Talk:The Legend of Zelda (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Legend of Zelda (series) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Good article The Legend of Zelda (series) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star The Legend of Zelda (series) is the main article in the "The Legend of Zelda titles" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts. It has been rated Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Left Handed Link

The article mentions that Link is left handed in every game except the Wii version of Twilight Princess... However, in the original Legend of Zelda for the NES, and Zelda 2, he was ambidextrous (he always keeps his shield pointed at Death Mountain). He was also right handed in the cartoon (which isn't exactly canon, but it was endorsed by Nintendo).

Also, in the booklet for the original NES Zelda, there was artwork of Link being right handed - Example here.

So it looks like Link was righty in the very first Legend of Zelda, but then became a lefty thereafter.

He also, apparently, used to have brown hair, instead of blonde (not counting his off-day in Link to the Past where he had pink hair).

Don't know if that's worth changing in the article, but something to think about. --BlueHyuu (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the original Zelda, if Link is facing north, south, or west, the sword is in his left hand, and the shield is in his right hand. If he is facing east, the sword is in his right hand with the shield in his right, but only because the east facing sprite is a mirror image of the west due to the technical limitations of the NES. Similary, his hair color is the same as his brown clothing because of the limited color palette. Technical limiations are the same reason why Mario has a hat, moustache, and overalls. Except Mario kept these distinguishing features while Link's changed as the technology advanced. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Link is ambidextrous, if anything, in the first game... both in game and in the manual, he wields his sword and shield in either hand. In every game following, however, Link is explicitly left-handed (barring TP being reversed), either by the game's manual description or in-game visuals. DajoKatti (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why he is depicted as right-handed at all in the manual. Do they show it more than once? --Russoc4 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
He's been right-handed in 3 manuals that I've seen, I think. (Legend of Zelda, Adventure of Link, and Link's Awakening). Those times, he also had brown hair. This might play into the theory that there are simply several Links throughout the timeline, and there were a couple of Links that were right-handed, and possibly even with brown hair. Also, in an old Nintendo comic book, based on Link to the Past, Link switched hands a couple of times (whether artist error or not, I don't know). It could be likely overall that Link is primarily ambidextrous, but simply prefers to use his left hand for swinging his sword (For example: I, personally, am ambidextrous, but I still prefer writing and throwing with my right hand, while I bat lefty style). It's probably all just the quirks of the inconsistency of time, but still interesting nevertheless. Also, if I recall, in Ocarina of Time, he holds the Biggoron's sword with a righty style (right hand lower than left hand, using the right for power, left for guidance). Could just be an oversight there, though, since he is obviously left-handed otherwise in that game. --BlueHyuu (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
He's most definetely left-handed in the Link's Adventure manual. It even contains the line "Then with a magical sword in his left hand and a magical shield in his right" to indicate he's left-handed. DajoKatti (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
BlueHyuu, you said "right hand lower than left hand, using the right for power, left for guidance". I believe that is a left handed stance. I bat right handed, which uses the opposite technique: right on top of left. Indeed, batting uses your off-hand to provide power and guitar playing uses your off-hand to provide accurate fretting. Go figure.
But back to the article, maybe we can say "Link is most often portrayed as a left-handed swordsman, however, a key exception is in Twilight Princesss....and so on" Something along those lines. Any thoughts? --Russoc4 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone has realized this but in Twilight Princess on gamecube he is left handed, on the wii version the entire game was mirrored to make him right handed for right handed players since the wii mote users are mostly right handers--RemusLupo (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instruments article merger here

Resolved.

The article can mostly be deleted, but it has a few excellent references that deal with music and audio within the Zelda series that can fill a needed audio section for this article. Helps get rid of a very weak article, and boosts this one for FA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, articles are not meant to be all inclusive video game guides. There might be too many details on the instruments to be included in this article. If perhaps they are made more general and brought into the scope of the Zelda series. Nothing more than a paragraph. Notice that we don't have here any discussion on specific items, places, characters, etc featured in the games. --Russoc4 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding information on the music and audio of the game is not gameguide material. And as I said in my last comment, most of it will have to be cut. And by the way, the things you mentioned should probably have a mention in the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that maybe the general stuff should be merged here, but game-specific, such as what instruments were used in the original LoZ, either is discarded or merged with articles specific to that game. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Merged all relevant content; that article didn't have much content, so we will definitely need more for FA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting for more discussion, as I wasn't sure that a consensus had been reached. However, now makes as much sense as any, and I'll get to work finishing the entry here. - Bilby (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles I wouldn't mind seeing at a minimum of GA, for the FTC...

