Jump to content

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Archive
Archives
  1. Pre-2006

Box art?

Is there a way we can put both the GCN and Wii box art in the info box?--NFAN3

Why? The only difference is the GameCube version has the GameCube logo at the top. We usually only include more than 1 box art if they are different (see Quest 64 for an example). TJ Spyke 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wolf on the GCN in Gray. The one on the Wii is that tanish color
The GameCube one looks like one of those mock-ups that retailers sometimes create, the Wii version is the only one Nintendo showed. TJ Spyke 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
When I upload the GCN boxart I put where I got it. Come on people, what's wrong with having 2 boxarts in the info box?
No, there is a pretty big difference between the two box arts. I agree, make two on the main page! Yshoulduknow 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Other then a color difference, it is exactly the same. It's exactly the same image. JackSparrow Ninja 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yea, but readers should know it is on GCN and was planned for GCN only. The best way is to show that is by having pictures. And the only two pictures release showing difference is the boxart—Preceding unsigned comment added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs)
It's mentioned in the article. Also, I haven't seen Nintendo show the GameCube box art, i've only seen the mock boxes that retailers usually create to put on display. TJ Spyke 23:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Good night! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LoZTPGCNBox.jpg I uploaded it friday (I think). The source shows the Wii and GCN boxart. It is "mentioned" but some people are visual people
That box art was created in May 2005 using the cover of a issue of Nintendo Power. The creator even admits it's fake, I don't think Nintendo has showed the GameCube cover. I'm pretty confidant that the GameCube version will use the same cover as the Wii version. TJ Spyke 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Basicaly, what you said it looks "too different" from the wii art? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) .

Cover

I really really shouldn't get involved, but someone (who shall remain nameless) felt as if I should say something. THE COVER IS REALLY DIFFERENT! If no one will back him up, I should. The Gamecube cover is a lot more colorful and the WII is a lot more tannish (bronze works too:) Well if you feel as if I don't have any right to do this, tell me but THEY ARE SOO DIFFERENT! Momoroxmysoxoff September 26, 15:33

In most sources I found the boxart to be the same on GC and Wii, they are almost the same game you know. But if you have any proof, show me. -EEVEE103
It's a bit of an old discussion, but if you can see all the boxarts here.JackSparrow Ninja 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk on the image page

Can we get both boxarts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) .

I guess so, unless both are too similar that is not worth having two images when one is enough. -- ReyBrujo 13:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
GCN is the same one, just a little dark colored. JackSparrow Ninja 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
IMO, its a lot darker--User:NFAN3
100px
yet hardly different JackSparrow Ninja 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Half the GCN is blacklish brown!
YES! Get both on there! They look completely different! Yshoulduknow 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Other then a color difference, it is exactly the same. Ut's exactly the same image. JackSparrow Ninja 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Not, true, the GCN one has the actual color of the drawings (not the sepia tone), it has a lot more detail, and half the image is grayish. Yshoulduknow 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a color difference? The image, or drawing if you want, is exactly the same. JackSparrow Ninja 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a good engouh drifference IMO. Maybe we should just ask an admin his opinion
This isn't Nintendo's first multi-console release. Take for example Yoshi's Cookie. The game was originally released for the NES, and was ported to the SNES (at least that's what the article says). That's why you see the NES cover art. Chef Ketone 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive This?

Long talk page. Can we set up a set of sub-pages for older talk subjects, so that the newer (usually more pertinent) issues are easier to locate? --Stratadrake 04:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after some quick wikiresearch on subpages, I've cut/pasted the older discussion sections (i.e. no comments since January 2006) onto the /Archive1 subpage ... doing so was frighteningly easy.

Though next time, a page move followed by copy/paste back into the talk page might be better.--Stratadrake 09:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Enemies

Are we sure those are Lizalfos??? They look more like Dinofols to me. Based on the crests and ridges and the general shape of their heads/bodies/feet, I'm going to change it, unless someone has a direct quote from Nintendo calling them Lizalfos. I mean, some of the ones in the dungeons are wearing triceratops-like skulls, for goodness' sake! WikidSmaht 08:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What the heck are Mokomoblins and Bokoboblins? Again, unless there's a quote, I'm changing them to the established Zelda creatures, Moblins and Bokoblins. WikidSmaht 08:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Also fixing some other small things, like unverified facts and particularly some bad English, like Stalfos being "donned with" a sword and shield. WikidSmaht 08:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the game and it is Dinolfos. Since I can't show you my game, feel free to have a look at the text dump. Hyrule 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Curiously, in Majora's Mask, it is Dinofols. a text dump
That is odd... but then again, so is Termina. What are we going to do with that? Personally I'd say, take Ocarina, because I think that's how most people know them and it was the first game they were in. What's your take on it? Hyrule 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There were Dinafols in OoT, in somewhere like Ganon's Tower or Guerdo Fortess. Been awhile since i played it, but i remeber them being there. -Melles, Lord of Badgers (currently non-member) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.44.215 (talk • contribs) .
Indeed there are. But do tell how that statement gives us more clues as to how the scaly beasts should be named ? I say Ocarina of Time, because, as was stated before, a lot of beasts have the "-lfos" suffix, Wolfos, Stalfos, etc. Perhaps the MM spelling was just a typo mistake ? But then again, it'd be just like MM to sprout what seems like typos, and are actually premedited renamings... I don't know. SmegEd 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It’s Dinofols in OoT on the GameCube. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Um... Are you sure ? It say higher up it's Dinolfos and proves it with a text dump... I checked it, and it IS Dinolfos. SmegEd 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I’m pretty certain. I don’t remember if it was CE or MQ, but I checked way back when I first changed it. Where did you check? N64? Or just that text dump? Anyway, since it’s Dinofols in both MM and the GCN version of OoT, that would suggest they changed it, oddly enough, from Dinolfos to Dinofols. Weird. I’ll check again when I have time for a playthrough. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are Lizalfos and Dinalfos in both versions of Oot, with Lizalfos in Dodongo Cavern and the larger, gnarlier Dinofos (who also breathe fire, at least in MM) in Ganon's Tower. And as far as Twilight Princess goes, I think Dinofos would be a better guess.
I think pyrus(or however its spelled) is a ripoff of LOTR's Balrog. Think about it. a fire demon with a fire whip that is trapped within a mine. See what i mean?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippyg (talk • contribs)

Change/rv Arima's edits

I don't think they were called Lizalfos or Dinofols in Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. Weren't they just called Lizardmen? Details are sketchy. If anyone can find an official reference as "Lizalfos", or any reference which reliably predates OoT, we could put that back. For now, I've changed the wording to compensate. The other stuff just sounded awkard so I fixed it as best I could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikidSmaht (talk • contribs)

I believe that the generally accepted names for many of the enemies are those ending in "alfos". Such as Dinolfos, Lizalfos, Wolfos (or something similar) and Stalfos. I imagine that this game will follow suit. Aska 9 February 2005
Possible. But in both OoT and MM, it is "Dinofols", NOT "Dinolfos". Until we see an official source correct it to "Dinolfos", we should assume the name previously given is the correct one. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In AoL, it was indeed lizardmen. i have the manuel right here.-Melles, Lord of Badgers(see above) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.44.215 (talk • contribs) .

Gamestop's Release Date

I investigated the poster's claim, and 3rd April is the what it says. However, since this site has other, obviously spurious release dates on it (Legend of Zelda: Revolution out on 3/1/2006, anyone?) there is reasonable reason to discount this site for such matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setokaiba (talk • contribs)

I work at Circuit City and they just put up preorder cards for a release date of 11/01/05. So I am still confused as to when its coming out. (Note I also check CircuitCity.com and they claim, 11/08/06.Chotchki 15:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
That date seems extremely unlikely. Has Circuit City not been informed of the delay? --Optichan 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
April 3rd is the first Monday in the month; since it's unlikely that Nintendo would ship the game out on Saturday or Sunday, it made the most sense to list that day as a possible release day. Unfortunately, by not going with the common "first of the month", it makes it look more like a real release date as opposed to a placeholder. It would be so much better if these places could tweak their databases and websites to allow the entering of a month/year value as opposed to requiring the exact day. -- VederJuda 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
IGN has it listed as coming out April 15 which is a Saturday. http://cube.ign.com/objects/572/572738.html (right side under the box art) IceDrake523 01:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I checked Yahoo and they too have the game coming out in April 2006. I added the month since there have been a number of websites that also state this information. http://videogames.yahoo.com/ongoingfeature?eid=431017&page=0 -IceDrake523 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got word from Gamespot that the game is going to be delayed even more: until Fall of 2006. Here's a link to the article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144601.html silverdragon706 05:54, 03 March 2006 (UTC)

Best buy says 4-15-06--Acebrock 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just put a preorder on the game at GameStop; They say the game will be available on November 2, 2006.

Scratch that. They sent a message to my cell phone saying the Wii version will be a launch title on Nov. 19 and the GCN will be out on Dec. 2 206.192.18.14 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This game logo looks a lot like the Ragnarok online 2, also in development, logo. isn't it weird?Raquel Sama 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

not really, the Ragnarok online 2 logo is a dragon type thing comming up from the upper left, the zelda one has the wolf from the left. they are simiiler but not enough so to warent being mentionedShinigami Josh 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

March 2006 According to Nintendo Power?

I haven't seen any news regarding this. If this is true, it's absolutely huge news, seeing as though it would be coming from a first party source to Nintendo. However, I've heard nothing about this announcement from Nintendo Power. Does anyone know if this is true? --buckeyes1186 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. I don't believe the newest Nintendo Power is out yet and Nintendo.com still has the release date listed as 2006. IceDrake523 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
My latest NP doesn't say... reverting it until volume and page are cited. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got word from Gamespot that the game is going to be delayed even more: until Fall of 2006. Here's a link to the article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144601.html silverdragon706 05:54, 03 March 2006 (UTC)

Bosses

Do we really need to have the paragraph comparing the flame/whip/chain boss to the Balrog? It's one thing saying it resembles it, but to have all this analysis about speculation... it's a little fanboyish. Surely just a description of the boss will suffice. - Tredanse 13:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see no reason to keep it, although this user clearly wants to "get it right" Setokaiba✌≝ 14:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well the user did a sucky job of it, not even knowing how to link to other wiki articles. Anyway, I reduced it to half a sentence. Since this was at least the second user to make the comparison, I didn't delete it, but it definitely doesn't deserve any more mention that that in a Zelda article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a balrog, and most people are calling it that until we get a name. JONJONAUG 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make it in any way accurate. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyrule.net

I am the webmaster of Hyrule.net and I have received an e-mail from one of my readers that whenever he made some changes with links to Hyrule.net, these were removed. I do not know what is going on, but I was curious what the reason for this was.

