Talk:The Legend of Zelda (video game)

GA Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

My compliments to the editors involved in the making of this article. I can recall many happy moments playing the series and enjoying it thoroughly. It's heartening to see an informative article on the series. Many Regards and Best Wishes !

Phillip Rosenthal 13:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prostitutes?

From the image of Link loaded up with weapons: "Link, carrying the many items he acquires from prostitutes." This has to be vandalism, right? I'm pretty sure treasure chests aren't really the same thing as prostitutes. I'm going to change it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.121.177.217 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Nevermind, someone beat me to it. That was fast.

Autosave

From the opening section:

With its vast world, open-ended gameplay, scrolling capabilities, and autosave system …

Correct me if I've got my jargon wrong, but there's no autosaving in this game. The game gives the player the option of saving either when Link dies or when that certain button combination is pressed, and the only other memory alteration comes from creating a file or files, erasing a file, or changing a first-quest file to a second-quest file after the game is beaten. Tony Myers 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

-I agree, there's no autosave. Zixor 23:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What could be done to improve this article

Considering the importance of this game, I am surprised that it is only a good article. Please tell us what can be done to improve this article. I would love to see it featured. Thanks. GreaterWikiholic 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Versions

There is no section discussing the various versions of Zelda in main body of the article, only in the intro. Intro should only summarize the article, so it's strange that there is no versions section. --Mika1h 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

-Additionally, I'm very curious to know about the many versions re-released for the NES alone (including box art, manual, and other extras), as there seem to be several. Zixor 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

THE HYRULE FANTASY

Does the title of the FDS game really need to be all in caps? I realize that the text on the disk is capitalized, but I strongly suspect that this is merely for looks. When refering to the name in any other context, I don't feel it should be in capital letters. Zixor 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Our guidelines state we must follow proper case, not trademark desires. -- ReyBrujo 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, well then: unless someone feels differently, or it can be confimed that the name is supposed to be in all caps, I'm going to change it. Zixor 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Names

(This topic is also listed on the WikiProject LoZ discussion page)

There needs to be a definitive decision made regarding the Intro/names of the game articles (specifically: Zelda 1 and 2). I'm sick of people completely overhauling it every week or so; and usually not for the better.

My feeling is: The introduction is supposed to be the part of the article that reaches out to everyone and gets them interested enough to read on. As of now: the pages state the name of the game (necessary), the name of the Japanese version of the game in romaji (potential useful), and the name of the Japanese version of the game in Japanese text (least useful); not to mention that various portions of the titles are repeated more than once. The end result is nearly a paragraph in itself; one that is generally alienating and uninteresting to both novice and veteran game players.

There's nothing wrong with the information itself, only with it's current presentation and location. There's some good stuff in there, but it needs to be more concise, standardized, and it needs to be somewhere else in the article. (and not in the Introduction.) Zixor 00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Third quest?

A newsletter forSwedish Nintendo videospelklubb (p. 4, No. 6, January 1989) suggested there was a third quest after completing the second quest and that differences to the second quest would eventually appear. Anyone know if this is true? --Bensin (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no third quest. I've beaten the second quest and you don't getting anything else after it. As far as sources to back up my statement just check either the "NES Game Atlas" or "Legend of Zelda Tips & Tactics" both are published by Nintendo and claim to cover the entire game and neither even mention a third quest.

75.93.9.235 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, Besin. I see that you are correct. Nintendo Videospelklubb does indeed suggest this. I can't imagine how they got it wrong. Surely they would have verified that it was true before publishing it. I wonder what they were thinking of. I've never heard of a Third Quest before, although I have heard of the Satellaview version, BS Zelda no Densetsu, unofficially referred to as the Third Quest with BS Zelda no Densetsu MAP 2 as the Fourth Quest. I haven't been able to find a copy of Issue No. 7, but I wonder if they didn't retract that as a mistake in the next issue. -Thibbs (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No retraction in the two following numbers. --Bensin (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I edited to reflect that the game was named "The Legend of Zelda", and not "The Legend of Ernest Borgnine." I am assuming that was vandalism, since my copy of the game does, indeed, say 'Zelda.' 75.41.32.238 (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Secret Game

My friend (very reliable) told me that Link didn't have an official name in the original game, but if the user typed in the name Link in the name section, the player got a completely different game, he was deadly serious. But I don't see how this is possible, is that true?