I'll help out here and there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATES:

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in Hyrule, Master Sword, Triforce

My reasoning is this; this article should cover these things as they are crucial recurring objects and places from the game series. The articles by themselves are unreferenced, and do not have enough notability on their own to need a whole article, whereas they can be treated in full here, so we have one featured article and not have 3 permanent stubs. It is similar to what was done with Mana (series), where as you can see, Flammie, the Mana Tree and Sword, and the Rabites are all covered fully and didn't need their own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do Master Sword, you should also do the Four Sword and possibly Phantom Sword. It would probably best work to have it as a "Sacred Weapons" or some such section, since as that, at least, it has appeared in every game. Or just "Sacred Items", and include some of the instruments that were removed from the music article - not all of them, just the plot-important ones like the Ocarina and Waker, and Harp of Ages.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hyrule is far, far, far more significant than Flammie, the Mana Tree, Sword, and Rabites combined. It's been the location of nine different games, and is mentioned in every Zelda game ever made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
....and yet it has sparse referencing at best since it was created. Like I said, I want to merge it not delete it, as there is no evidence it could stand on its own in terms of reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, does this mean you'd support a merger of the other two? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge the Master Sword and the Triforce since they only offer plot and in-universe mythology. I am neutral (leaning to don't-merge) on Hyrule because even when trimmed, it would still seem pretty long I guess. – sgeureka t•c 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't merge any. The articles are long enough to cause the main LoZ article to exceed WP:SUMMARY limits. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The information that would be included would be greatly trimmed down, and the this article itself could do with a good amount of copyediting and trimming, so that wouldn't be a problem. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I found it to be quite detailed. The summary can be made in another page, but that does not require cropping the subpages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)
I have no idea what you just said, please explain. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The amount of prose in the Triforce, Hyrule and Master Sword pages is about right. A summary of those in the LoZ series article, in needed, does not necessarily mean that the other three pages need to be trimmed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea was that these three or these two articles don't have enough notability or references to become Good Articles or Featured Articles on their own. So, I thought, best to merge them in here where they would bolster this article and eliminate 3 stubby articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I read that, and I don't agree, particularly with the notability part. I still don't see how improving this article requires the other three articles to be "eliminated" - you can always write the same amount of prose, and use {{main}} or {{further}}. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember anyone saying we are building and defending stubby articles that wont improve because the lack notability and thus cant improve. We are trying to build featured articles, and for articles that don't have enough notability, merger and deletion are the options, not eternal life. Eliminating stubs that won't improve is highly desirable, especially as it will help the process of Featuring the Zelda topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that the other articles can't improve? IMHO, they have great potential, they just need somebody to make the effort. Just because nobody here has the time/energy/resources doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't see how merging those articles could help this one. That is why I oppose the merge. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of trimming and rewrite at User:KrytenKoro/Universe of The Legend of Zelda series, for the Triforce bit. It still needs reffing, but I tried to trim and summarize as much as possible. I guess we've given up on having a separate universe article, then.