The reason is: He was not just linking to Hyrule.net, he was replacing links to other sites. It’s good to have a diversity of sources, especially when Hyrule.net is a relatively new and Zelda-focused site, while some of the replaced links are better-established gaming news sites. Also, his prose additions were poorly written and in a tone that was not encyclopedic. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree on that, though what (I saw) he wrote was correct. It would then be best to change that, rather then have it set to the faulty / incomplete article there is now. For instance the releasedate comments at the start and in the development history don't match and it is utter madness to mention the retailers' releasedates. I'll look into it one of these days. -- Hyrule (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I reduced his minimal valid, non-redundant contributions to a single, much-better-written sentence with a hyrule.net link. His other additions were basically just the addition of an editorial tone to the material, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Many of us didn’t want to mention retailers’ dates, but they kept getting re-added, so we relented, as long as they were presented in context, not as absolute or authoritative. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ocarina

Will there be an ocarina with music in this game? Hopefully so, anyone know?

The ocarina has not yet been evoked. What's sure is that Link will be able to play music with a leaf of horsegrass, as seen in some videos. However we do not know for sure if the horsegrass-playing sequence is interactive (like the ocarina), but it is very probable since it has been confirmed that Link calls Epona with it, doubled with the fact that he is seen calling a bird to him too. SmegEd 10:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In the E3 2005 demo, the reed was found at certain places in certain shapes. Horseshoe shaped reed could be used to call Epona, bird shaped reed to call the bird. However, that could only be done at that point, where you could pick up the reed. You couldn't take it with you. If this will change in the final game or not, is not yet known. Hyrule 08:08, 25 March 2006 (-1 GMT)

SpaceWorld 2001

The game that became Wind Waker debuted at SpaceWorld 2001 not E3. I edited the page to reflect this.

"Nintendo showed off the first footage of Legend of Zelda for GameCube at Space World 2001." [1] 207.237.35.147

I do not understand why my changes were reverted. The cel-shaded Zelda was revealed at SpaceWorld 2001 not E3. I provided the above source and the wikipedia page for Wind Waker also correctly states SpaceWorld 2001. [2] 207.237.35.248

Zelda over 100 hours long

I read interview with Eiji Aonuma:http://www.landofthelegend.net/?get=newsview&date=1480&lan=en that the zelda game will be over 100 hours long with over 13 dungeons to visit. The source seems accurate (HM-Fusion) but I'm too lazy to find the exact website for interview... Anyone want to post this?

I wouldn't put that up yet the person who did the interview stated earlier that he was working on a April Fool's day joke and this could be an early start. [3] I would wait until Sunday April 2nd to be safe.
This interview is from another source, though I don't know the source, so I can't speak for it's reliability. So far it seems ok though. Hyrule 00:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if it was though, i love long and difficult games.-Melles, Lord of Badgers (c^) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.44.215 (talk • contribs) .

How the game would work on Nintendo Revolution

In an interview with Eiji Aonuma [4] he states something big: while playing Twilight Princess on GameCube, battles are seen in a third person perspective. However, on Nintendo Revolution that changes to first person, where you use the Revolution controller to control the sword and shield. He also states that you can control several items with it, the strength of the movement determining the strength of the throw.

I am not including this information in the site, though, since ZHQ2 isn't a reliable source. Maybe once the comments are confirmed by one (IGN, Gamespot, etc), this can be included. -- ReyBrujo 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The person who did the interview stated he was planning to do an april fools day hoax. http://www.thehylia.com/news_3_7_06_1215.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.77.63 (talk • contribs)
GamersReports picked it up too. Indeed, it could be a hoax that was discovered before April 1. If so, that would be a pity :( -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
this has been left, but we all know (as of the E3 game videos) that the previous statments are incorrect and the Wii version of LoZTP has the same perspective as the GCN versionShinigami Josh 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fall release

Please, instead of using a season's name like Fall put the months. Seasons are different for each hemisphere, and stating a Fall release is different in Japan and US. -- ReyBrujo 02:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then at least please put the correct months there. Both my brains, as well as Wikipedia, say Fall is from September to November. -- Hyrule 05:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Fall starts either in March or September. Wikipedia isn't only US. -- ReyBrujo 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ehem... sorry about that, it is too late right now =) -- ReyBrujo 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
lol. You are forgiven my son ^_^ :P -- Hyrule 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this edit true ? Is it really coming out on the 2nd of October ? Or is it just an overenthusiastic sale's site announcement ? (the link to Target seems to indicate the last of these options...) SmegEd 11:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to take it down. Online stores usually can't sell pre-orders unless they put a date in the system. In my opinion Target is just guessing what the release date might be, just like all the other online retailers. Don't you think we would have heard something official from Nintendo if the actual release date was announced? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. They are not the first to guesstimate the release date. Still, it would be nice though, I could have gotten it for my birthday ^^... Ahem. So what do we do about it ? SmegEd 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My GameStop preorder is for Nov. 2, 2006

User block Revolution spam

Is there not a way to have this user 69.34.162.232 blocked? He keeps on spamming about the Revolution, time after time. Hyrule 04:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

he is getting irritating. Could someone do something about it ? SmegEd 13:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There are still users like him that constantly change the date and rating of the game. The game is TBA and Rating is T right? XxLeekxX 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The rating of the game is RP. The releasedate is indeed still TBA Hyrule 05:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Canidate

Why not? This article describes a very important upcoming game in a legendary series. It cites all of the talk & predictions surrounding TP exactly as that, rumors and speculation. When dealing with a game not yet to come out, there is a large margin of error for an internet source to describe it, especially with a free-content site like Wikipedia. This article states all of the knowns of the game from released interviews and trailers, and explores the what ifs of it, like with ideas on the dungeons & length of the game, Link's relationships with animals, and the role of Princess Zelda. If this was placed on the home page as a featured article, more people would view it and put in their own input, based on facts of course, especially after TP is released. --64.12.116.136 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. One of the criteria for being a featured article is that the article must be stable (2E). With this game still in the making I don't see how the article could possibly be stable until after the game is released. Especially when you consider that E3 is just about three weeks away, the article will probably see some major additions and changes after E3 compared to now. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've looked into it, it appears that you did not complete the nomination process. There's more to it than just placing {{fac}} at the top. Please be sure to read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates before nominating more articles. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is way too soon. I also agree with the belief that we should at least wait for the games' release before we consider this course of action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.110.186 (talk • contribs) .

Releasedate mania

Could people PLEASE stop adding releasedates?
It's nice and all that the local news stand on the corner in some backwater town tells you they know the releasedate of Twilight Princess, but if anything, with TP retailers have proven to be extremely unreliable. [5]
The press will catch up when there's a real releasedate, please stop changing this article to fit some random retailer releasedate. Hyrule 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

At E3 Nintendo announce that both versions of the game will be releasing on the same day as the Wii, in Q4 2006(which is October-December, but they said earlier that it will come out before Thanksgiving). Spyke 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Delayed Again?

I've recently heard from G4 that their sources indicate that Twilight Princess will be delayed again Lord Falcon 15:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? G4's live coverage of E3 doesn't start until 6pm EST. I thought all of their video game shows would be repeats up until then, unless maybe I've missed something? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Twilight Princess will be released in two versions on the same day: one each for GameCube and Wii. See the Nintendo Press Conference: Nintendo E3. --LuminousSpecter 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that they're releasing it on the same day as Wii's launch, but there's no indication that it's been delayed again. Everything I've read seems to indicate the console coming out November of this year which falls right in line with Twilight Princess's speculated release date. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two editions for NA only?

Now if I heard right during the Nintendo Press Conference live stream, the GCN version of TP is only going to be released in the NA market? Perhaps that should be noted in here... 71.244.170.75

Reggie said “here in the Americas” but not “only in the Americas”. Maybe it has to do with different international release dates for Wii? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


A Nother American only release for the GC version wouldn't be a bad idea. The GC is basially dead in Europe(some stores don't carry it at all and many others have very little space for it) and in Japan most Nintendo fans will get the Wii, not to mention that most GameCube owners live in North America(about 13 million, compared to 2 million in Japan and 4 million in Europe). Spyke 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of this speculation and inquired with Nintendo of Europe. The GameCube version's coming all over the world, it's just not yet clear in which way.[6] Hyrule 01:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo of Europe also said there was no upgrade for the DS planned and then the next week the DS Lite was announced. Spyke 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get that story? Hyrule 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have it right here, but in January(shortly before the DS Lite was unveiled) Nintendo of Europe said there were no plans to release an upgrade to the DS. Spyke 02:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't get this. I spoke with somebocy at NOE Corporate Communications after relentlessy badgering them about your remarks at LotL, and the official statement of NOE is "We can't comment anymore on the announcements given at E3". So your quote is speculative, and you just say "NOE". I can make up a quote from NOA without giving a name. Without a name, it's speculation.
Mr. Mysterious. Maybe mysterious persons aren't granted as much info as the press? A name wouldn't say people anything anyway. Hyrule 22:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There`s no doubt, TP will be released in Europe along with the wii version. This is because all the store`s who only sell games (Game, gamestation) have officially said that it will be released as well as the wii version. Also nintendo official magazine have said it will be released on both so I don`t see why not. -EEVEE103

New Trailer out

Nintendo has released a 4th trailer for the game. This one is different because it shows actual gameplay with the controls. You can see that controls for fighting and riding a horse are very similair to that of OoT, MM, & WW. I personally found it at http://www.nintendoland.com/zelda/home.htm, but I'm sure it's everywhere on the net.--Wikiphilia 19:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[So are] a screenshot that shows Link can use a kind of targeting system for his bow, and piece of official art thet shows Link in a combative pose holding what looks like the Master sword & Hylian sheild from OoT[.]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.136 (talk • contribs) 23:12, May 13, 2006 (UTC)

The Infobox

What good are the "preceded by" and "followed by" fields? If we list them in order of game development, Twilight Princess is clearly preceded by Wind Waker. On the other hand, if we use the game's own chronology, TP follows Ocarina of Time but precedes Wind Waker (which is complicated by the fact that TP is not a direct sequel to OoT, as Majora's Mask was).

Furthermore, the entire Legend of Zelda series has its own box template at the bottom of the article, and the "preceded/followed by" parameters are under some debate even on the infobox's own Talk page.

So... uh... any consensus on what (if anything) we do about it? --Stratadrake 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in them, as you can find the order in the series box below, as well in the series article. Besides, The Minish Cap preceeded Twilight Princess ;-) Hyrule 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

i deleted some pictures and text that didnt have anything to do with the "weapons and items" section.

Somebody keeps on replacing the "Princess" part of the title in the "Twilight Princess on the Wii" section with 'penis'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.186.108 (talk • contribs)

Who removed the links to the first couple of trailers for the game at the bottom of the page. I think it's relevent to the article.--Wikiphilia 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)--

BR tags?