It was "ZELDA", and it only changed the shapes and locations of the dungeons. As for whether this should be included, here is a rule of thumb: if your only source is you generally reliable friend, it's probably not notable enough. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Quest for Thelda

This appears to have almost no notability, but would be great as a few sentences or a paragraph in this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Aridnyk89 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether or not an article is 'notable' is a very subjective thing. Someone who is interested in the Legend of Zelda may be satisfied with a few sentences or a paragraph glossing over its existence, but perhaps not someone who is interested in video games developed for the TRS-80 Color Computer, like myself. I care more about the circumstances and technical details surrounding the remake than what the actual remake was of. Citeoplasm (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find this information, that would help prove The Quest for Thelda's notability. All Judgesurreal is saying (I think) is that as is, it fails to assert its own notability, since the article currently is nothing more than a few lines comparing the game to The Legend of Zelda. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The year the game was released, the author, platform, input method, and amount of RAM the game required to run are all things I'm interested in that don't have much to do with the Legend of Zelda. For example, many games that pushed the limits of this computer would not run with the stock 128K RAM and would require an upgrade to 512K. I am not sure all of these details are appropriate in the main Legend of Zelda article. Does an article need to be lengthy for it to be notable? Citeoplasm (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted, so notability seems a moot point now. The information you mentioned may be more appropriate if you give the Quest for Thelda its own section/subsection. It may or may not deserve its own article, but I think we can give it its own subsection, if you can give us info on gameplay, development, ect. (with sources) Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Adaptation?

Just found this today, it seems legit, even though it was announced April 1st. http://movies.ign.com/dor/articles/863515/legend-of-zelda-movie-trailer/videos/legendofzelda_filmtrailer_040108.html Even though the date of release is sketchy, it seems too legit to be a fake. 17:43, 1 April 2008 (CST)

While I do praise the quality of their work, I am almost completely certain that it is fake, no matter how much I would like it to be real. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a zelda movie title would be very hard to keep a secret for long, and judging by the "Movie Trailer" it looks like it was in production for a while, if it exists, and especially since its Zelda, i'm almost positive its fake. I do believe that this april fools joke does diserve at least a paragraph in this article however. --Aridnyk89 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem notable enough to keep in the article. Perhaps if they had released a real short-length movie, then it would be acceptable in the article. However, seeing as it is just a joke, it does not seem to be notable. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The film is under the name of "Zelda" (2009) at the Internet Movie dataBase, (IMDB) however it's only for users with an IMDBPro subscription. It is possible that this may be a clue that there is a Zelda movie in the works, whether this is an actual trailer for it or that it's something thats being guarded very secretly with IGN making it seem like an April Fools Joke, it's hard to say. I would be a fool to rule it out, but it's safe to not make an article of this just yet, April 1 2009 looks like a possible date for information regarding a Zelda movie. 12:22, 3 April 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.66.149 (talk)

If it is a joke, it seems like a alot of trouble to go through just for an april fools joke. The movie trailer I saw was very high quality, not something you would spend money on just to say "april fools." of course I'm just speculating. 67.142.161.35 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

People are still fooled by this? Here. Pagrashtak 13:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

is Link an elf?

please answer with reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.172.7 (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Link is a Hylian. It's a fact. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To further answer your question. The Hylians are the main race of people that ihabit the kigdom of Hyrule. While they may have been based upon an "elf" for creative purposes the Hylians are not elves but more akin to humans as they have no special abilities like elves are generally associated with. 69.254.108.68 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Zelda rap

In a video of the Angry Video Game Nerd, James Rolfe looks at issues of Nintendo Power. One of the questions in one of the issued had a user submitting a rap for Zelda, which seems to be the one in the Zelda commercial.

Is this real or not or I don't know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Release year

Is it notable to add that this was released on the same year as the original Metal Gear and Final Fantasy? Ffgamera (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No. And in Japan it was released a year before the others. Belasted (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Legend movie

I removed this information because it's BS. The Free Gift Wagon (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its nothing but a fantasy speculation itself. If you want a Zelda Movie, try the Phillips CDI games :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zelda classic?

I looked for "Zelda classic" (the open source PC version) on here and it just redirects to this article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's functionally identical to the NES game (with the obvious exception of the controller), then that would likely be the reason; it's not notable enough by itself to get an article. If it's not mentioned in the Legacy section, you could try putting a sentence or two about it in there. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the fact that it allows people to make their own games using the Zelda engine? I believe that Zelda Classic is something completely different and deserves its own article. Somebody, go write one! Flagrama (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can make original games with it, that could make it notable as a game development tool. Consult the wise ones for ideas about how to develop it, for I have none. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article project.

The Legend of Zelda theme - eh? Anyone wanna make an awesome article?! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

According to the official Zelda site and the Legend of Zelda Collector's Edition game disc, the official page for the game states the release date is actually July 1987. The only specific day I have been able to find appears to be on IGN, and it states July 1, 1987. Flagrama (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)