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If, as Link to the Past pointed out, Hyrule is not mergable to the main article, perhaps these three could go into a Universe of article for the whole series; then we'd have on Universe of article and we can put some effort into that and see how it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I generally don't edit videogame articles, but I have Featured Topic experience with TV articles. Having said that, I don't see any GA/FA potential whatsoever in the Master Sword and Triforce articles, no matter how much effort someone (wants to) put in there. Thus merging is only alternate option to deletion if a Featured Topic is the desired goal in the long run, as should be for a quality encyclopedia. (I am still only "neutral" about the Hyrule merge here, even if this makes me a hypocrit). – sgeureka t•c 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that's why I at one point suggested merging the two smaller onces and then then trying to improve Hyrule and seeing how notable it is later if people feel there really is a question. I still think merging Triforce and Master Sword is a good idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well how about merging in Triforce and Master Sword but leaving Hyrule on its own? That seems to have consensus. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean, we should leave the articles alone and let it be like it is. If this page gets to much content, it can be hard to find what you're looking for. Eg: You search on Hyrule, and gets redirected here. All you wanted to see was "Hyrule" not The Legend of Zelda (series) and have to look trough the whole page for just that part. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I said we wont merge Hyrule but the other two, and in a very trimmed down form. Also, this article will need a lot of trimming and copyediting, so that won't be an issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to notify you, I said "For example" Hyrule. I didn't direct point out Hyrule to be not merged. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably not going to get too active in the whole merger debate, but I just want to throw in my two cents that I think merging the Hyrule article is a very bad idea. I'm not particularly fond of merging the Master Sword either, since there are many sword based wikipedia article and the Master Sword is probably more notable (or at least better known to the general public) than the majority of them. Between the games, their manuals and player's guides, the cartoon, the Valiant comics, the AlttP graphic novel and various interviews there's clearly enough information that can be sourced to improve the quality of these articles, its merely a question fo whether someone wants to put in the effort of doing so.
S. Luke 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should suggest it, but why not merge Triforce and Master Sword to Hyrule? After all, almost every time the Master Sword or Triforce is seen, it's in Hyrule. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Triforce is a significant thing and should have an article of its own. -2008-05-02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.248.22 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging these articles would make one article that is far too long. People get overwelmed when presented with too much information at once. Merging would be a rather foolish mistake. The consensus seems to be against merging. Should the merge templates be removed? -- Mjr162006 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the information would be greatly trimmed down, but the question has become whether Master Sword and Triforce should be merged to the Hyrule article, which I support, and I wanted to know what others thought. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If it was merged to Hyrule, I think we would basically be creating the start of the "Universe of" article, so why not just get started on that now? I have the basics up for the Triforce part in my sandbox. But I don't think it either should be merged to Hyrule alone, because one is only once or twice located in Hyrule, and the other has appeared outside of it as well.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the relationship between Master sword and Triforce is never clearly stated or canonized in the series. It would be strange and confusing if we only merge master sword with triforce. It is reasonable to have an article which covers important artifacts in Zelda series, but not the one with only master sword and triforce. Also, although the current master sword article lacks enough references, the description and comparison about the sword in different Zelda games is valuable to my point of view. At least, I couldn't find other similar comparison on the web, and I believe the description can be verified. hsiao06 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
....actually, the specific purpose of the Master Sword was to be used against any evildoer who took the Triforce, but that's not what I was saying anyway. If you read what I said, I was saying that if Triforce, Hyrule, and the Master Sword are merged, the other nations need to be merged as well, because the two relics have no special link to Hyrule alone - the only real justification for the merge would be a "Universe of" article, containing all major elements of the series, like Koholint, Termina, and the Great Sea.
Also, you can find much better descriptions, as always, on the zelda wiki. There's two of them, even.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dudes i may not be the sharpest 14 year old but i say that they should merge it.

