta Cart that should be up. I removed the other stuff I added, this article is solely about the hoax now. I seriously doubt anything else from my newest edit needs to be changed, but I could have missed something. I hope you believe the newest revision is fair and adheres to the standards of Wikipedia.--TSA 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff 23:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This game needs to be removed from the official series list.
The stub at the bottom of each game page has this article. Nintendo of America, Inc staff have confirmed that this game was nothing but a hoax and until the creator of this "hoax" can provide more info, this should also be considered for deletion again.
Additionally, none of the info in this article relates to the unlreased Zelda III for NES, which this article is not about. This is about a fan-made hoax, not a real game.
[edit] AfD Result Notice
This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 27 June 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Update
The article has yet to be updated. I don't know what's the proper template to use. --FlareNUKE 19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Updated concerning what? Also, what factual accuracy are you disputing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup tag
Article could stand a complete rewrite to eliminate usourced and ambiguous language. For example: "It is believed that the game, if it truly existed at its unfinished state, was abandoned and many of the new features created for The Triforce Saga and not abandoned were instead ported.." Believed by who? Much of the article is written like this. It needs to be pared down to what is actually verifiable and rewritten in less ambiguous terms.--Isotope23 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much, all of what's here is sourced, simply not with <ref> tags. I'll clean that up as soon as I have an opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough... feel free to remove the tag when you are done.--Isotope23 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proven hoax?
At the top it says "It was later proven to be a hoax." Near the bottom it says "Ultimately, there is no decisive proof one way or the other, but there is much circumstantial evidence against the validity of this claim." I feel more comfortable with the first one since it has a reference but we can't have both. --WikiSlasher 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga
Third nomination. This is a blantant vanity article and if it isn't deleted, at the very least it should be merged to the Zelda series article. Jonny2x4 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