Just wondering what the point of having HTML line-breaks in the article is (and why there seems to be a minor-edit conflict over this). IMHO, if you're going to start a new paragraph, just double space on the edit box to start a new paragraph. --Stratadrake 03:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As I expained in my edit summary, <br> just starts a new line, whereas the way you’re putting it inserts a blank line before the new paragraph.
So with the linebreak it
looks like this, but
with the double-space it
looks like this. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. I'm basically just asking, why use them in the first place? I searched up Wikipedia:Don't use line breaks, but that relates more to soft carriage returns than the <br> tag in specific, so... I dunno. I'm lost. --Stratadrake 09:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I feel it’s a stylistically superior way to distinguish changes of topic from changes in facets of the same topic when starting new paragraphs. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between two versions

Since Nintendo's gonna kick my ass if I publish this, consider yourself special. I trust you not to abuse this. However, I will remove the video 23 May 2006, 9pm PST. Since we're in the middle of a server change, I've hosted this on another server for the moment.[7]

BTW, don't think this is gonna be a normal thing. Since I've editted the vid. for someone else I'm sharing this with you one time. Hyrule 12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if this is the only proof, and it isn't published, and it can't be archived or made available to the public, I don't think we can use it as a reference, and any statements made based on it can't really be used. Fieari 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The information from the interview has been published, it's just the video content. This was just an extra for WikiDSmath, since he would even ask Miyamoto for his ID when he meets him. Hyrule 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Any links to the other sources? Or are they print only? Fieari 06:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's currently undergoing a server change, but I'll let you know when the site's back up. It exactly quotes him. Hyrule 07:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe Fieari was asking if the articles on LotL will cite their source, as LotL by itself is an insufficient reference, being a fansite based on your personal knowledge and experience( original research). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You have just seen the source. You can keep calling it a fansite, but that doesn't change anything to it. I can also go around calling IGN or Gamespot a fansite, but that doesn't make them so just because I say so. Hyrule 09:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It’s not because I say so. I( and others) have repeatedly explained to you why it is a fansite( arguments that you could not apply to IGN or Gamespot), you just don’t want to listen. As for the video, it does not include the question, nor does it include any statement that “these are the only changes” or “everything else is the same” or anything to that effect. Plus, to repeat what Fieari said, since the video isn’t published, and it can’t be archived or made available to the public, we can’t use it as a reference, and any statements made based on it can’t really be used either. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

EGM

Someone has mentioned that this was in an EGM interview too. Excellent! Someone just needs to cite the EGM volume and page number and we can put this nonsense behind us. But the interview in question MUST contain (a )statement(s) to the effect of “The only differences are the controls and menu interface, and the fact that the Wii version can display in 16:9 while tha GCN version only displays in 4:3.”. If it just talks about the differences, and does not explicitly say that they are the only differences, we still can’t make that assumption in the article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just picked it up today.
Shigeru Miyamoto: The one thing we want to clarify is that we aren't developing two different versions of Twilight Princess, where one might have different events or different dungeons or different enemies. But we are looking at things like minor graphical upgrades or some additional features.
Come on, call Nintendo to verify this interview is real. Ask the person at the phone to ID themselves though. You know you want to. Hyrule 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"Some additional features" sounds a bit open ended to me... Fieari 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The Wii features. Hyrule 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, no need to be sarcastic. EGM is a perfectly reliable source. With the page number and everything right there, it is now a properly sourced fact and I am reasonably satisfied that the only differences are technical( though Fieari’s concern is valid and a worry). Please fill in the author and article name.-- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

16:9 widescreen vs 4:3

Quote from Shigeru Miyamoto when speaking of the differences between the Wii and the GameCube version.
"But there's also the 16:9 widescreen, which is obviously another difference. Then again, if you take the Wii version and go back to play it on a 4:3 television, then it's actually just shrinking down, it will cut off the edges, so that kind of offers a different experience as well." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyrule (talk • contribs) 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

Source on that quote? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd been cleaning up the citations, and I'm sure it was in there. [8] I guess this means it's time to go back through the article. *sigh* Dancter 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you’re right. I hadn’t reviewed your changes yet when I made that comment, only Hyrule’s, which, as usual, cited his own fan site. Nice work, by the way. You deserve a barnstar, but not sure which one is appropriate. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Just checked the history. Didn't know about the redirect. They're the same thing? That could've saved me some keystrokes. It seems that there are quite a few articles on future games right now that share the same problem with original research. I feel a little guilty marking this article up like that, especially after cleaning up the references that were there. I must say, while not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, some of the original theories in this article are quite impressive. Dancter 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think more articles should look like this, and I’m glad that {{fact}} is so ugly, it prompts people to act on it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was tempted to put up some {{weasel}} tags, but then I thought that would be too much. Maybe I should have. I'm thinking those could have helped explain what I'm trying to get at. Dancter 23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Zelda Playable

The section discussing a rumor that Zelda might be a playable character in this one has been in the article for quite some time, but despite having witnessed a fair deal of the Zelda fan base online, I haven't actually seen people seriously pushing this theory. There doesn't actually seem to be any official refutation of it, with regards to the "Citation needed" tag, but I think that's more because the rumor simply doesn't exist far beyond this article itself. As such, I would reccommend removing the mention of it completely. Support? Fieari 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

*supports* Hyrule 23:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we just need a more appropriate location for the Zelda concept art. I'm loathe to remove it entirely, just because it is so pretty, but we don't really seem to actually talk about Zelda anywhere. Fieari 18:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I added that a while back because every time it was removed, a new anon would come by and put it in again. As for the official refutation, I read it in some article. It might have been IGN, an interviewer commented on how Midna was the first new playable character in Zelda( guess they forgot about Kafei), and the interviewee said that it wasn’t really Midna, you control wolf-Link and she’s just along for the ride, and that Link was still the only playable character and there were no plans to change that. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Release date

So far every store I've asked said it comes out Sept. 8. I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Bly1993 13:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd advice you to use your fingers to play a game rather then keep them crossed for something not happening. As for reliable releasedate information, gamestores are at the bottom of the ocean. Besides, Q4 starts in october. Hyrule 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Combining Items

Regarding this excerpt:

It has also been confirmed that some weapons can now be combined, as with the bomb-arrows seen in one trailer. This combo actually originated in the classic Game Boy adventure Link’s Awakening, and fans have been clamoring for the feature’s return ever since.)

I watched the trailer referenced, and I don't believe it supports this claim. Bomb arrows are indeed shown, but combining items is not. For all we know, bomb arrows could be a special pickup. The oil combining thing does smack of original research too. I'm going to remove them unless there's better arguments for this. Fieari 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

please do. 69.199.121.37 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"more dungeons"

From what I've been able to find, it seems that claims that Twilight Princess will have more dungeons than any other Zelda game are based on the premise that Ocarina of Time had the most dungeons of the other Zelda games. Is this verifiable? Dancter 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

LttP had more dungeons than OoT, IIRC. Fieari 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (heehee, acronymn abuse!)
I'll look up the interview/quote. It's been said "more dungeons then any other Zelda game", which means at least 13 (ALttP had 12) Hyrule 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it's already been found. Hyrule 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

speculation and original research

I only noticed this recently, but it seems that my original approach of marking all the unsourced speculation and original research with {{fact}} and {{or}} tags shouldn't be used to keep the unverified content in the article for very long. With this in mind, it seems an ax should be taken to many of the statements in this article, unless people can start pointing to message board posts or whatever they can to verify their statements. Any thoughts? I'm thinking of doing this myself soon. Dancter 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of these actually can be sourced fairly easy though. I'm doing a few myself now. On the other hand, others are clearly unsourcable, and yes, should be removed. A little more time would be nice though, before wholesale cutting... Fieari 05:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I was quite pleased to see that. Yeah, I looked over the article after I posted that, and saw it wasn't quite as dire as I thought; many of the statements I flagged seem to be merely over-assertions of supportable facts. As for the cutting, I wasn't going to do it until I had the time to go over each one, and see if maybe I could fix any myself. It's probably not as soon as you're thinking, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Dancter 06:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so it seems like I'm not going to get around to the wholesale cutting very soon at all; but seriously, doesn't anyone understand that synthesizing sourced information into new information still counts as original research? Especially on the future product pages, noone seems to understand. In addition to these, words such as:
  • "speculated"
  • "rumored"
  • "expected"
  • "hypothesized"
  • "probably"
  • "likely"
  • "possibly"
  • "theorized"
...all these are weasel words, and any statement that includes them had better specify someone else making the exact same claim. Wikipedia isn't the place to be pushing original theories, however plausible. Dancter 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that information that can be directed observed in videos and images is not OR, as it is inferred with little or no synthesis. Similarly with theories advanced by prominent followers of the game like IGN (sourced appropriately). Beyond that, I'd caution against making any inferrences based on such limited exposure. Deco 12:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, someone has gone WAY over the top with all the "Source Needed" and "Original Research" thingies... Hew

Consistancy with quote marks

According to the Manual of Style:

There are two options when considering the look of the quotation marks themselves:
As there is currently no consensus on which should be preferred, either is acceptable. However, it appears that historically the majority of Wikipedia articles, and those on the Internet as a whole, follow the latter style. If curved quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, ensure that there is a redirect with straight glyphs.
Never use grave and acute accents or backticks (`text´) as quotation marks or apostrophes.

While there is no preferred style officially, consistancy is a good thing when working on articles. My computer does not automatically create the typographic quote marks, instead always using the typewriter ones. Furthermore, the text editor I use to edit wikipedia can't even display them, instead rendering them as blank square black boxes. As such, it would be very diffult for me to use the curly quotes instead of the straight ones.

Can we have some consensus? Out of neccessity, I've been replacing all the curly quotes with straight ones in sections I work on, so as not to break the article. \ But when I return later, I see someone seems to have changed them back to curly. Should this system be maintained, or can we just switch fully to straight marks? Fieari 05:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone's been actively changing them? I hadn't noticed that. For what it's worth, I think the straight quotes are easier to manage and more consistent. Dancter 06:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've argued on MoS for straight quotes, for the sake of editability. In my opinion the ideal is that the wikitext would always contain straight quotes, but would be rendered curly on the fly by the parser. Deco 06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ITEMS

When you press start, it looks like there is only about 8 items. Anyone know about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.185.102 (talk • contribs) .

It's to prevent players from knowing how much of the game is left. The itemsare in a circle that expands as more are received. Thus, the designers only included a small number of items in the images you saw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Setokaiba (talk • contribs) .
its also mentioned over at IGN and gamespot, its so unlike the other zelda games were you could say you had filled half of the item menu, you could aproximate your progress through the game.

Latest edits

Please, stop edit warring people. Discuss here instead. -- ReyBrujo 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article to prevent the rash of edit wars that have been going on. --Madchester 20:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You are sickingly hypocrytical. You've broken the 3R something rule.
The one and only reason there is an edit war going on, is because this article is being vandalized and information, quite important even, is being removed. Hyrule 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Though I wouldn't have put it in those words, I agree with user Hyrule here. Why are you people so insisting on removing that information? JackSparrow Ninja 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
And you Hyrule have just done a personal attack. Calm down and discuss the real point here. Is LotL a reliable source according to Wikipedia? -- ReyBrujo 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If an account is blocked, the user may nevertheless try to edit with a sockpuppet. If an IP is blocked, the user may use another one. Things get more complex if the user is using a low quality server as AOL. -- ReyBrujo 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is LotL a reliable source

I remember discussing whether or not we could have LotL as an external link, regardless of having the owner and keeper of the site adding the external links. I do not remember the end of the discussion, but I guess Hyrule won due tiredness of the other editors to discuss. Now I see you are upgrading LotL from external link to reliable source. Can't the information be found in a reliable source? Remember that we do need confirmation from several independant sources per verifiability guidelines. Truly, Hyrule, LotL hasn't got the reputation to be a reliable source. Has it ever been quoted in other gaming media outlets? That is virtually original research, as you (or someone close to you) has investigated, uploaded in your site, and now you are adding it as a reference. Are there any other source able to verify this?

Also, someone added this as a reference. When I go there I get a page with no information at all. Why it is still in the article? -- ReyBrujo 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We had a similar problem over at Talk:Smiley. We took it to an abuse report and got the problematic site banned from appearing in Wikipedia. --DavidHOzAu 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
From Talk:Mogitate_Tingle_no_Barairo_Rupee_Land#Semi-protection:
In the case of Tingle RPG- LotL, unlike IGN, has the correct translation of the name. LotL, unlike IGN, has the (translated) screenshots. Talking about reliability, it was IGN who claimed at some point the game was cancelled when LotL knew and said it wasn't.
The same is seen with, for instance, Twilight Princess. FYI, unlike IGN, LotL didn't have over 15 'confirmed' releasedates.
About reliability. Besides the fact that in previous discussions, two editors themselves have stated LotL is reliable, I like to challenge you to proof me different. If LotL is as unreliable as you claim, that shouldn't be very hard.
To mention a few correct news items:
  • The Zelda part of the interview with the French Nintendo manager which was deleted from JeuxFrance upon request of Nintendo -leading to TSA badmouthing Hyrule- and was later confirmed to be true and more importantly, the content. Which was Revolution compatibility with TP.
  • The comment of Miyamoto on how the Revolution functions would work, with the bow/arrow and boomerang. E3 showed us correct.
  • At E3, Miyamoto's comment on the differences between the GC and Wii version of TP. Recently confirmed in Nintendo Power.
  • At E3, the releasedate of Phantom Hourglass. One week later confirmed on the Nintendo press room and a few days after on the official site.
Just to name a few. You judge for yourself if we know what we're talking about or not.Hyrule 08:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Half those things are using "other" sites' actions to better LotL's reputation, or information they are claiming they first reported which is not true. In the case of this article, Twilight Princess, Land of the Legend had used itself as a [primary source], overriding other sources which originally gave the reports, including my own site. This has, I admit, made me upset and angry because it is blantant vandalism of credit. When you put your own site over another, which you know reported it first and had a verifiable source, you are basically showing you care about the attention from the citation and want traffic (despite your traffic report claims in the other talk page). The other point on this article is the two versions of TP on GCN/Wii. LotL reported that NOE told them both are coming out. I have the same access as them to NOE's press area, and to Cake media, and to NOE Corporate Communications, and they all denied reporting to LotL. I was told by NCL, NOA and NOE spokespeople that they could not elaborate on Reggie Fils-Aime's statement at E3 2006 about the "millions of gamers worldwide enjoying TP on GCN, because here in the Americas it is coming out on GCN and Wii at launch" to every outlet I know of that I have contacts at, as well as my own site, yet LotL got them to crack and speak? I think not. Now, I will admit Reggie probably meant other regions had not finalized their regional plans, so LotL could be right in their report, but I am arguing they didn't get any report from NOE - they're guessing, as they usually do, on very low risk, high probability items which even if they are wrong, the can write off as "misinformation". Here's one - and exlusive from me! NOA just told me Ganondorf will be appearing in Gerudo form in Twilight Princess, and he is a key figure involved in the "cause" of the Twilight Realm. Oh man, have fun disproving that one, and try telling me it doesn't seem like an obvious guess. It's just too easy to make up small tidbits and have no recourse, especially when they're just a fan site. As another user pointed out, how can you be a credibile news source if you're solely dedicated to one "game", and your exclusive reports have anonymous sources? Perhaps if you had interviews with people, or could give out names of people who report to you (like IGN and any other normal gaming news site does), some of us would be more inclinded to believe your site's status. But to again re-iterate - the user Hyrule has repeatedly changed primary sources/references to their own site, and their examples for "credibility" are very weak and do not really support their case. --TSA 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Edit - Now the claim they are under NDA. If you are under NDA, especially with Nintendo, you'd know SAYING YOU ARE UNDER NDA IS VIOLATING NDA. I can scan an old NDA I signed three years ago as proof, and I can tell you they STILL HAVE THAT CLAUS in their current NDA paperwork. You're supposed to say "no comment" or "I can't elaborate on [xxxx] at this time" or some denial statement. This is great. --TSA 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicitly states that:

This is a non-issue. If information can be confirmed from a media outlet, we should use that. If it cannot be confirmed from a media outlet, or it only appears on a fansite without professional journalists, don't use the information at all or tag it with {{citeneeded}} and {{or}} where appropriate. --DavidHOzAu 00:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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. [9], 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)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason:

Major lack of stability, owing perhaps to the fact that this game hasn't been released yet. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding "Windwaker 2"

I noticed in the project history section it stated that the game that was known as Wind Waker 2 became Phanttom Hourglass. While that is possible there does not appear to be anything to prove that. I personally believe that it should be removed unless sourced but I want some other opinions before I act. Can people please share their thoughts. --Edgelord 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While there is no solid proof that it is, PH uses the same graphics engine as Wind Waker and takes place in an island-based world, much like Wind Waker. On top of that, a number of screenshots from Nintendo.com show a lot of other Wind Waker-like features, and this is where the speculation comes from.


The "Wind Waker 2" is now The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass for the Nintendo DS. Link 486 @ 3:46 p.m, November 6th, 2006.

Length?

"This is in the range of several other infamous game lengths, including the 2-disc, 80-hour RPGs Tales of Symphonia (GCN) and Star Ocean: Till the End of Time (PS2)."

This bit bugs me. Tales of Symphonia taking 80 hours? I don't think so. "infamous" game lengths?...uhh. ok. This comment is neither accurate nor relevant; shall I remove it? --24.205.251.41 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would remove that statement. I find it to be to be pov. I would like to add however that I found the 80 hour of gameplay on the Nintendo.com page for this game [[10]] so I think that it is likely that was officially stated by Namco somewhere. I would however still remove the infamous part because it does not belong. --Edgelord 23:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but game developers always inflate those numbers. I've never thought of ToS as a particularly long game. 40-50 hours tops. I removed the whole thing because it seem somewhat arbitrary and not relevant to the article. --24.205.251.41 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The ToS 80 hour figure is an official one. While it certainly doesn't take that long to reach the credits, completing all the subquests and the like certainly does make 80 hours a realistic, if not modest, estimate.
While that isn't relevant to this article, it may be just as likely that optional subquests make up a large part of the 100 hours claim made with TP. Tradional tasks such as collecting heart containers are optional but time consuming. --220.240.61.182 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The line, "Since she disappears once Link re-enters regular Hyrule (in the demos), and has been said by Aonuma to remain with Link in another form." appears to be incomplete. Since I think the author is talking about the idea that Midna is Link's Shadow, i'll try to find the reference and will replace it as, "Since she disappears......Link in another form, she has been theorized by many to be Link's Shadow." I think this will suffice until confirmed by either Nintendo or actual gameplay. --LinkBoz84 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as what Midna is in the real world, if the game IS in fact based on the manga Twilight Princess, which is based on LadyHawke, she MAY be the hawk that Link can summon, and the shot of her rising from his shadow may be an ability she has in the real world.

its shown midna in the real world, comming out of links shadow. though i would doubt midna to be links shadow, as canonicly links shadow is GannonShinigami Josh 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New stuff

Just in case you guys think it's worth mentioning. http://wii.ign.com/articles/726/726748p1.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.206.177 (talk • contribs) .

Added already, but thank you. JackSparrow Ninja 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The current release date

have they given another release date yet?

nope. 14 (US and Jap) and 15 (Europe) september they have a big Wii party thing though, at which all is expected to be revealed. JackSparrow Ninja 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said in other sections, GameStop has begun pre-orders now and has the release date set for November 2, 2006. This is a fairly reliable date, concidering they normally don't take orders unless they know the actual date of release. EDIT: GameStop has clarified a previous error: Wii version will be out as a launch title November 19. The GameCube version will be out December 2.

Well as of tonight's press conference, it doesn't seem too reliable. I don't think it's all that likely the Wii will be released outside of Japan 1 whole month before Japan, but who knows. 199.126.137.209 07:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that happened, though. The DS was released in America before anywhere else, so I wouldn't put it past them. Although that could have been an estimated date and Nintendo decided to push it back AGAIN so they could work on it some more.

nintendo have also done stuff like this recently with the release of the DSlite 10 days before NA Shinigami Josh 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What about that big, ghostly, dog-like creature?

I noticed that in the boss section that big, ghostly, dog-like creature is not mentioned. Shouldn't we mention it. I mean, it is boss-sized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.217.222 (talk • contribs) .

it is one of the good guys. JackSparrow Ninja 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

isnt it ment to be some kind of 'wolf god' and if so link becoming a wolf would place him under its dominion, also it could be like a 'fary' for link granting specific upgrades and abilities for when in the twilight realm. like the senceing of 'ghosts' and smelling of thingsShinigami Josh 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The creature is the "Wolf God" that has been mentioned a few times. Link 486 @ 3:42 p.m, November 6th, 2006.

Link in the Wii version of the game is right-handed now. Probably something to do with the new Wii controls. 143.88.67.112 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no he's not. All of the in-game shots show him as left handed; there were a few pieces of artwork that showed him left handed, but as far as that goes it could be an error on the part of the artists.


No, you're wrong. New screenshots of the game show Link as being right-handed. 12.207.127.76 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What new screenshots??? -SaturnYoshi 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
this one JackSparrow Ninja 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think he's actually holding that sword with two hands, because the way his sheath is pointing, it shows that he would draw his sword using his left hand. -SaturnYoshi 02:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
all new screens in higher res. JackSparrow Ninja 03:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Look here for some videos. Link is clearly right-handed. It seems that they changed it because most people are right-handed and it would be ackward for Link to be left-handed and the person not to be. However, if it weren't really important, they wouldn't have changed it, so there's probably an option that can be changed for the lefties. It would be relatively simple, I'd imagine. Either way, it's gonna be awesome! -Platypus Man | Talk 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an option or something. This video has him left-handed. Or... Maybe the "Twilight Realm" mirrors everything. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
No, your video is from E3, before they changed the hand, back when it was all left. You'll only find righty Link in videos from September 14 or after. -Platypus Man | Talk 17:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
We don't know if it's an option or not. Don't start speculating ;) JackSparrow Ninja 19:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't an option. I think you misread my statement -- I mean that you won't find a right-handed Link in videos before the 14th, not that there won't be left-handed Link after the 14th. In fact, I'd think that they would logically have to make it an option. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering Link is officially left-handed, more research is needed. I doubt it will make any real difference for the player though, as it's already mentioned that Link's spin attack relies on the nunchuk attachment while the bow/arrow and boomerang use the Wii Remote in its point-and-click mode. --Stratadrake 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like the Wii version is only right handed. We don't know if there will be a left handed option. I have added the word "known" to reflect this Ajmayhew 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Link is only right handed in the wii version. Can someone add a citation, im terrible with html. Here's the link http://wii.ign.com/articles/733/733762p1.html Superway25 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Stratadake, you do realize that there is more than 1 Link in the Zelda timeline? Link is USUALLY left handed, not always since there have been several Links. TJ Spyke 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the Multiple Links theory. I haven't read up on that in ages, but I did notice how the NES and SNES games used sprite-flipping for Link's actions when he was facing right or left, making him appear ambidextrous. I don't know more than that though... need to go refresh my knowledge on that subject. --Stratadrake 23:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You see only one arm in the sprites. How do you know he would be right-handed? Besides, with the up and down sprites, he's still left, never right. JackSparrow Ninja 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo officially stated in several sources he's left-handed, and in all 3d games to date he was a lefty. The only reason it appeared he was right-handed in the sprites is because of mirroring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.192.18.14 (talk • contribs) .

Nintendo recently confirmed that the Wii version will have a "mirror mode" for right handed people who get disoriented while "slashing" the Wii Remote, since the control scheme was altered. There is a section below with citation and a link. 206.192.18.14 13:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wii version is mirrored?

New screenshots of the game show several characters seemingly having reversed designs and the demo level being mirrored also from previous version. Anybody know why this happened? 12.207.127.76 05:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no explanation has been given on the subject. However, unlike some websites, we need not go into speculation about this and just leave the subject untill, if at all, Nintendo comments on it. JackSparrow Ninja 05:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted in the article along with the information about a right-handed Link. Link's article should be updated with that too alongside with his right-handedness. 12.207.127.76 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
We don't know the reason of the reverse design. It might just be a redesign for some parts, or in all. The speculation that would make it worth noting, that GC is left around and Wii right around, is too speculative and on top of that, too far sought. JackSparrow Ninja 06:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted anyway. 12.207.127.76 06:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo wanted the Wii version of TP to have a righthanded Link due to the Wii controller being intended for a right hand. The easist way to do this was the mirror the entire game. It might just be a temporary solution for the demo or it might be permenent. 67.23.84.125 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Flying in TP

May i add that in this[11] new trailer that it is shown that link can fly? --70.130.41.157 08:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We see 2 seconds of Link hanging under a flying creature. That's not flying and might just as well be a mini-game. Besides, Aonuma said at E3 2005 there will be no flying transportation (mini-games excluded of course). JackSparrow Ninja 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Did you see the same trailer? Link becomes a bird and flies around. True, it may be a mini-game, but Link definately flies at some point in the game. -Platypus Man | Talk 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not link, he is in wolf form and being carried by a bird.

OK. I looked at it again and admit defeat. However, the player still is clearly controlling the bird, even if it's not Link himself. Maybe it's Midna? -Platypus Man | Talk 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It could be but claiming that would be pure speculation. That would need to be verified before adding. --65.95.19.142 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, ok,let me clear this up. IN one of the new gameplay trailers it shows a big flying creature drop near them, Midna hops on the creature and the creature grabs wolf Link, and they fly off, while also still controlling it. SO this is a gameplay mechanic. And is probobly activated by the many songs wolf link learns throughout the adventure. THe other recently revealed song was the song of healing, this allowed wolf link to communicate with another spirit wolf. While it ay not heal anyone like it did in MM, but the song melodey was the song of healing ---McMeaty

"The flying dragon-like creature we have seen in one of the recent trailers, that was carrying Wolf Link, is an enemy that you control. You first encounter such a sequence while following the story, but at a later point you will see these sort of sequences again in mini-game and sidequest form. To put rumours to rest, this -and Cucco's- is the only sort of flying in the game."[12] JackSparrow Ninja 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out Image:LOZTP linkflutegrass.jpg real quick. You'll note that it says "The picture is made and editted by, and copyright to www.landofthelegend.net"

Is that possible? I mean, it's a screenshot of a copyright game... wouldn't the copyright still belong to Nintendo, not the person who took the screenshot? Yes, you can argue for collage... but this doesn't seem very collage-like to me. It looks just like three plain old screenshots plus a caption. Fieari 03:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be subject to dual licensing: the original copyright holder (Nintendo or the studio working with the game) holds copyright to the individual images, while LotL holds copyright of the artistic modification. However, I am not sure if just creating a collage (and that specific collage of three images only) is enough to grant rights over the image. In any case, the image should be tagged with {{Imagewatermark}}, which makes the image invalid for Wikipedia usage, and most probably should be removed from those articles. -- ReyBrujo 04:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I marked it like that since, apparantly, it was editted by those guys. I'm no expert on tags, so feel free to improve it where you see fit. There are more watermarked images used on Wikipedia, and since I found this image very informative, I think it is good to use it. Just my 2 cents. JackSparrow Ninja 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I tagged it. I heavily suggest finding official images, even if you need three images to get the same information out of them. We are currently endorsing that the image is copyrighted by LotL, which may not be the case. We have had problems with LotL with their links in every Zelda article, and we do not want more problems now with their claims of copyright. I will ask at Wikipedia:Fair use. -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a Fair Use thing then? We could ask the webmaster or so.
Either way, I haven't seen it, or something similair, elsewhere, so I hope you can. JackSparrow Ninja 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Check here, it has been suggested to find individual replacements for the images in the collage. -- ReyBrujo 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ladyhawke Reference

I've just removed the reference to Ladyhawke, basically because it is completely irrelevant. Paraphrased, what I removed says "it was thought that the wolf-dynamic was inspired by a manga, but it isn't". I think there's absolutely no reason for it being, but does anyone object? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wapatista (talk • contribs) .

Actually I'm glad you did. JackSparrow Ninja 06:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Box Art

Ninty is releasing Box Art of Upcoming games. http://www.gamespot.com/events/wiilaunch/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24993103

I'll scout out better sources.--Signor 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I thought we didn't delete talkpage thingies.
Second, here is the boxart good and complete
Third, when do you want to add the boxart then? It's common to post the boxart in game articles, so I don't really see reason not to with Twilight Princess. JackSparrow Ninja 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That gold box art looks fake, especially the Nintendo logo(which looks very off). The one I uploaded is the one they showed at the New York press conference last week so at least that one can be verified as real. TJ Spyke 21:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the gold one they've shown at the [NY event] JackSparrow Ninja 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
My bad, I could have sworn they showed the darker one, but I guess I was wrong. TJ Spyke 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's ok. We're here to work on this together ;) JackSparrow Ninja 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The box art from the event isn't gold, it's much darker than that one. The actual box art is here --Impossible 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you think they're still tuning it or it's permanant? The wolf head looks a little, glued on.--Signor 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Doubtful anyone has the final box art, it's not on the press site yet. Also, somebody credited the box art to Land of the Legend. The site is down...it's not the source of the image...--TSA 01:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Impossible, that box art is gold(unless you think gold is a different color). I'm pretty confidant that will be the final box art since the games releases in less than 2 months. TJ Spyke 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone gave me a link to the network site of lotl, hence those credits.
Anyway, all we have now is what Nintendo has shown at the Wii event, and I see no reason to speculate about anything else untill there is a solid reason to. JackSparrow Ninja 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wii version is NOT the main version and the game is a GC title, the main version. GameCube Box Art comes first then the Wii boxart. --ChibiMrBubbles 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain what you're trying to say because I fail to understand what you mean. "The Wii version is NOT the main version"? "The game is a GC title, the main version"? What's a "main version"? Sasuke-kun27 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Wii version releases first. If you want to talk about main version at all, which is odd to but nonetheless, then it would be the Wii version. Besides, only the Wii boxart is official, so we're not gonna use an unofficial one of the GC version then. JackSparrow Ninja 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Like hell we are, it is a GC title. The GC was the first under development, we should honor the fact it is the real first version and give it the GC boxart.--ChibiMrBubbles 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its a GameCube game, but the box art you keep uploading is a fake as it says "Only for GameCube" when obviously its for the Wii as well. If you continue to contribute in this matter, it will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked. Sasuke-kun27 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep adding the WII boxart. GC was under development at first. And no, release date has nothing to do with the 'main' version. GC was first and got this article. Make a Wii article for the TP if you want to put that boxart. You're a hypocrite if you say that when you're putting the incorrect boxart for this game. --ChibiMrBubbles 19:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect? It's incorrect to post a picture of a game that says PS2 when its only for the Xbox, not to put a picture of the Wii version when its for both the Wii and GC. You're picture is incorrect becuse it says "Only for Gamecube" when, like I said earlier, its for both systems. Sasuke-kun27 19:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I do apologize for messing up the code and I when I did mess up the code I had to put it back to the original. The Wii version shouldn't take priority over the GC and you should just have this logo straight from Nintendo's OWN site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiMrBubbles (talk • contribs)

Nintendo has made it pretty clear that the Wii version is more importent to them, and I also don't think they have released the GameCube box art. All I have seen are mock-ups and fakes. TJ Spyke 20:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the new picture, actually. I don't know what other people might think, but I think its fine the way it is now. Sasuke-kun27 20:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sasuke, what/which do you mean? The GC version is unconfirmed.
Chibi, if you want to respect Nintendo, respect that they have so far only shown the Wii box art. JackSparrow Ninja 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it was the Twilight Princess logo, but it was reverted. I don't really care any more, though, as long as everybody's calm about the picture we use. Sasuke-kun27 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Official from the NoA press room, the Wii boxart and the GameCube boxart. JackSparrow Ninja 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't viewable without a username and password. I know there is a public press account, do you know what it is? TJ Spyke 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That I don't know alas. Maybe someone else?
But for now, it was just to say the one currently up is indeed official. JackSparrow Ninja 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Twilight Princess is the first Zelda game to be relased in the Americas before in Japan. What about Four Swords? Wikipedia doesn't have the release details there for some reason, but I'm pretty sure that came out in Japan in 2003, and the US version certainly came out in 2002. --Impossible 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox on the game's Wikipedia page also has that infomation listed. I believe that the statement should be removed if it has not already been done. --65.95.19.159 21:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mirror Mode Confirmed!!!

http://wii.ign.com/articles/733/733762p1.html 12.207.127.76 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There you have it. And it still states that Link is traditionally left-handed. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you ahve missed the point. There is no 'mirror mode' the Wii version is a mirror of the Gamecube version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 (talk • contribs)

owing to the fact that it cant have been the same link in every game, and the fact that the link directs you to a 404 error, it still hasnt been confirmed as definiteShinigami Josh 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Master Sword video

The article mentions that there is a recently released video where link is in his normal form and retrieves the master sword, could someone please provide a link for this video? 124.186.180.238 05:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Added under links as 'latest trailer'. JackSparrow Ninja 13:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving information

I think we have enough information on characters and setting to move all of that into its own articleJudgesurreal777 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Two things; if the game hasn't been released yet, why is there spoilers (I've obviously not read them)? Secondly, pretty much the whole article is under a spoiler section, I can only read about... two paragraphs in it! Could some spoilers be removed or something? Shamess 09:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am against having spoiler warnings at all since they are not encyclopedic. You wouldn't see something like there in any normal encyclopedia. TJ Spyke 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
But you wouldn't see articles about video games in a normal encyclopedia. This isn't a normal encyclopedia. 70.26.91.139 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the same thing with movies though, spoiler warnings are not encyclopedic. If people don't want to read about a game (which included the plot), then they shouldn't go to an encyclopedia entry on it. TJ Spyke 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right-handedness

Is it not obvious that the reason that Link is right-handed here is because most players will be right-handed (as most people are), and the increased interactivity of the Wii controller means that if Link remained left-handed, players would be playing off-handed, seriously effecting the game experience? I'm not sure there's any big mystery here; just pragmatism. Kelvingreen 09:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing somewhere that the big Nintendo guy (something ending in -oto I think) is left handed, and being compassionate, said you can simply switch hands and put the nunchuck in you right and your main Wii Remote in your left. Everything would work fine—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.107.246 (talk • contribs)

It's already confirmed that Link is right-handed in the Wii version. Also, are you thinking of Shigeru Miyamoto? TJ Spyke 19:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just pissed off the game is on the Wii at all. Because now I'm going to have the buy the friggin thing twice because I won't feel like i've completed it until I've done it with both sets of controls. I'm pretty appalled that they've changed Link to a righty too... what a load of balls. How hard is it to say that when you swing the controller, Link swings it the same way but from the opposite side. Oh wait, it's not hard at all. Duh. Bullshit. TP should have been GC only, then they should have started work on a Wii based Zelda game from the ground up, none of this conversion rubbish. (195.92.168.168 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
Keep in mind here that Wikipedia is not a forum. The talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not posting personal opinions. --Sasuke-kun27 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Link is right handed because of the Wii version's controls, such as aiming and using the sword. Link 486 @ 3:39 p.m., November 6th, 2006.

GCN release in Australia

It seems that Nintendo are going to release TP for GCN in Australia and NZ in early 2007. Putting aside my boiling rage at this decision, you can delve further at www.thehylia.com Note that they do have a source, so please check it out before you judge the validity. I'm far too angry to do the necessary edits myself though. Wapatista 09:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnet.com.au/games/wii/0,239036428,339271284,00.htm?feed=rss
Added JackSparrow Ninja 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you upset that they decided to release the GC version there? You should be happy they even decided to release the GC version at all since I think most people will choose to buy the Wii version. TJ Spyke 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but why are you mad that they're releasing it in Australia and New Zealand in the first place? I don't get it... うちはサスケ27 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he's mad because he has to wait longer than the US to get his hands on the GC version of the game. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I would think he would be used to that by now, Australia/New Zealand always get games after other regions. With North American not getting the GC version until December, I would have been more surprised if Australia didn't have to wait until 2007 for it. They will still get the Wii version at launch though. TJ Spyke 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm not mad at the decision to release - it's the fact that after many delays, in spite of a near world-wide launch for the GCN version (including other PAL territories), it still launches later. From my perspective, it seems like spite. Wapatista 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have any sourced actually confirmed the European and Japanese release dates? So far the only regions i've seen with confirmed dates for the GC version is North America and Australia. TJ Spyke 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
www.thehylia.com has an fairly recent item on the European release date. It's definitely about the same time as the North American release - i.e. ~December 10th. So Australia and NZ definitely receive the game later. In my mind there is no justification for a delay between PAL territory releases. Keep in mind that most of the games we receive in NZ are in fact the European versions, in that they have language options such as French, German etc. I'm sorry if I'm ranting about this. Wapatista 07:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears there's to be only one shipment headed towards Australia -- all copies sent to EBGames only : ( [13] Damn. This sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.219.127 (talk • contribs)

That's too bad, I would suggest getting the Wii version anyways. TJ Spyke 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Age rating

Yes, Nintendo says it has a T-rating, but the rating is not up to Nintendo but up to the ESRB, and they have not yet rated it. The rating on the Wii website is at best an estimate then. JackSparrow Ninja 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason at all not to update the rating. They included the reasons why it was rated Teen in addition to the T rating. Just because ESRB hasn't updated their site doesn't mean the rating is false. Hell, ESRB had the wrong rating for Kingdom Hearts II on their site for a period of time. I'm changing it, and if you want to fight about it, so be it. --buckeyes1186 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Nintendo's mainsite still lists the rating as RP [14]?.
Hey, Sonic the Hedgehog was marked as E-10+ long before ESRB confirmed it. Sonic Rivals was also listed as E long before ESRB put it up, as well. Actually, I'm surprised that this game even GOT a T Rating. I was expecting an E-10+ rating. --Ultima 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one of the North American translators said they hope TP will get a T rating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.44.86.202 (talk • contribs) .

I dobut it will be Teen , Shadow and Kingdom hearts 2 where E+10 and so will Twilight Princess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.136 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At the official website, at the bottom it says "Products range from RP to T". That is probably Twilight Princess.GrimRepr39 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Game has been rated M for mature audiences by the OFLC. http://www.oflc.gov.au/special.html?n=46&p=156&sMediaGames=1&sDateFromM=1&sDateFromY=1970&sDateToM=10&sDateToY=2006&record=216955

Wikipedia is too tight with this citation, especially for mere classifications, especially when a link is provided to the site and a search can be conducted.

this should also be looked at [15] with it getting a M rating also it should be taken into account that Australia is looser with its rating of violence in mediaShinigami Josh 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This actually scared me for a second. However, from what I can tell, that version of the "M" Rating is equivalent to ESRB's "T" Rating. It's essentially stating what we already know--the game is rated T. --Ultima 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Australia is very strict on games, games like GTA and Manhunt have actually been banned there. TJ Spyke 00:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
On the ESRB's website, now it says T (might need to scroll down a bit) GrimRepr39 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamecube Collector's Edition

Does anyone know what kind of stuff will be included in the collector's edition of the Gamecube version? Am I right that there is no collector's edition for the Wii? Please, anyone with info should add it to the article. 66.41.25.143 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was known, it was added. Just have some patience young padawan. They will most likely not unveil that information, if it's still coming that is, untill after the Wii launch. They don't want to cut down on Wii sales. JackSparrow Ninja 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What collector's edition? I haven't seen any news about a CE. TJ Spyke 05:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Reggie's mentioned it last winter. JackSparrow Ninja 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I only remember him saying that GC owners might get a pre-order bonus. Since there has been no mention of a CE since then, I think it's safe to assume their won't be one or else Nintendo would have said something. TJ Spyke 07:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Release Date Conflict

In the introduction of this article it states that the GameCube release date is set to the 13th of December, while later in the article under the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the "Development" section it states the GameCube release will be the 12th of December. Do we have absolute confirmation on which of the two dates it is? --Nicklegends 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are conflicts even among official sources. I've seen official sources (i.e. Nintendo) say both the 12th and 13th. The 12th is a Monday, so it will probably ship on that day and arrive in stores the 13th. TJ Spyke 20:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The Nintendo press site says it's the 13th. I can't seem the find the 12th on the Zelda site anymore, so I guess that solves it. JackSparrow Ninja 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
On the zelda.com page (http://zelda.com/universe/game/twilightprincess/) the text at the bottom still shows the 12th. It is rather tough to find, but nonetheless it is also official, as are the reports of the 13th. I see what Spyke means now. --Nicklegends 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation Number 12

Citation number 12 is used as validation for 11 seperate claims, none of which i have seen on any other site or source. this citation is referenced as "a recent issue of Nintendo Power" but is not really cited at the bottom. the problem is, when was this sentence written and when was that issue recent? if it is the newest one as of 10/22/06, the one that i don't have yet, please state that, and if no one has this new issue, please put it as speculation or unconfirmed or something. I could be wrong, as i am new to wikipedia's workings, and if i am, could some one please clarify. Well clarify if im right too... or just clarify please. << Aquilix 10/22/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.68.240 (talk • contribs) .

So what is up with reference/citation 12?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.68.136 (talk • contribs)
For some reason I can't get the reference to work properly, yet it does indeed refer to the latest Nintendo Power. JackSparrow Ninja 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
cool, thx... cant wait to see it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.64.132 (talk • contribs)

vandalism

with the recent increased occurances of it should we move to have the page edit protected, at least by non-users?? Shinigami Josh 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As the link goes nowhere and I haven't heard of any of this information I vote it should be deleted and NOT treated as fact. Bendragonbrown47 08:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

5 heart pieces for a heart container?

Ummm... this doesn't sound right. Show me some evidence. lwelyk 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's usually been 4 pieces, but TP is supposed to make it 5. Also, please post new topics at the bottom of the page. TJ Spyke 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this a serious question? Exactly what about this doesn't sound right? It's been like this for every Legend of Zelda game. // Sasuke-kun27 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant 5. The bottom doesn't cite a source for this. Can you show me a link proving this. 70.156.34.211 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference code is a bit messed up and I can't seem to get it right. If anyone does, the whole reference info is in the first reference under the story header.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=nl_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fng-gamer.nl%2fnieuws.php%3fid%3d2329
They got the whole Nintendo article written out here. JackSparrow Ninja 05:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
i dont really trust it, it goes against previous comments made directly by Nintendo, also the article its self has bits which dont make sence Shinigami Josh 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you list what parts of this goes against what Nintendo said. I also don't see why Nintendo Power would be lying about this.--70.48.108.151 02:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If anything it confirms what Nintendo has said about the game being harder. JackSparrow Ninja 03:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
it said that ther wer going to be 9 dungeons, as nintendo said there was going to be more dungones than ever before this goes against it (link to the past had 12)Shinigami Josh 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the claims made in this citation are valid. i found a person who had scanned the most recent Nintendo Power (which includes this full article) and posted it on the Nintendo.com forums. the artice did prove these claims. i'll try to get a link to it. also, Nintendo is holding a Zelda event for the press on monday the 30th of october, so around tuesday or wednesday we will be swamped in news YAY!

Twilight King?

Where did he come from? I've never heard anything about him, and I've been fairly up to date. A google search doesn't turn up anything really relevent either...199.126.137.209 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like BS to me, I'm asking for this to be deleted because whoever added it (and keeps changing it) is a liar and wants to spread rumors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.246.174.96 (talk • contribs) .

New EDGE, page 73, Twilight Princess preview.
Link's first adventure as a wolf takes him to meet Zelda's cowled figure, who recognises the 'bleu-eyed beast' as Hyrule's saviour, and confesses how she succumbed to the Twilight King. JackSparrow Ninja 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
i think the twilight king is also seen in the newly released (today the 2nd of nov) trailer. he is escorted by those weird twilight minion things, and is definitely not Ganon. Also, someone get some links to these two new videos. ign.com has them, i dont know where else—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.150.247 (talk • contribs)
If you had watched the article, you'd have seen these video's are already added ;-) JackSparrow Ninja 05:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So is that armoured dude confirmed to be the Twilight King? 199.126.137.209 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. JackSparrow Ninja 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Not saying I doubt you, but do you have a link? 199.126.137.209 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I knew it was coming ;-)
I'm looking for it now. I don't know exactly where it was, but if I recall it was from a Japanese magazine. I'll let you know asap. JackSparrow Ninja 08:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
when i clicked on the trailer link at the bottom, none were of the referenced video, but obviously this has been remedied 72.244.64.132 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that references # 11 does not exist. This why is this? It takes care of some very important aspects of the article. I think we need to change all [11]'s to citation needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neozero497 (talk • contribs)

GCN/Wii comparison pic

The GCN to Wii comparison image is extremely misleading. Though they are indeed shots from the game running each platform, the Cube ones are extremely outdated, and the Wii ones are about two days old. The image is therefore misleading and not proper representations of the game on each system. I am going to remove the image until one can be produced from the final versions of each game. While it is likely that the Wii version does look slightly better (such as widescreen support,) effects like light satuation were not added until late into the game's development, around the time that it was being prepared for Wii. Please understand that representing the game as it is in the final version is more important than making the GCN version look bad. 24.131.157.78 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely mate. As far as I understand, there are four aesthetic differences between the Wii and GCN version: Wii is in wide-screen, supports 480p, has a different (and I must say, much uglier) HUD and has a fairy cursor. Firstly, I don't think these differences really merit a comparative picture. Secondly, there are no comparative screenshots to use, that is there are no screenshots that show the exact same scene on each system. Wapatista 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Zelda image

I was wondering why the Zelda image was changed from the concept image to the screenshot? The screenshot is small and blurry (especially when compared to Darknut image), whereas the concept image is large and clear, and keeps in line with Link's concept art. Thoughts? Mintchocolatebear 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is because the artwork is over a year old, and the screenshot is reflective of the most recent version of Princess Zelda. I didn't change it, but I agree with the change - though you can get a better quality version from the trailer off GameVideos and taking a screen capture. --TSA 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the difference may be that the pic that is currently up (which i assume you are talking about) is of zelda in the Twilight Realm, in her funeral robes. in one video she is seen in her normal pinkish-white dress.Aquilix 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the original?

I couldn't find a section for this on the talk page so I'm starting one up. I'm curious, does anyone know which Twilight Princess is the port of the other? In other words, was the Wii the original and ported to the GameCube? or the other way around? Chef Ketone 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding it was initially intended for the GameCube and then shifted to the Wii during development.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.118.99 (talk • contribs)
It started out as a GameCube game. They then decided to release it for Wii as well. The Wii version is basically a port but using the Wii Remote for controls. The Wii version also will have progressive scan support (which the GameCube version doesn't). Miyamoto himself said he can't go back to the GameCube version after playing the Wii version. Either one should be good though. TJ Spyke 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Really huge...really unnecessarily huge. Is there any reason for ALL those images? 199.126.137.209 05:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Those screenshots are the latest batch, that basically show the game as it will be released come Nov. 19th. Plus, they're beautiful, and informative... and this article has gone way too long without a decent gallery. I say leave them up. Wapatista 10:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

somethings wrong

The weapons section won't show up completely; half of it is missing. But it is there in the editing window. Bly1993 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a cache issue. Click here to purge the cache, and check again. -- ReyBrujo 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that problem myself and realized for that it started when I tried to add in Nintendo Power References to the article. I have removed them for now and at least on my computer everything it back to normal so I hope it is working fine for you now. I don't know why this caused the information removal so I will not try to add them back in myself because it will likely happen again. This does lead to the probelm of several unreferenced peices of info in the entry though so can someone with more experience try to add them back in a proper manner. --70.48.174.252 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Downloadable content in Wii version

[16] According to this interview with George Harrsion the Wii version of the game will have downloadable content such as extra levels. (I'm assuming that means mini-dungeons of some kind.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kad-05 (talk • contribs)

It's completely taken out of context. There is no downloadable content in the Wii version. [17] JackSparrow Ninja 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Twilight realm

Can anyone tell me why the Twilight Realm's color style is mentioned under "weapons and items?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purplepurplepurple (talk • contribs) .

There was something wrong with the text and some things were removed and somehow belended with other sections. I believe it was somehow caused by some refrecnces that I added earler. They have been removed for the time being and it should be back to normal now. --70.48.174.252 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

December 11th US GCN Release?

[18] According to that, it releases on the 11th, not the 13th as said here. I fixed the article, but if this is wrong for some reason, oh well. Shadic 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He must be mistaken, according to their official website, it comes out 12/13. TJ Spyke 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Gah, George Harrison is really irritating me. He's been wrong with like, everything he's said about Twilight Princess.Shadic 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, we should follow the latest official information. It's right until it's proven wrong; if it is, the fault lies with him. --64.252.201.43 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
He may be mistaken, and the official Zelda site still says 12/13. TJ Spyke 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
And a Wikipedia user obviously is right over the word of an employee from Nintendo?—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiMrBubbles (talk • contribs)
Perrin Kaplin said the Wii was region free, and we all know what happened there. If other Nintendo sources also change the release date to 12/11, then OK. TJ Spyke 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He is from Nintendo, WHAT HE SAYS HAS MORE IMPORTANCE THAN WHAT YOU THINK. He said it's Nov 11, now, we could compromise and mention that it's now shifting towards the 11th.


Nintendo of America's OFFICIAL website, Gamepro, IGN, and Amazon all list December 11th! And Zelda Universe, which claims is the official Zelda site, says a release of 2006. It's December 11th, and people need to stop changing it back to the 13th!

It's the 12th of December. http://zelda.com --Crimalex 00:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Zelda.com is wrong. Even though its official, I'd believe Nintendo of America over it since they are the official nintendo website, which makes zelda in the first place. Anyway, I sent Nintendo an email and asked them if it was Dec. 11th to change www.zelda.com, or if it was the 12th to change their site. So, we shall see. But I'm fairly certain it's the 11th, and I think it's kind of foolish to go by one site, instead of 4 others and a Nintendo executive.

Retailer websites often have wrong release dates. TJ Spyke 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Nintendo GameCube version of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess will be available 12.12.06." - zelda.com Just incase, this is for the person who couldn't find it (in the edits).

Zelda.com is the official Zelda site, which is run by Nintendo so it's trustworthy. Also NoA doesn't make Zelda, the just handle translations etc. --Crimalex 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo is just making a mess of things, since their official press site says december 13. We'll just have to wait and see. Untill they give one clear answer, let's just stick with what we got, which is 12. JackSparrow Ninja 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What official site were you on? The one I went to said Dec. 11th. But you're right. Might as well compromise and say the 12th, even though I still have this feeling it's the 11th. Nintendo needs to clear things up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfinke (talk • contribs)

Check the edit history. Go to zelda.com and click on the link to TP, at the bottom it will say that the GameCube version comes out on December 12th. JSN is right, Nintendo has made a mess of this since we have 3 different dates and all are from official sources. TJ Spyke 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing about release dates. Dec. 11 is the shipping date. Most stores will get the game this day. However, they will not put it on the shelves until the 12th. Sources will often use the shipping date as the release date. I hope this clarifies. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a nice explanation, if not for the fact that Nintendo gives three official dates. What makes december 13 then? The day it's sold out? :P ;-) JackSparrow Ninja 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past them. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't put it past them. December 13 is on Nintendo's official press site. There are 3 official dates. JackSparrow Ninja 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone put on of those citation thingies by the Dec 12th's, so people can see where the information was gotten from. i;d put it but I'm new to wikipedia editing and don't know. --Crimalex 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


I got an email back from Nintendo of America today. Here's what it said: "Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,

The official release date for the Nintendo GameCube version of Twilight Princess should be December 11th. I've informed the appropriate departments to correct the release date posted at www.zelda.com. In the meantime, you will need to contact your local stores to find out exactly when they are getting their copies of Twilight Princess. " We'll have to wait and see if www.zelda.com changes

One major problem with this article

Is that most of it has been written from a slow accretion of facts gleamed from interviews and magazines over a very long time. As such, throughout the article, many facts are corroborated with a statement like "in a recent interview" or "in the latest trailer", and disregarding the puerile nature of the overall effect, many of the implied interviews and trailers et al are actually no longer recent, and completely out of date! There is also a secondary problem, where entire sections end up reading as short snippets of facts, in the order that they were made public... Anyway, this article will probably metamorphose once TP finally gets released, but until then, I think someone should clean it up a little. Someone who isn't avoiding spoilers, like me, and who can no longer read many sections, let alone edit them. Wapatista 10:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Most popular game articles on Wikipedia get an extensive rewrite after the game is actually released. Almost all of the information in the article is based on secondary and tertiary sources, so we can't be sure of anything until the game is out there and Wikipedia editors are playing the game. So, if the page is rewritten using primary sources, it will turn out much better than it is now. The development section of the article will probably be compressed and listed near the bottom of the article, as well. That's just how Wikipedia's editors work. 24.131.157.78 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

European release

I don`t know it this site should be trusted, but i hope its true. http://www.rpgsite.net/news/126.html -user:EEVEE103

The fact that they talk of a rumour, which never really was a rumour, let alone after Nintendo had already long re-confirmed the European release, says enough about their thrustworthy-ness. There has never been talk about there not being a European release. Those rumours are from American sites who know nothing of what's happening on the continent, yet do think they can say something of it.
Having ranted enough, you could have saved yourself the trouble and simply go to the most obvious source: Nintendo of Europe. JackSparrow Ninja 11:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
well that proves the european release date, im just sick of american sites (and people) banging on about it saying its only going to be released in NA. -user:EEVEE103

Proof Needed

OK, check out this bit from the article: "Link will have three types of bombs available." Where's the proof? There's a few more examples of this in the Weapons and Items sections, but I won't go into detail. Basically, those bits need some work. Maybe with bullet points. I love you bullet points. Ahem...I didn't state that out loud, did I?--Ninty 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They're from the latest Nintendo Power, but the reference messed up the page. JackSparrow Ninja 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, zelda dies

It says that "ZELDA DIES at the end of Twilight Princess. She drives her sword through Ganon's collar bone but he stabs her in the gut." at leat 11 times, someone wants to get there piont across very badly. im just going to delete them all.-Widkid85

umm it says something

something about sony and microcap suck i dont think tahts supposed to be there. ima take it off.

It's a vandal. The game is not even out yet. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That vandal son of a bitch

Removal of Armor/Ganon screenshots

So why did you remove my Zora Armor and Midna information? Did you LOOK at the IGN message board? Where it was as CLEAR as day that the pictures were real.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if you tried to use the message board as a source, no can do. 199.126.137.209 01:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And why not? The pictures are damn real.

Please sign your comments
That said, here are the problems with the pictures:
1) As said, message boards are not considered reliable sources.
2) Such pictures should be uploaded and used as a wiki-picture.
3) Those pictures look in no way like the graphics we have all seen in the game. No tv-flare thingie can change graphics that badly. This is clearly fake. JackSparrow Ninja 01:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/SolidusSnake/IMG_1326.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/SolidusSnake/IMG_1329.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/SolidusSnake/IMG_1330.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/SolidusSnake/IMG_1331.jpg

Yep, clearly ALL FAKED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiMrBubbles (talk • contribs)

They are also terrible quality, another reason not to add them in. TJ Spyke 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


So you're saying that hte person who posted:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v122/MrBubbles/IMG_1322.jpg

Faked it all? Oh wow. --ChibiMrBubbles 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides the horrible quality, which makes it pretty useless, the difference in graphic style seems a big warant of fakeness. JackSparrow Ninja 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why IGN decided to pull the thread from IGN, who would want to get into legal trouble with Nintendo? Anyway, I won't push the matter more, but since I'm right, I'll have the courtasy of uploading the same pics but in higher quality. Enjoy being arrogant.--ChibiMrBubbles 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be rediculous. Look at all the content that is being posted by gametrailers and advancemn; there is no NDA for it. Landofthelegend even posted some information about the ending of the game. IGN pulling the thread indicates fakeness rather then reality.
Besides, IGN is not responsible for what users post on their boards.
But if you are so certain of how real it is, you wouldn't mind explaining to me why in this picture the icon used to show that you can press A is not consistant with the rest of the game. JackSparrow Ninja 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


TSA, owner of TheHylia.com, is telling that said person to hush down. We'll have to wait until the game is out to see who is the winner.

Ah, good ol' TSA. Let me think, how many things did he make up again?
Those screens are so clearly fake, I don't even know why I bother to discuss.
Won't do anymore from now on. Have fun. JackSparrow Ninja 02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/gamer/2006/nov/12/zeldaupdate/

Tell me what is wrong with the pictures and info there. Go.--ChibiMrBubbles 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The horrible quality aside, it's no reliable source.
It doesn't even state who this person is, to have an early copy of the game.
Either way you twist it, it's fishy and blurry. JackSparrow Ninja 02:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if it was not fake, the quality is still way too low. It's a camera-at-screen picture, a screengrab would be much better. 67.23.84.125 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the website seems to be down after many consistant updates, and he had answers for everything... maybe he was the real deal. Meh, still isn't official.LerLerson 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How's it feel to be wrong? Enjoy. The Armor was real despite all your 'proof' saying they were fake. Next time, don't look like an ass who doesn't know jack about what they're talking about.

No one said the armour was fake. The screenshots are of such low quality -and graphical difference- they are considered fake. The existence of the armour was already known, and added to the article. JackSparrow Ninja 16:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Even more pics uploaded to: http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/gamer/2006/nov/12/zeldaupdate/ Still think he's lying and this is all a clever ruse with a program that simulates parts of the game we haven't seen?

Lay of the attitude. The pictures are of pathetic quality.
You're making a fool of yourself, and annoying us.
Don't do it, it won't gain you any respect. JackSparrow Ninja 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What respect? This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Not something to boast about. The only fool here are those who remove real information/picture only because they don't believe it to be true, putting their personal opinion over what someone else who has the game. Thanks for assuming if I cared about respect, my ego isn't that pathetic to warrant immediate cyber attention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiMrBubbles (talk • contribs)

Remember to sign your comments. Also, another reason they were removed is that the quality of the pictures were horrible. Maybe if they were decent shots (and not all blurry and fugly). TJ Spyke 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Meh. Everything has been taken down now, as he apparently had a call from a Nintendo representative. --Zooba 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, we'll just have to wait. --70.44.86.202 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Twilight King

I removed this section because it contained story spoilers that I felt were unacceptable. If any of you feel the information should stay you can go into my edit and extract the non-spoiler information, but it was egregious so be warned.

No offense, but seriously: immediate revert. It's spoiler information, which should perhaps be highlighted, but I think anyone who looks up something on an encyclopedia can expect spoilers. --Zooba 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

True, it is a spoilerfest, but as stated its only natural. So I second revert but perhaps remove the name for the sake of having less spoilertastic information. Name as in Zant, Twilight King is pretty self explanatory. --70.44.86.202 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind. --Zooba 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is best to revert it to the previous, less spoiling version.
Though you may not mind Zooba, the majority of people will feel this being way too spoiling. JackSparrow Ninja 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I believe we should be somewhat careful with the amount of spoilers given at the moment. Yes, an encyclopedia (possibly) contains spoilers, but I feel this is going overboard. Nintendo is also taking action against it for good reason. People should still be able to look up basic information about this game, without having everything spoiled. JackSparrow Ninja 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I only feel spoilers should be avoided before a game/move comes out. Once they have been released, everything is fair game. TJ Spyke 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, so I believe we should take off the same clan info and his real name for the time being.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.86.202 (talk • contribs)
Exactly. Since the game isn't released yet, I feel we need to avoid the big-time spoilers. Most certainly if Nintendo rejects them.
I'm not even sure if Wikipedia is happy with them if Nintendo closes all sources with those spoilers. JackSparrow Ninja 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I edited Ganon and The Twilight King, feel free to correct any grammar errors.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Someone deleted the article please get it back! Waluigi300 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pyrus/Fyrus?

The caption under the boss picture says Fyrus while the article says Pyrus... Are the two names freely exchangable or is it a simple mistake? 64.13.95.106 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"capgamer"

I overlooked a Pyrus name while changing it then :$ It is Fyrus, as the screenshot in the reference shows. I'll change it now. JackSparrow Ninja 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks! 64.13.95.106 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"capgamer"

It was originally "Pyrus" in the NYC build, but has since changed to "Fyrus" in the final build. To ensure I wasn't going crazy, my Golin/Harris rep confirmed this. Still need to see if it is this way in all versions. --TSA 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Orchestrated Soundtrack

I added a bit about how all/most of the soundtrack will be orchestrated. I cited ign, so it should be alright. Feel free to reword it or whatever. Just 5 more days! -IeditWikipedia 04:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it to be more concise. Good find, nice job. The IGN article is fairly old (June 2005), but, I think, still trustworthy, unless anyone has heard differently ...? --Herald Alberich 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to one reviewer, "The game does not feature all live-recorded, orchestrated music..." "The majority of the title is simply synthesized audio." http://thehylia.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1163469393&archive=&start_from=&ucat=9& 64.13.95.106 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"capgamer"

So it says it doesn't feature all orchestrated music, which should imply only a part of it. I guess that means some of the soundtrack, as opposed to most, will be orchestrated. Just wondering though, is that site trustworthy enough to cite? - IeditWikipedia 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the review was done by TSA... the sorta famous speed run and Ganon Banned guy. Actually I think I've seen posts of his on this talk page. So, buddy, are you a reliable source? :) 64.13.95.106 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"capgamer"

Considering the fact that in the last year alone, he's been responsible for 4 mayor rumours, the answer to that is quite simply no. JackSparrow Ninja 19:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no spoiler warning in front of the story

Now Im mad that I know about the zelda and twilight king thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superway25 (talk • contribs)

I can't blame you since the game isn't out yet. Once the game does come out, I think the warning should be removed. I feel that if you want to know about the game/move (which includes plot) then you shouldn't be look at an encyclopedia entry for it. TJ Spyke 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Surely we should keep the spoiler tags even once the game is released? I'm pretty sure they remain on other pages when a game or movie is released. --Zooba 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And I disagree with spoiler warnings on stuff that is already released. If people don't want to know about a game then they shouldn't be looking it up on a encyclopedia. TJ Spyke 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps... I suppose I wouldn't be too adverse keeping things that have been officially released as non-spoilers. ie. content revealed in trailers, interviews etc. Agree/disagree? --Zooba 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Having both cover art for boxes

I realize this was talked about already, but that was back in September, so I thought it should be brought up again. Can we get the Gamecube cover put up as well? The Gamecube cover is very different from the Wii version. If you compare the cover on the article page with the cover [19] (scroll down to number four on that list), you'll see a big difference. The only thing the same is the logo. Other than that, they're very different. Different color schemes, different images on the cover, different everything else. Can we add it in? Anakinjmt 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The link doesn't seem to be working... --Zooba 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That box art is NOT correct (note how it doesn't even have a EXRB rating). The box art for the two versions are the SAME, the only difference is the Wii version is a little darker, but everything else is the same. TJ Spyke 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Coulda sworn that was a rating in the corner. I checked Amazon and yeah, according to their pre-order pictures of the cover art, there is only a slight variation. A'ight, cool. Just making sure. Anakinjmt 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't trust IGN, it's bad for your health.
The GameCube version is colored actually, but that still leaves it the same, and it still leaves the same as in the september discussion: there is no videogame that has multiple boxarts, so TP should be no different. JackSparrow Ninja 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar, Spelling, and an Archive request

The following two sentences from the plot section are very confusing:

"After Link enters the Twilight Realm, which, commanded by the Twilight King, reduces people to spirit form. Link, however, is transformed into a wolf instead upon entering, captured and imprisoned in a castle."

I don't know enough about the game to make a full determination as to how it should be worded, but I changed it to:

"After Link enters the Twilight Realm, which normally reduces people to spirit form, he is transformed into a wolf instead. Then he is captured and imprisoned in a castle."

If you disagree, let me know on my talk page.

Also, is it major or mayor in the plot section? And if someone would be so gracious as to archive this page. I would do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with this talk page.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit certainly makes it clearer, and is accurate from what I know. I'm fairly certain "major" is a typo; I'll change that, and someone can change it back if, for some reason, "major" is a rank in Kakariko and Ordon. --Herald Alberich 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess/Archive_2&oldid=1142446570"