                      Boo YEAH 
                        Erik Poi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.120.253 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Enough of the minimalist stuff. Don't do it. --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
...you do realize that without this "minimalist stuff", the articles will be outright deleted, right? And that we're not really even deleting any info, just putting it in one place? Bloody hell, I'm so incredibly tired of people who just shoot their mouth off about maintenance being "deletionism" without even listening to an of the discussion.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Film

IGN relesed conformation on a Zelda fim. {http://movies.ign.com/articles/863/863492p1.html

Joystiq has stated it is an April Fools joke. [1]
It's probably best to wait until we get more confirmation on whether this is a joke or not before adding it in to the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC))
If it is real, it is hilariously bad. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It does look bad, but I would still see it if it's real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It probably is a joke. Why would they release the trailer on April Fools Day. The actor looks nothing like Link
Why would they take that much time to make that if it was a fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

lol yeah it looks terribleS02178 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)S02178

This trailer is older than today, however, as I've seen plenty of gifs from weeks ago. Also, there is another Zelda independent film currently(?) in production called The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time that isn't even mentioned here. 72.223.126.196 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While I can understand the enthusiasm that can surround the possibility of such a popular video game series being adapted into a movie, we can't overlook the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please provide a reliable source for any content regarding the trailer. If you do not have a source, then please do not add in content. Until then, it's best to wait a few days to see what news will spring up so accurate information can be added. In short, there is no rush to add the content. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

IGN says it was an april fools joke. that movie would fail terribly both in reviews and box office if it was real. 69.113.225.164 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look more into Hero of Time and see if it's really coming out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Word is that The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time is currently in production http://www.legendofzeldaseries.com/main.php?page=fanmovie.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The April 1 movie trailer, even though it was a prank, deserves mention in the article. Tons of people got taken in by it, regardless of whether there is an indie movie in development. And, FWIW, the trailer for the real movie looks much worse than IGN's prank one. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I could this as an April Fools joke in the article.--151.201.31.145 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda Manga Localized by Viz?

Two listings on AAA Anime seem to suggest that some Zelda manga will be coming to North America. One on 10/7/2008 and the other on 12/2/2008. There appears to be few details, but that site has always been reliable in the past. I have yet to find any other sources. If I find anything else I will edit this post Ryne11 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legend of Zelda Film

I apologise in advance if there's already a section on this but I can't seem to find it anywhere. There's a Zelda film coming out, you can find out more and info and see the trailer here: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/863/863492p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.86.61 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of the page. People are saying it's an April Fools Joke.
It was an April Fool's Joke. It took 3 months to prepare and a few thousand dollars, though. There's more info on IGN here. Even though it was a joke (a very elaborate joke), it should be mentioned in the article. Whatever reference the article did have has been removed. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added a short paragraph on the film in Cultural Influences. As time goes on, it can be shortened to probably a sentence. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, gosh, that got reverted in a hurry! I didn't think it was half bad. For those interested, here's what I added:
On April 1, 2008, the online video game resource site IGN posted a hoax film trailer for an fictional upcoming movie based on the game series. Due to its authentic look, numerous news sites and fans were taken in by the hoax.[1] However, many news agencies, noting the date, namely, April Fools Day, saw the trailer for what it was.[2] The next day, IGN posted an editorial by Matt Casamassina with information on the hoax. The three minute trailer was produced by Rainfall Films, directed by Sam Balcomb and "starred" J.R. Killigrew as the title character Link. The trailer took about three months to produce and Balcomb produced most of the special effects at home on an Apple Macintosh.[3]
Writing didn't suck, it was full of references. I guess what some people think is notable is different from what others think. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably because they've done Zelda hoaxes before, and nobody in the real world cared. Or that others have done "New Zelda movie!" as an April Fools hoax all the time. Maybe it's that one internet FAQ site pulling a common prank isn't really that big of news. Maybe it's that Wikipedia isn't in the habit of reporting on things that don't happen.
Look at it this way - almost nobody cared about it the day it came out - only the extremely gullible. Do you really believe this is going to become a lasting part of the series's history?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that the April Fool's trailer isn't all the important to Zelda. Maybe if IGN had a April Fool's section like Google does, then we could add a link to it there, but it'll be forgotten about by the "film"'s "release".

Word is that The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time is currently in production http://www.legendofzeldaseries.com/main.php?page=fanmovie.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Timeline Information Incorrect/Speculation

Some of the Timeline information featured in this article is speculation, and has not been proven by Nintendo. The one source that that section of the article references says nothing about Hyrule being intentionally flooded to repel Ganon, and the back of ALttP's box says nothing about being the descendant of the protagonist in the original Legend of Zelda, only the descendant of an ancient hero.(Whom one could reason to be any of the games protagonists.)

65.101.49.27 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Anonymous

TWW says, in the intro, that Hyrule was flooded to repel Ganon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
From the original ALttP box:
"The predecessors of Link and Zelda face monsters on the march when a menacing magician takes over the kingdom."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Shigeru Miyamoto say after Ocarina of Time's release that the order was Ocarina of Time -> Legend of Zelda -> Adventure of Link -> A Link to the Past? Nintendo has changed their minds about the series several times, and I'd put my trust with Miyamoto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one that directly contradicts what was said in and about A Link to the Past when it was released.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, its packaging actually contradicts a line in the game. According to A Link to the Past, Ganon has been totally destroyed. If that's so, how does he return in Legend of Zelda? Or does the packaging hold more sway than the game itself now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
...he was almost certainly resurrected, like in the Oracle games, or like they tried to do in Adventure of Link.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd think if he was going to be resurrected, they wouldn't use the words "totally destroyed." And again, I'd say I trust Miyamoto more than promotional content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
1) You might think that, that doesn't mean you're right; 2) ...You do realize we're talking about the guy who said there was only one timeline, and then changed his mind, right?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article, need's rewrite

Also in 2007, in an interview Eiji Aonuma and Miyamoto, it was said by Eiji that another Zelda game was in production, for the Wii. Eiji said said that he wants a whole different base of control to take form for the next addition to the series -- to open up the main Zelda adventures on Wii for the casual gaming crowd as has Phantom Hourglass done with the DS. When asked about one-to-one swordplay and full Wiimote control, he said he was dying to flesh out all the ideas but says its still pretty open. [4]

[edit] Release/Chronology Respective

Although the chronology seems to be accurate, such as that Ocarina of Time is the fifth game in the series, but the first game chronologically, I'm sure that it would be great if there was a table to tell the difference in the order of when the games were released in real life, and how the story goes in the series, much like the Chronicles of Narnia. --PJ Pete (12:03 AM, May 10, 2008)

Except that we only know bits and pieces, and that's subject to change by now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the truth is that The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass respectively, are the latest Zelda games chronologically, like everybody knows it. --PJ Pete (12:20 PM, May 18, 2008)
...no, they're not.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Game?

Has a new game been announced yet? linceed@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.27.166 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this interview [2] with Shigeru Miyamoto, he says "The Zelda team is forming again to work on new games!" so, in a way, yes. Tommy11111 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "...[S]hortly before the beginning of the game, Ganon broke free from the Dark World..."

In the Games section, the description for the first The Legend of Zelda cites Zelda Universe, the official Nintendo Zelda website, and it says that Ganon escaped the Dark World shortly before the beginning of the first game. I have no doubt in my mind that the official site says this, but I really don't think that the official site is a good source as far as information such as backstories and timeline information goes. Whoever runs the official site put up some timeline theory that he/she made up, and Miyamoto told them to take it off the site because it was wrong. In the definitions section of Zelda Universe, some bits and pieces of that old timeline still exist, and Ganon breaking free of the Dark World shortly before the original game is one of them.

Just take a look at this:

http://www.zelda.com/universe/pedia/p.jsp

Definition for Pendants of Virtue (WARNING: EPIC FAIL AHEAD!!!):

The Pendant of Courage, the Pendant of Power and the Pendant of Wisdom are collectively known as the Pendants of Virtue. When Link returned from his adventure in Termina, hundreds of years had passed in Hyrule and the Master Sword was hidden within the Lost Woods. To re-prove himself and demonstrate that he was worthy of the Master Sword, Link had to collect all three Pendants of Virtue.

Um, no. Just no. This is another remnant of the old timeline theory (which was also a single Link theory, in case the definition above didn't give that away). Ironically, the official Zelda site has some of the worse information regarding the storylines of the games on the Internet.

I will not edit out the quote and citation just yet because I want to see what other people think. I don't want an edit war, so I'll leave it for now. If no one can give a good reason to leave the quote and citation within a few days, I will remove it. I would also be willing to compromise with anyone who wants to leave it there. I won't try to remove it if it can also be noted that the official Zelda site is notoriously inaccurate. That's all. -(Vert Bandit (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC))