Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Necessity for an article

Do we really need this article now? How about a debut trailer first? A few screenshots, an actual setting, that sort of thing. Right now we already have our hands full with the ALBW and TWWHD articles. We should keep the development of this original outing in the Future section of the Zelda series article until more information is unveiled. This is an ambiguous article at best right now. ServiceGhost (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect - its WP:TOOSOON for this, especially for something that has no name and has so far had very little actually announced about it. If you trim down all the long rambling quotes, you'd see that there's not much more than an actual paragraph of concrete info, which would be better as a subsection at the series article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect - Completely agree with Sergecross on WP:TOOSOON, which was the point I was trying to make above. I believe we should wait out on an ambiguous article like this for the time being, and temporarily redirect to the Future section of the series article. A handful of quotes can all be summarized and included in a Development section for the game further down the line, no need to beat around the bush. ServiceGhost (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect - Agreed. This will no doubt achieve extreme notability soon, but at the moment this article seems poorly formatted, based on WP:OR, and lacks citations. There isn't really enough information at this time to warrant a full article, so leave this as a redirect to The Legend of Zelda#Future or something. I will try to clean up this article for the time being, but I assume it will be changed into a redirect very soon... DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Redirected. satellizer (talk - contributions) 07:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent interviews with Aonuma

There is some information that has come to light in interviews with Aonuma that need to be taken into consideration. For example, http://kotaku.com/the-new-zelda-might-not-have-the-puzzles-you-expect-1590544423 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyechi (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Added. I've incorporated the source with a new paragraph I wrote for the article under the "Development" subheading. Thanks for the heads up! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 18:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

GameXplain Analysis

I just watched GameXplain's analysis of the trailer on Youtube and wondered if we could add some of the material they've come up with. However, it is all theoretical, so it might not be added. If it is added, maybe we could mention that it is all theoretical and that none of it has been proved or disproved by Nintendo or other official sources? Thoughts? Gameditor (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gameditor:No, that is categorically unencyclopedic. WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOT — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Robin William's Petition

A fan-made petition was recently answered by a Nintendo spokesperson. The petition, which was organized by Nick Schaedel, asks that Nintendo "please consider naming an NPC in the new Legend of Zelda game after Robin Williams. It was a series he loved, and it's a small tribute to a great man." A Nintendo spokesperson replied "Robin Williams was loved a Nintendo." "Our hears go out to his entire family, and especially to Zelda Williams who we've worked with multiple times." "We appreciate the outpouring of support from the gaming community, and hear the request of fans to honor him in a future game. We will not be discussing what might be possible for future games during this difficult time, but we will hold our memories of Robin close." I think this would be a good addition to either this page or to the Legend of Zelda page. Gameditor (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gameditor:No, that is unencyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS WP:FANCRUFT — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola:Alright. Thanks for the advice. I checked those pages out and realize why these can't be on here. The same for the previous section. I'm a n00b on here, so still learning. :) Gameditor^Talk 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gameditor: as the game development progresses, it might be worthy to include it if Nintendo actually honours him with a reference in the game. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar:Yeah, but considering how far away the game is, it doesn't look like this page will be edited much for quite some time. Gameditor^Talk 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gameditor: definitely! Patience is a virtue. I created this page back in July 2011! I had no idea it would take four years for it to develop... ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 21:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Title should be changed to The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game) or something similar

Change it or not? Aonuma never gave an updated release window when he announced the delay. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, he clearly indicated theyre no longer shooting for 2015, and there's no indication that it'd be a multi-year delay, so I'm not sure what else you'd realistcally expect...? Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game) is suitable, similar to the upcoming Doom game. There's been no confirmation of a 2016 release date, even though it appears to be the most likely release date, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to make assumptions like that. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't like "upcoming". When a new one is announced, would the old redirect be retargeted, or would it be kept because of all the existing links to that title? That's not worth the hassle. But if it somehow does make 2015 and there are still links to The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game), that's harmless. Those links are all piped anyway. Reach Out to the Truth 04:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can settle upon changing the old redirect when a new game is announced. Besides, Nintendo should hopefully be revealing the official title of this next game sometime soon, which will make the choice of the article's title much simpler. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I support moving the page to "The Legend of Zelda (upcoming video game)" because Nintendo hasn't given a new release window, and even though 2016 seems obvious, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing which says this game is going to be released in 2016 so it should be moved ASAP.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until discussion is over and there's a clear consensus, in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 10:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure but not in this case where there was nothing to verify that the game would be released in 2016; the only rationale being it's "not worth the hassle" to fix the article name.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint - I'm not saying you went against a local consensus, I'm saying you made a move in the middle of an active discussion, which you're not supposed to do. Someone had just voice disapproval your move as well, and it's not necessarily a "one or the other" type situation - there could be a third option. Please wait in the future. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Anniversary

Since the game has been changed for a 2016 release, do we have info about Nintendo possibly aiming to celebrate the franchise's 30th anniversary? Leader Vladimir (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Beyond them reconfirming that it was still a Wii U title that would release in 2016, they really didn't say anything at all about the game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. When they do say anything about the Anniversary, it won't be until either late this year or early next year, especially since they're celebrating Super Mario Bros. 30th. Maybe just mention in the intro that it will be releasing in the year of Zelda's 30th Anniversary. If new info surfaces with enough for a new section, then we can add it. --Super3588 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding that to the lead section isn't really a good idea unless some source notes it as well; there needs to be something to establish the notability of this fact. I do expect it'll happen, for what it's worth, but we'll see :p ~Mable (chat) 15:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying to note that it will be Zelda's 30th, not to say Nintendo will celebrate it. --Super3588 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless/until Nintendo connects it to this particular game, that's really more of an observation for the series article than here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's really worth pointing out anywhere unless some party "makes a big deal out of it." After all, to us, it is the exact same thing as saying a few days ago that this game was going to come out on the series' 29th anniversary. It isn't notable unless someone says it is :p ~Mable (chat) 16:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I don't especially think it needs to be mentioned anywhere, its basically just trivia unless Nintendo starts using it as a promotional tagline or something. I just mean it would be more relevant there at the series article than here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

2016 Release Date

Some of you may recall that this article used to be titled "... (2015 video game)". Now that we know for sure that this game is coming in 2016 (It was noted in the latest Nintendo Direct at the beginning.), should we change the name of the article to "... (2016 video game)"? --Super3588 (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. I don't see much of S point, I'm hoping before too long they'll announce a real name and it'll be a moot point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

When did they announce stuff for Mario's 25th? That would be a good reference for when they'll start announcing stuff for Zelda's 30th. --Super3588 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

New Aonuma Interview

Kotaku has published an article regarding a recent interview with Eiji Aonuma] by Famitsu about Zelda Wii U. IGN has also sourced Kotaku for their own story on the matter. Take a look.
Kotaku article: http://kotaku.com/an-update-on-zelda-wii-u-1764000736

IGN: http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/03/10/zelda-wii-u-director-hints-at-western-influence

--Super3588 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's good, at least we know development has taken leaps and bounds. They're still not sure about a 2016 or Nintendo NX release though, but the article should be fine. If the game turns out to be 'cutesy' then I'm taking this article off my watchlist. JAGUAR  20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I posted this here in case anyone wanted to update the article with the information. For example, they could somehow use the quote, "[T]his time" (referring to how their "secret sauce" has always used OoT as a base), "the change in flavor will be like going from Japanese food to Western style food." --Super3588 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Block Edits?

Given the recent changes to this page by IP address users (and subsequent undoes by registered users), should we block edits on this page to non-autoconfirmed users? Given the widespread rumor of "March 2017" and and the fact that we've had to undo two edits from two separate IP users within 24 hours (along with the likelihood of more users trying to "correct" the page to March 2017), this might be a good idea. -- Super3588 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's only been a day and a half since the delay was announced and reverting twice in 24 hours isn't so bad. If edits ignoring consensus continue for an extended period despite the comment, then protection might be warranted. Otherwise, it's probably overkill. Also, in case you missed it, I replied to your comment in the previous section. —zziccardi (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If it continues over the next few months, then yes, but eventually people will go on to the next big article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo's press site removing March from the release date should reduce the odds of this being a major issue.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the majority of the last several edits were either edits from IP users or those IP user edits getting reverted by registered users. In fact, there have been almost no actual edits (adding or removing content, aside from reversions) for a long time. The last eight edits by registered users (including two CluBot NG reversions for vandalism) were reverts to the previous version. -- Super3588 (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

British English?

According to a notice on this page's Edit Source page, the article is written in British English. I wouldn't care whether or not it is, except for the fact that none of the other articles for TLoZ series seem to be written that way, so this creates a sort of shock to some readers. They'll be reading along through various TLoZ articles and then come to an article in British English, wondering why it's written the way it is. Because of the sake of continuity (as this article is really one in a series of articles that are written in American English), I think we should write this article in American English as well. What do you guys think? -- Gestrid (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I created this article in British English, so it seems that was the original choice. I put the editnotice up because of the constant flood of IPs kept changing it. JAGUAR  15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. While I still think it needs to be changed to American English, I now know why it was written that way. Did you just put the notice up? I've never noticed it before now. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I do feel as though the page should correspond with American English. IPs consistently change "instalment" to "installment," indicating that they may be disregarding the notice. It would just be less of a hassle. snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 16:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I understand your argument, but I don't believe it's appropriate to abruptly change the date format and English variation, as well as create the edit notice, without discussion. For the vast majority of the time it hasn't been redirected elsewhere, the article has used the alternative formats. MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET favor not reverting to the British formats by my interpretation (emphasis mine): If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. —zziccardi (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the editnotice. As far as I'm aware I started this article with UK spelling and I thought that was the original variant to use per MOS:RETAIN. I don't want to get banned again over something like this. I'm not angry at all at anybody here, it's just that I don't like how Wikipedia is biased and how everyone is unaware of different spelling variations. I want to apologise to anybody in the last few days if I have come across as abrupt or extreme. We can use American, Australian or Hong Kong English from now on. (But if I see the word "fall" anywhere, I'm changing it to "autumn" no matter what) ;-D JAGUAR  14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You were banned for "something like this"? Jeez, that seems a bit extreme, especially considering your admirable work here! Anyway, it doesn't particularly matter (at least to me) which English variation we use; I just think it's best to discuss before making that kind of change. I can't blame you for being frustrated about Wikipedia's biases… Also, I hope my comment didn't come across as brash. —zziccardi (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anthonymous: It's probably best to hold off on making edits like this until after a discussion wraps up, no? —zziccardi (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zziccardi: I was under the impression that it did. I apologize. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 00:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Shall we try to decide on an English variant (and date format) now? —zziccardi (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well... it's a tough call. On one hand, the article was written in British English. However, as I stated before, IPs or inexperienced users don't seem to understand this, and are consistently changing "instalment" to "installment." I reworded "emphasize" to "reiterated" to avoid any mixups in that area. However, "installment/instalment" is the best word to use in that instance. In order to prevent further misunderstandings, I feel American English would be the more compromising choice. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 00:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If we decide to use British English, I think an edit notice should work well enough (although I believe it's not displayed on the mobile). I gave my argument for retaining American English above as well. Of course, as an American, I'm not exactly unbiased. —zziccardi (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As you pointed out, the article hasn't really "evolved using predominantly one format." The use of the difference in language applies to only one word, along with a date format that I imagine most users won't actually mind or notice. It could go either way, honestly. However, I stand by the possibility of IPs and good faith edits. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 00:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I was trying to say. The text I quoted above is from MOS:DATERET, not MOS:RETAIN, and therefore applies specifically to retaining a longstanding date format. In other words, I was arguing in favor of restoring the MDY date format, as that's what the guidelines suggest by my interpretation. As you said, there isn't a particularly strong case for either English variation. —zziccardi (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry. I misunderstood the attribution. Well, seeing as @Jaguar: is the creator of the article, I think we should hear more of his thoughts on the matter. MOS:RETAIN doesn't really clear anything up, anyway. The article doesn't have a strong national tie to either country, but the spelling doesn't cause the reader to misconstrue it, either. "Installment" is quite obviously comprehensible in both cases. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 01:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo EPD

The FA Kingdom Hearts II article says "developed and published by Square Enix", not "developed by Square Enix Product Development Division 1 and published by Square Enix". Listing the division of the main company that developed the game should go into the development section/infobox, just like it is for KHII. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article right? Just makes sense to not list the exact production division of a company in the very first sentence. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the majority of major Nintendo games are developed by this division. It's a detail for the lead, but worth mentioning in the infobox and development section. ~Mable (chat) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It definitely is getting tricky to list Nintendo EPD as a developer. Especially now since there is no other distinction inside of Nintendo when it comes to game development. NOAWiki (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Amiibo figurines

A number of IPs keep removing the term "figurines" after the word "amiibo", claiming that its redundant. A number of established editors keep making the argument that general audiences (What Wikipedia writes for) may not know that an Amiibo is a figurine. Looking for a consensus on this. Input? Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Inclusion of figurine - Yes, its explained at the Wiki-link that it's a figuring, but I see no problem with adding a single word in the sentence to clear it up even faster. Its a single word, it doesn't break the flow of the sentence or anything. I see no issue with this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I am also in favor of including "figurines". We write for a general audience, not just for people who are into video games and Nintendo.--IDV^talk 16:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. Those not familiar with the terminology would have to click the link to figure out the context, rather than just understanding what they are within the article. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 16:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Inclusion of figurine - No. I agree with removing both the word figurines and the word multiple. I accept that the word figurines makes sense with the inclusion of the word multiple but Amiibo is the plural of Amiibo so it's unnecessary. The whole section is already getting needlessly verbose. The Amiibo page is already linked for the rare reader of a Zelda page who would not already know what Amiibo are.134.88.62.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Did you mean to say "exclusion"? Otherwise, I don't really understand your stance. Also, I fail to see how the inclusion one extra word ("figurine") somehow makes things "too verbose". Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Even if you meant to say "exclusion", I'm not sure I understand your argument as to why it should be left out. Something to do with the words "multiple" and "figurines", I think. Still not sure what your point is. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of "figurines", per Serge. —zziccardi (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. This is not a Nintendo-only wiki, so not everyone who comes across this article will know what an amiibo is. As an example of how that could happen, they could've clicked Random article to get here. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Note: It seems like most of the IP edits concerning amiibos recently were all part of the same IP range. The range seems to be mostly 73.114.25.XXX. It's likely that 134.88.62.140's edit summary is a lie. Also note that all or most of those IPs have only ever edited this page, which makes it seem to me that either 134.88.62.140 is the same user as those IPs or we have another IP user in addition to 134.88.62.140. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Evidence: Here's the evidence of the IP user lying on an edit summary. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed, I thought I had dealt with the same IP-hopper with issues related to amiibo before. We've had to protect the amiibo page from him in the past. If there continues to be a clear consensus here, and the IP persists, then we'll get this article protected from anonymous editing too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I noticed you had protected the Amiibo page. Anyway, I suggest an IP range block on the IP addresses he "hops" to, as well as blocking the 134 IP, which seems to be his primary IP address. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've talked with those on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, and using an IP address the way this user seems to be doing falls under WP:ILLEGIT and WP:LOGOUT. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Update: I've opened a sockpuppet investigation into the IP user. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Despite what the IP said, majority favor the inclusion of figurine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Update on SPI: The "master" IP address (User:134.88.62.140) has been blocked for one month. The other less-active IPs were left alone. The more active IPs may be blocked as a sockpuppet if they become a problem. If they pop up as another IP, semi-protection is the best route. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/134.88.62.140 for the sockpuppet investigation details. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

4K Screenshots

Hey, are we able to use these 4K screenshots? They seem to be originally from the trailer that was released during E3 2016. This is reinforced by the fact that they are specifically called screenshots. The trailer is currently available on YouTube under the Standard YouTube License. If we can use them, what would be the source? Nintendo Prime or the YouTube trailer? -- Gestrid (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Screenshots should show actual gameplay features, not just the visual style of the game. Promo images like this, and the one currently included in the article, are not useful. They don't exhibit any features of the game, they just look pretty. Also per WP:NFCC, screenshots should be low resolution. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus Question: Which lead should we use?

Recently, a user by the name of Van97 made an edit to the lead of this article. He and I disagreed on the wording of the lead. In an effort to avoid a potential WP:EDITWAR, I've decided to put it up to consensus.

• Original Version (The version before either me or Van97 ever touched the lead.
• Van97's Version (I corrected it for a typo and a wikilink. Here's his original lead.)
• My Version (Which was a slightly modified version of Van97's original lead.)

Obviously, I'm in favor of my version. I've notified the user on their talk page of this discussion, but they apparently don't have an email address for that notification to go to, and I don't know when they'll be back on Wikipedia to see the notification that way. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I'm not in favor of turning this into an edit war or even consensus-necessary. You may revert back to your version if you'd like but I just genuinely thought it seemed less comprehensible (the two instances of "start" for example was a bit redundant). I will not revert again. --Van97 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I honestly think both versions are good. I'm biased toward mine, so I'm trying to get others' opinion on the matter. Besides, once something is up for consensus, it can't be changed until a consensus is reached, I believe. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is active!

I've noticed activity similar to User:134.88.62.140, who was banned for a month for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/134.88.62.140/Archive), on both the Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival page and the Star Fox Zero page. The sockmaster's ban is still active, but they can still use other IPs. User:Sergecross73 has said they will protect any page affected by this sockpuppet if needed. Please ask for protection via their talk page if the need comes up. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Studios

There is clearly a difference between a co-development project and a production support / cooperation role even by official Nintendo standards. Obviously all these big games are going to have additional production help by other companies, but that doesn't qualify them as co-developer. Nintendo and Grezzo for example, worked together on all aspects of Triforce Heroes at the start of the project. Hence Nintendo credits them as a co-developer. Monolith typically works on the larger production art team that comes near the final production phase of a game. Monolith has been clearly used as a graphic support developer on several big Nintendo projects, that doesn't make them a co-developer since they don't work on all aspects nor do they begin the project. If you want maybe you can add additional work or just mention them in the body section as a graphic assistant. What does everyone else think? NOAWiki (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• They are always just given special thanks in the credits anyway, which clearly isn't that big of a role. I say we keep them out of the infobox unless it turns out its a Star Fox Zero type of situation (half and half). That being said, sources reported that Monolith Soft have around 100 guys working on the game, and since it's a large, expansive game, so I could see them actually being a co-developer this time, with their experience with the Xenoblade games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, according to VG 24/7, "[i]t’s not clear whether this means 100 staff in addition to a core development team or if that’s the total number of staff working on it including Eiji Aonuma’s team." I was gonna say to add them, but then I saw that quote. I say wait and see what the credits say. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! It's already been established that Monolith Soft is one of the graphic cooperation companies that joins the larger production team toward the final phases of the development of big Nintendo games. Co-developer just isn't the accurate term there unless we rewrite every other Japanese developer's game listing who do this. NOAWiki (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• My opinion pretty much echoes Dissident's. —zziccardi (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• As others above had said, I'd wait for clarification and act accordingly. If its just minor assistance with art assets and whatnot, like Namco's assistance with Mario Kart 8, then probably don't list it. If its revealed to be more like something like Star Fox Zero or Hyrule Warriors, then list them. A note in the dev section would be fine in either scenario, provided we've got a WP:RS to back up whatever the exact claim is. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Off topic but relevant; could somebody help with the Monolith Soft article itself? Some user keeps claiming they were co-developers on all these other Nintendo games, when the game's themselves do not support this. The products list on Monolith's official website doesn't even state their exact role, just that they assisted in some form, which nobody is doubting. I've been wanting to fix up their article for a while now, but haven't had the time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• If the problem continues, you could try either protecting the page or requesting a temp block on the user(s) as vandals. There might be another way, but, if there is, I don't know it. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Monolith Soft to edit the article meaningfully. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Their role is the same in every game they contributed. They work on graphic assets (modeling additional objects, NPC, etc). On some games like Splatoon and Skyward Sword, they also did animation contribution. But never actual program, sound, or game design. That's obvious from the credits. NOAWiki (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is my point, but some people just assume they did roughly half the game themselves because their website says they assisted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

They should be added regardless with a Note "Additional work by" like on other newer Wikipedia game articles. See Final Fantasy XV. Kyo~ (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That's only if they contributed significantly, or else we'd have 5-6 other companies listed too. Even the original Game Informer article was edited with news that Monolith Soft doesn't have over 100 members on the project (but 100 people from Nintendo and them in total), so it's seeming likely that they are just a support studio; just like they were on Skyward Sword. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's how we agreed to handle it at Final Fantasy 7 Remake too, FYI. I'm opposed to listing them as a full-on developer, but I'm indifferent on whether or not we leave them out completely, or just put a note like this in. At least the note may keep drive-by IPs from adding it back in daily, which was the issue we were having at FF7R. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought this discussion is only about not listing Monolith in infobox? Co-developers should be mentioned in the development section no matter how much they have contributed. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be mentioned there, just not in the infobox/lead for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AdrianGamer, from what I could tell, the discussion result was "wait and see". Per Dissident93's reply to DarkKyoushu's comment, we should wait to see how much they actually contributed. You'll notice I pinged a couple other people, so maybe we'll see what they think the consensus was. My interpretation may not be the majority's interpretation. As a side note, thank you for bringing the discussion to the talk page instead of just reverting a revert. It's refreshing to see that. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not against them being mentioned in a single sentence under development though, as that's the entire purpose of the section. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Same. In fact, I'd encourage it, as 1) sources have clearly indicated it as something of note, in how much its been mentioned and 2) if properly worded, could help clear up some of the recurring issues related to this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted my revert per the discussion here. Seems it was a misunderstanding on my part. Sorry about that, AdrianGamer. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that most modern games have multiple developers that contribute small portions to a game. The Legend of Zelda has traditionally had SRD (co-program), Digitalscape (assets), and Monolith (assets) contributing to the game since Skyward. But that doesn't make them co-developers for they are not lead, but assistants in a specific area. It also doesn't help that Monolith gets special obsessive treatment over the others. You would have to rewrite all major Japanese games to include the 5-10 outsource companies as "co-developers". 96.246.234.203 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Platinum Games has like 6-10 companies listed as helpers on each game. Show me where on their wikipedia page this is listed. 96.246.234.203 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources did not consider the other companies that are helping important enough to write articles about. However, this does not mean that they really are unimportant, and they can still be written into the article once it's confirmed they worked on the game (via the credits, primarily). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Minor Controversy

I've noticed this article mainly talks about how good the game is. However, there are some problems that people noticed during E3 2016 that need to be mentioned here. For example, some people had gripes about the game not being able to run smoothly at 30FPS. I feel this and other somewhat minor problems should be mentioned. While the 30FPS problem is not a big problem, its coverage was somewhat widespread. I do not have time at the moment to fix the issue. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't label that as a "controversy", but if someone wants to add a sourced critique sentence about itto the reception section, sure, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean to say we should create a controversy section. I meant that we should add it to an existing section. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Single sentence or two would work, but nothing more. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done! —zziccardi (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

E3 2016 Image?

Do you think we could use a screenshot of the E3 2016 presentation (Perhaps the part where Link runs out of the cave but before the logo is displayed?), putting it right below the other image, with a claim of fair use? -- Gestrid (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, since we already have a non-free image on the page. We try to limit the quantity of non-free content in articles, per the § Number of items section of the guideline you linked to. That said, I've been meaning to search Flickr to see if I could find any Creative Commons-licensed photos of the E3 booth, which would be great for a marketing and release section. The booth itself got quite a bit of attention and should really be described for comprehensive coverage. Thanks for the reminder! :) —zziccardi (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case, could we update the existing screenshot? I realize the screenshot we're using right now is significant, but I feel a more up-to-date one should be used, especially as the game gets closer to release (6 months, as of this writing). -- Gestrid (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I would wait until the game is actually released so we can get a screenshot that reflects the gameplay in its finished form (along the lines of the screenshots used at The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#Gameplay, for example). Unfortunately, I didn't have much luck finding free-use photos of the booth (see here). —zziccardi (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The previous image of an amiibo was deleted at Commons, so we might be able to use that amiibo one here. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the photos that were deleted from Commons too. I don't think the Amiibo one would really add much to the article anyway. —zziccardi (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you're probably right. We shouldn't include it until we know more about the amiibo. By the time they tell us what all of them can do in the game, we may need to make a subsection under Gameplay to list all of them and what they can do. (After all, there's also the 30th Anniversary Amiibo to consider.) -- Gestrid (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too much of an issue to summarize them. I have a feeling a few of them will have the same functionality, as with those that Twilight Princess HD supports. —zziccardi (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It's possible, but, given the breadth of Breath of the Wild and how different it is from any Zelda game to date (including Twilight Princess HD), I don't think it's likely. (ex. I don't see any other Amiibo causing Wolf Link to appear.) If what you're saying does happen, probably only one or two amiibo will share each ability. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Although Cavestory116 worded his request rather oddly and in a way that doesn't belong on a talk page (which is likely why it was removed), I do think they deserve some explanation about why their edits were reverted. If need be, I would also like to establish a consensus for or against the ways the article was changed for future reference. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging The1337gamer, as they were the ones who reverted Cavestory116. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

His edits are wrong and unsourced. Simple as that. The cited source: [1] says In essence, Nintendo is "rethinking the conventions of Zelda." The wording currently used in the article accurately reflects this. His edits did not, they imply something different. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Even this isn't an improvement. An "advanced physics system" is more of an "improved aspect" than a "new feature". It's original wording is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

March 2017 release date

So the Nintendo Press Room website does in fact list the game releasing in March 2017, but all other sources (including other Nintendo investor reports) doesn't give a month, and simply states that the game would be released on the NX in 2017. How do we handle this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the screenshot from the NeoGAF writer's tweet that the IP editor cited earlier, right? Because Nintendo's press site isn't viewable to the public (and NeoGAF isn't a WP:VG reliable source), there's no way for us or readers to validate the information; citing the screenshot would effectively be unverifiable original research. Of course, if a reliable source does make note of the date shown on the press site, then we could cite that. I guess someone could try tipping an RS… That said, since the supplemental information PDF lists exact dates for other games but only a year for Zelda, it's possible Nintendo doesn't have a release window set in stone yet and the March 2017 date on the press site is tentative. —zziccardi (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

One more thing to keep in mind: Nintendo of America's tweet says the game will launch on both consoles "simultaneously", so March 2017 at the earliest (provided the NX isn't delayed…). —zziccardi (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this E3 will be entirely focused on TLoZ, according to tweets and posts from various official Nintendo social media pages. That includes the Facebook-verified TLoZ page. Here's one such post. (Sorry if it doesn't load on desktop. That's the mobile link, and mobile to desktop link "translation" doesn't work well on Facebook.) Side note: If it's not already mentioned on the page, the Zelda-dedicated E3 may be worth mentioning here. -- Super3588 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We could say something like The Wii U version of The Legend of Zelda will be the only playable game Nintendo displays at E3 2016 "in order to provide attendees a complete immersion". Is that worth mentioning? It is a bit odd for a major game company to only have a single playable game. —zziccardi (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it is, and that was my argument when I reverted it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an update on Nintendo's press site. According to Gamnesia (which is a questionable source, according to WP:VG/Sources), Nintendo has updated their press site. The site no longer says "March 2017" and only lists "2017" as a date. They source Nintendo without giving a link (They usually do give a link.), so it's reasonable to assume that they have access to Nintendo's press site. They've also attached a screenshot, presumably from the press site. -- Super3588 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I had thought originally, placeholder or copy/pasted date they forgot to change. If it really was meant for March, they would have announced that to the public. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It was more than likely an error. Someone at Nintendo thought, "Hey, NX is launching in March 2017. Zelda U is a launch title for the system. It must be coming out in March 2017." -- Super3588 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

GameStop has it for a release date of March 31,2017

Optimus125 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly a placeholder date because of the NX releasing in March. Nintendo will announce the release date themselves once it's official. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I just bought the Wii U version on Amazon with release date of March 31, 2017. [2] --luckymustard (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's a placeholder date. It's rare that a game actually releases on the last day of the month. — Gestrid (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder date, as already stated. I even saw some rumors a few weeks ago on how this game wouldn't even be available at the Switch's launch in March, so we can't even assume that this is the correct month. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm a noob who accidentally wandered here😶. ShivamLH (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"The"

@Dissident93: It's probably somewhere in someplace like MOS:the or MOS:THECAPS, but I don't have time to look into it right now. — Gestrid (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll look for it then. One thing to mention is that whenever The Legend of Zelda begins a sentence, we don't use "the" in front of it there. ("The The Legend of Zelda series is...) EDIT: I just had a look at both guidelines, and couldn't find anything about this. So as an alternative, I looked at FA The Beatles article, and noticed the article does not include any "the" before The Beatles (as far as I could tell), so I'd like to think this is what we should follow. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think The Beatles is a particularly good example, as there's always disagreement about whether the band should be referred to as "The Beatles" or as "the Beatles". As far as grammar is concerned, I always prefer The The Legend of Zelda series over the Legend of Zelda series whenever the series' title is acting as a noun modifier of the word series. A better example would be the Star Wars series. The first the is required per normal English rules (as in just the series...). When we want to specify that it's the Star Wars series we're discussing, the first the remains, again per standard grammar. When discussing The Legend of Zelda, these rules still apply. The series' title includes the The, hence the The Legend of Zelda series is correct. Another example would be a The New York Times article, although it's usually better to restructure the sentence—e.g., an article in The New York Times—or to say just a Times article to avoid awkward phrasing. —zziccardi (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That's what I was trying to say in my edit summmary. You just did a way better job than I did. — Gestrid (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Hah! Well, it's much easier to explain or argue something with a big block of text than it is in an edit summary. —zziccardi (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, at the time, I didn't see the need to start a thread on something like this, but I didn't want to start an edit war, so I started this thread. — Gestrid (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this could be written directly into the MOS then? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • We'd have to gather some consensus first. Local consensus cannot override global consensus. — Gestrid (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Do you think it would be worth arguing for this to be added to the MOS? MOS:THECAPS already discusses when the should be capitalized, which is when it's included in the title of an artistic work. (The The Lord of the Rings example is similar, although the section doesn't explicitly mention the case where artistic titles function as noun modifiers.) Perhaps we could discuss the topic at WT:VG and see if there's consensus among the project to use this practice in video game articles first. Aside from Zelda, The Elder Scrolls, and maybe a few other series, are there even enough instances in the scope of WP:VG where this would be an issue? —zziccardi (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I think that should work. It's pretty much common sense, anyway. — Gestrid (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Accolades section?

The game has already gotten quite a few accolades even without having been released yet, including one it just got at The Game Awards 2016 tonight. Should we go ahead and add an Accolades section similar to ones seen on other video game articles such as, for example, Overwatch? — Gestrid (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Like just a table of all the notable awards it was nominated for and/or won? Ideally, this would be better written as prose, but I don't see an issue with this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we could mention a couple of the more notable ones in prose, but, yes, that's what I mean. — Gestrid (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with Dissident and say the awards a game received and/or was nominated for should just be described in prose, but seeing as the game hasn't even been released yet and has already been nominated for a handful of awards, a table sounds like a good idea. There's no need to clutter the prose with sentences that are just lists of awards. At this point, I would suggest placing the table under the pre-release section so it's clear in the future that all accolades in the table were awarded prior to release. —zziccardi (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@zziccardi: How about a subheading under "Pre-release"? Something like "Pre-release accolades"? — Gestrid (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's probably unnecessary; we can just give the table itself a title like "Accolades" and place it under the pre-release section. —zziccardi (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the table. Feel free, of course, to change it as you all see fit. I didn't include where the game was just listed among other games as being one of the best games at E3 (ex. Eurogamer). We should probably now clean out the Pre-release section of some of the lesser awards and add awards where the game was just nominated and didn't win to the table if there are any. — Gestrid (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I also didn't include top-ten types of lists (ex. GameTrailers' lists) — Gestrid (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Those sorts of lists probably aren't worth adding to the table. —zziccardi (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the section at large. Thoughts? Also, yes, adding nominations would be great. I don't know if the game has been nominated for any awards it didn't end up receiving either. —zziccardi (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Amiibo

Nintendo's revealed the functionality of the the 30th Anniversary Amiibo, and I've added it under, I believe, the Gameplay section. — Gestrid (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

canceled for the wii u?

there is a rumor posted on youtube that the wii u version is canceled. please find asource to either confirm or deny it.84.212.111.156 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo has not announced its cancellation, and YouTube isn't a reliable source, so this really doesn't belong on Wikipedia at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirrmed fake [[3]].--69.157.255.205 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

good to know. maybe the article should mention the false rumor.84.212.111.156 (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. An unreliable source (random Youtubers) posted an unlikely rumor (Wii U version cancelled) that was cleared up very quickly by another unreliable source (Reddit). No video game journalists from reliable sources seemed to pick up on the story, so neither should we... Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The Sheikah Map Translation

If any of you have been following Breath of the Wild news as much as I have (see my talk page notice), it's likely that you've run across a video by YouTuber Zeltik about what exactly is on the back of the map packed in with the Special and Master Editions of the game or you've run across at least one of several news sources (not all of the reliable) covering it. Now, IGN has covered the story. Should we include this in the game's plot section? If not, should we include it anywhere in the article? (Also, just a reminder that, per WP:SPOILER and WP:DISC, we should not include any spoiler warning, but we are allowed to put spoilery content in articles.) — Gestrid (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For the IGN source, I don't see why not. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also made its way onto Kotaku, but I'm on mobile right now and don't have time to find the link. — Gestrid (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen no objections here, so I've gone ahead and added the details. If anyone comes complaining about spoilers or removes the text because of spoilers, point them to our guideline about spoilers and our content disclaimer. — Gestrid (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Who's going to change it?

On the "The Legend of Zelda" page, do we want to change the latest release [Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD] to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild? 2602:306:374A:8F70:486A:B064:FBD9:4F47 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't want to change it. It's not the "latest release" if it hasn't even happened yet. Someone else was concerned about this elsewhere too, and no one should be worried about this. A lot of people edit Zelda articles. I'm certain someone will be there to adjust it when it actually happens in 1.5 months. I'll make sure it happens if no one else does, but it strikes me of the type of thing that'll be changed at 12:01am on launch day in the earliest possible timezone, with the way people are. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add "Do we want to do it now or later." Also, that other person was probably me because I asked the same question to somebody else on a different computer. 2602:306:374A:8F70:486A:B064:FBD9:4F47 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Maybe somebody should at it to it but as a "next release". what do u think? 2602:306:374A:8F70:486A:B064:FBD9:4F47 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, somebody (most likely myself, as I seem to be the first one to edit these sort of things) will do it as soon as it's officially released. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I asked this, but anyway. I think this part (first original game in the series developed with an HD resolution) should be changed to something like this (is the first game in the series to originally have HD resolution). does that make it easier to understand, because that's what I meant to do. 2602:306:374A:8F70:9C7:C9F4:B6CC:73B5 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the current wording seems preferable to me. —zziccardi (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to make it easier for young people or other people to read, but anyways. 2602:306:374A:8F70:9C7:C9F4:B6CC:73B5 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I agree with Zziccardi. The current wording actually flows better than the proposed change. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, are you guys going to add the eye like symbol with a tear? 2602:306:374A:8F70:9C7:C9F4:B6CC:73B5 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's image policy, in short, basically says to use images sparingly and only when its necessary to convey an essential idea about the subject that words can't convey as well. Usually things like boxart, or a screenshot that shows a typical scene from the game. As such, I don't think they eye symbol thing would fit that guideline, so I wouldn't think it would be added... Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but is the photo here the official cover photo for the game, or is it the current photo? 2602:306:374A:8F70:9C7:C9F4:B6CC:73B5 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the same artwork you will see on the games themselves, with the exception of the European version apparently. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Mysterious female voice?

I heard that it was Zelda who was talking. I got that from a youtube video, is it true, or is it false? 2602:306:374A:8F70:F1:5064:B730:294B (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. These talk pages are only for the discussion of writing the articles. They are not a messageboard for idle chat about the game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I was going to edit it if it was true; that's how I planned to "help." 2602:306:374A:8F70:F1:5064:B730:294B (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. It had come across as more of a personal query about confirming or denying a rumor you had heard, rather than a suggestion of something to add to the article. Regardless, you question is rather vague, so it's hard to know what exactly you're talking about, let alone answer, but chances are if its unknown who the voice is, and/or there's only rando youtubers coming up with crazy fan theories on it, it probably wouldn't belong in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I should have worded it better. It probably was just a theorie. 2602:306:374A:8F70:F1:5064:B730:294B (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Well, I guess we'll know soon enough. 2602:306:374A:8F70:287A:BD1D:C0C1:BC93 (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Plot section

The plot section should be of a similar length to those of every other game in the series. Compare Skyward Sword or Twilight Princess with this page. Even the original Legend of Zelda has a more useful longer plot synopsis than this page and it barely even has a plot. This project is supposed to exist to provide information to the reader which this page's plot section, the way it's written right now, fails to do so, making that section completely and utterly worthless. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Woah there, slow it down just a bit. :) The game was just released, people are still playing the game and learning the plot. It'll be expanded soon. -- ferret (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I put an expand tag under the plot section but it was removed with the rationale that "only a paragraph or two more would be fine here." So it looks to me that there is opposition to expanding the plot section beyond its current state, which is why I started this discussion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I see that now. I agree, it does need a bit more. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be longer, sure, but I imagine the tag was removed because editors habitually write extremely long, excessively detailed plot summaries. They probably just assumed the tag was unnecessary because of how likely the issue will resolve itself relatively soon. The reception section needs expansion too, but I haven't put a tag there either, for the same reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the issue will be resolved soon because the page has been semi-protected for two weeks, meaning the vast majority of people who will be coming to read this page will be unable to edit it. If the section is to be expanded, it will have to be done by registered users, who seem to be more cautious about writing plot summaries. While having too large of a plot summary is a problem, I would say that lately the opposite problem has become more prevalent, with new releases having an inadequate or, in some cases, nonexistent plot summary. For example; Star Fox Zero has been on the market for nearly a year and still doesn't have a synopsis. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting take...but certainly not my experience in editing video game articles on Wikipedia, even very recently, with rather obscure video games. Additionally, Star Fox Zero was a critical and commerical dud, and likely never got the level of attention that we're currently getting here its getting that here at Breath of the Wild.

Anecdotes aside, there's already been an experiencde editor or two discussing bringing the article to WP:GA status once the initial release craziness subsides, so I really doubt it'll be a long term issue. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just didn't really see the point of adding a tag there, seeing as it's only been one official day since it released, and the section will be expanded upon over the next few days and weeks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

Sales: In the United States, it became the fastest-selling/best-selling stand-alone launch title for any Nintendo console, beating out launch games such as Super Mario 64. Brantastic24 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources?

civ vi is a bad game (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I found this. Is it good enough? https://twitter.com/nickwingfield/status/838871984293359616 civ vi is a bad game (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We try to go by what reliable, third party sources say. Think websites like IGN, Eurogamer, etc. I think I've seen websites like that mention it too, so it should be possible to find. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Converting dmy ---> mdy.

Could we change the dates back to month, day, and year format? Seems like the other pages such as the main Wikipedia page, the other game articles, and the lists of video games like the Wii, Wii U, and Nintendo Switch, as well as several non-Nintendo lists strongly follow the format. I feel like just slabbling day, month, and year format makes no sense and is not the right direction to use nowadays. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

• No, that's not a valid reason to change it. WP:RETAIN says not to change date formats when one convention is established. Just so you know, DMY is the most commonly used date format worldwide so I don't understand your argument for it makes no sense to use nowadays. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• FYI, this article has always used dmy format. JAGUAR  12:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Eh, to set the record straight, the article has indeed used mdy from its first dates (mid-2014) until it was changed in June 2016 as a minor edit with no explanation. If the claim is MOS:RETAIN, the standard would be mdy here. Prior to its first dates, it only became an article in 2013 when the game was announced (it didn't have any sourcing or warrant to exist as even a redirect before then). czar 19:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  The first revision used dmy dates? I'm confused JAGUAR  19:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  The only place I see DMY here is in the citations, which I wouldn't count due to the default autofill option being that format. The first use of a date format in prose is what we should be looking for. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• RETAIN is not a particularly valid reason to oppose a change. Please review the entire section in question, wherein it allows editors on the talk page after discussion to decide to change the format. (I have no dog in this yard, just clarifying.) --Izno (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note: The date format and English variation were previously discussed here. —zziccardi (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The road to GA

I was thinking of building this up to a GA standard even a few weeks before the game's release, but due to all the traffic it's getting at the moment I'll hold it off for at least a few days. For now I'll start working on the reception section in a sandbox, making it as comprehensive as possible, and will publish it here one section at a time. Just wanted to make a note of this to make sure everybody's OK with it, and that I won't be pushing any radical changes since I do edit in large bursts. Any help is welcome of course. Hopefully the plot section will be expanded in time—especially when people start playing it etc. JAGUAR  20:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, for the next few days/week will probably take all of our effort just to keep the reception section coherent, with all the crazy drive-by edits. So that sounds like a good plan. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to be quick about it since I don't want to overwrite anybody's work, but considering the amount of attention this article has right now it wouldn't be a good idea to make lots of little edits—which I usually do! It's not too bad though, since all of the reviews are out now. JAGUAR  21:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A small suggested addition for the Reception Section. The user rating for the game was significantly lower than the critic's rating on www.metacritic.com. Breath of the Wild received "generally favorable" reviews from users and has a User score of 7.6 as of March 12, 2017. Source:

Appending this to the first paragraph of Post-release Reception would look like: It ***current typo*** [is] the second highest-rated game on the site, behind only The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.[c][85][86]. However, the User score for the game was significantly lower than the critic's score. Breath of the Wild received "generally favorable" reviews from users and has a User score of 7.6 based on 6872 ratings as of March 12, 2017. 73.74.67.220 (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not include user review scores per WP:USERG. In order to mention them, we need a secondary reliable source to comment on the trend, i.e. IGN writing an article about how user scores have been much lower and noting some of the common complaints, etc. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: - FYI from NoA's Twitter: "Tomorrow at 6 AM PT, we’ll be debuting a three-part series called The Making of The Legend of #Zelda: Breath of the Wild!" That should provide substantial content to add. - TarkusAB 01:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for that. I was put off improving this article due to the kerfuffle with British English and dmy dates, but should hopefully resume work soon. It seems that things have died down now. JAGUAR  11:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's basically a small documentary, with a total run-time of just over 30 minutes, but is has quite of bit of info that this article could use. I just added a bit about the music, but held off adding the source since I don't know the best way to properly source a video. (I'm aware of cite video, but I've never used it and for a GA I think we could do better) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Please add to Reception and Review scores Jimquisition 7/10

I want it to be added not because I hate the game and think it is a low score, I like that there are already so many review scores to the game, but I do not mind if there is this one as well, sure many people gave it 9 and 10/10 and 7/10 is not a bad score at all and the man who gave the score is a well respected critic and makes some spot on points about the game and because he gave his honest review and honest score he has been recieving death threats and his site and social media are being hacked and DDoS by people who do not like score below 9/10, which is unfair and a suppression of freedom of speech. I wanted to give this request yesterday but as I said his site was taken down and I think there is a strong reason why this wikipedia page is under restrictions as well. 
I hope my request arrived and maybe it will be added, thank you and have a beautiful day! 188.24.206.155 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done - 1) The review is already in there. 2) Freedom of Speech does not apply to Wikipedia. 3) The fact that his website was attacked due to the review is getting off-topic, and didn't need to be in the review section. 4) The page is "under restriction" due to excessive vandalism and unconstructive editing. Its unrelated to Jim Sterling or his reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To add to that the semi protection (what I assume is meant by restrictions) was put in place on March 3 while the review was posted on the 12th, there is no way that this article was protected to censor reporting on actions that were in response to review that was posted 9 days after the protection was inacted. There is one small change I would request though. I don't believe that mentioning that Sterling is British is necessary since I don't see how that is relevant to his review and the coverage of the other reviews don't mention the nationality of the reviewers.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and done, regarding "british". -- ferret (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical criticism in lead

An editor keeps removing the following content from the WP:LEAD, against multiple editor's wishes, so I figured we should come to a consensus on the talk page. The content reads:

Critics praised the game's open-ended, physics-driven gameplay that encourages player experimentation, with many calling it a landmark title in open-world game design, despite some having issues with the game's technical performance.

The bolded part is the part that keeps getting trimmed out. I'm open to tweaking the exact wording, but it seems worth mentioning, considering how frequently it is mentioned in prominent reliable sources. Polygon, Eurogamer and Kotaku, and others, have written dedicated articles about the aspect of the game - it's an amazing game...with some minor technical issues.

Pinging Dissident93 and Smallview, each who participated in edits related to this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

How about:

Critics praised the game's open-ended, physics-driven gameplay that encourages player experimentation, with many calling it a landmark title in open-world game design, although minor criticism was levied at the game's technical performance.

This clarifies the complaint is minor and that it applied to both console versions. Since this is a common complaint, and really the only consistent one, I think it should be there.Toa Nidhiki05 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that. I think I even prefer it to the original wording - it should be quantified as "minor", as it didn't bring down review scores much. But it was still much discussed and deserves mention. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable, I just argued in favor of having something like that there, as the majority of the reviews I read had varying levels of criticism directed towards the game's frame-rate. Simply removing it doesn't really give a non-biased view of the game. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• ... this should absolutely not be in the lede until it is sourced and made demonstrably important in the prose itself czar

English and dates

So the English variant and date format got changed because, let's face it, nobody liked it? I'm sorry but I feel perplexed and agitated because there was no reason to change it as evidenced by the non-sequitur arguments above. JAGUAR  10:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We are not beholden to any particular format if consensus on the talk page decides otherwise. --Izno (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus. You argued that MOS:RETAIN didn't matter. JAGUAR  14:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it doesn't in the case where the talk page discussion decides another direction by consensus. Please review the wording of MOS:RETAIN if you don't believe me.

But, I honestly don't care about the date format. Neither should you—there are bigger fish to fry on this Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS:RETAIN is not really a policy or argument to simply "retain" no matter what. It's a policy to retain unless discussion and consensus decides otherwise. I also believe Czar had a valid argument that the first format to appear in prose was MDY. Unfortunately, we're now in the back and forth that MOS:RETAIN is meant to prevent. There's really nothing constructive that can come of this discussion further. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The "best" Zelda

Bringing this edit here for discussion. First, if sources write about the game as including "among the best of all time", then it would be redundant to say it is among the best in the series. What special reason do we have for noting this distinction? Second, the sources for "the best of all time" are very clear and have editorial distance from the judgment (interpretation of aggregators rather than reviewer opinion). For the "masterpiece" quote, we use multiple sources. But for the "best Zelda" line, we currently cite only Kotaku and EW. I'd argue that this doesn't need to be even mentioned, but if it does, it would need much better sourcing than two reviewers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, etc. czar 22:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What? I have never heard that we need more than 2 sources to add info in wikipedia. There is no such a rule. Just 1 source is enough.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

He's just talking common sense - conceptually, you'd need more than one source to make a broad claim like "best game ever". If you only provide one source, then the proper attribution would be a more specific "Website X called it the best game ever". Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

OK now I have provided 2 individual reviews and metacritic review listing which includes numerous reviews which state the game is the best zelda game ever.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Metacritic review listings themselves are not a source. Also, calling the game the best in the series is redundant (even when true), because being mentioned as one of the best of all time is more important and includes any series/game you can compare it with. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What? The game has set a new record of 43 perfect scores which surpassed SMG2. The source is in the post release section. http://www.vg247.com/2017/03/08/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-has-the-most-perfect-review-scores-in-metacritics-history/ And one of the best of all time is different from the best in the series. The sources clearly state the game is the best in the series. And metacritic listing is a totally valid source. How is it not. Although metacritic is a totally valid source, i removed it temporarily for now. We still have 2 sources which state the game is the best in the series.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Metacritic is just a listing of other review scores, you can't use them itself outside of their aggregated number. And per mine and Czar's comment, calling it the best in the series when others just called it one of the best games of all time makes that redundant, as best of all time has to include best in the series by default. And "Breath of the Wild has set a new record for the most perfect scores in Metacritic history." does seem to be true, but it should be written more like "Breath of the Wild received acclaim from critics, who deemed it to be one of the greatest video games of all time, where it holds the largest number of perfect reviews of any game on review aggregator Metacritic". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And there's no reason to include the Metacritic record in the lede. There are plenty more important points to mention in its short space. czar 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me, I was just trying to come to a compromise. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I agree with Dissident93 on the new record. And it is definitely worth mentioning in the lead as it is the new record.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both czar and Dissident. イケメン大富豪|イケメン大富豪: Your behavior here is not the best. Please only use the talk page for the immediate future. --Izno (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Izno. Dissident did not say you should cut the sentence. If you read the discussion above decently, he proposed the sentence to be mentioned. Your edits seem rather disruptive. What is the valid reason to remove it. Why are you trying to hide the new record? Is there any reason you want to hide it?--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's assigning the incorrect weight to the information, if not in fact it is original research. Also, see czar's comment, with which I also agree. --Izno (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not original research. The source is in the post release section. I already explained it above! And it is not a minority view or aspect in the slightest. Having the most perfect reviews obviously reflects the majority view and is one of the best feats the game has achieved.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to chime in as another person who is against putting the "most perfect scores in Metacritic" note in the lead. The WP:LEAD is meant to be a braod overview of the subject, and the points to be covered later on. Such a factoid is the exact opposite - it's an extremely specific point. If its true, mention it in the reception section. But it's too specific for the lead. イケメン大富豪 - I'd also recommend you slow down. You seem to be pretty new to Wikipedia's rules, and this is a high profile page, with a lot of people viewing it. If you don't stop, people are just going to keep undoing your changes. It'd be best if you slow down a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How is having the most perfect reviews too specific or a minor thing? Having the most perfect reviews indicates the game has received the universal acclaim, therefore it is one of the best things to show the reputation of the game. Having a new record on a site which is widely used in gaming articles in Wikipedia is obviously a significant achievement to be mentioned in the lead. Stating that having the most perfect reviews is not a big deal really does not make sense. I can not help but feel that some people here just want to hide the good reputation of the game for some odd reason.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Broad claim: "The game received critical acclaim".

Specific claim: The game received a certain amount of a certain type of score from a certain website".

Do you really not see this conceptually? Have you also not noticed that virtually no articles cite MC scores in the lead? You really need to think about this more carefully rather than jumping to "well I guess everyone's just being negative for no reason!". Which is also ludicrous because the lead is already extremely positive, citing it as one of the best games of all time. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I know at least 2 FEATURED ARTICLES which mention aggregator site status in the lead.The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of TimeSuper Mario Galaxy And we are not mentioning the metacritic score in the lead. Stating that the game has a NEW RECORD is different from simply stating a metacritic score in the lead.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was banned from the lead, just rarely mentioned there. And even your Mario Galaxy example is not quite the same - it only states a vague It is listed among the top-rated games on various aggregate sites. - again - broad statements rather than website specific achievements. Who knows, maybe you'll convince others, but I'm not convinced, and right now, there's no consensus to change it. Do not change it again unless a consensus supporting your stance starts to emerge. Right now, it hasn't. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK let's wait for someone to appear who can explain why stating a metacritic status in the lead is ok in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time but not OK in this article. After all, I can not help but feel that some people here just want to hide the good reputation of the game for some odd reason. I do not see any valid reason to remove the sentence. But it seems some people want to hide it.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ocarina is unique due to it being the highest on the site, which editors had no problem with including in the lead. And again, being called one of the best games of all time trumps any sort of Metacritic score. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• This game got the largest number of perfect reviews on the site. So there should be no problem with including in the lead. But people who want to hide it (for odd reason)are against it. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to remove it from the lead.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD. There's no reason to remove it from the reception, but there is definitely reason to keep it out of the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 11:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We are just going with brevity due to what WP:LEAD asks of us. Being known as one of the best games of all times is enough, a "record" on Metacritic isn't really adding anything new to that, and should be kept to the reception section only. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Dissident93, all your edits indicate that you are just trying to degrade the reputation of this game. I assume that you are a fan of Nintendo and Zelda series, but you prefer another Zelda game and you do not like the good reputation of this game so you are just trying to degrade the reputation of this game. Stop removing the word "Record" in the reception section just because you do not like it when multiple sources clearly state that it is a record. "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has set a new record for the most perfect scores in Metacritic history"http://www.gamezone.com/news/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-has-set-a-new-record-for-the-most-perfect-scores-in-metacritic-history-3451564 "it’s taken another critical record."http://www.vg247.com/2017/03/08/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-has-the-most-perfect-review-scores-in-metacritics-history/ And you removed it from the lead although in another article Metacritic status is mentioned in the lead. Also you removed the line "the best Zelda game" in the reception section although other Zelda game articles have the lines like "this game is considered the best Zelda game" or "this game is considered the best game ever" You accept these lines in other Zelda articles, but do not accept the line in this article. That is just so inconsistent. Please do not reflect your personal preference in wikipedia articles. Please only focus on improving the quality of articles. Your recent edits are just disruptive.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As I've already requested on your talk page, please stop making silly, bad-faith assumptions. I prefer Dissident's wording as well. He's right - it's not like "most perfect scores on MC" is some sort of metric or "record" that is aimed for. I don't recall this being tracked with other titles historically either. Just stick to what it is - Dissident's wording. As other have mentioned already above as well, it's redundant to call it both "best game" and "best Zelda game". The former entirely includes the latter. There's now three or four editors who oppose that wording. Stop re-adding it unless consensus turns in your favor, or you're going to end up getting blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but these sources are more reliable than your personal opinion.

"The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has set a new record for the most perfect scores in Metacritic history"http://www.gamezone.com/news/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-has-set-a-new-record-for-the-most-perfect-scores-in-metacritic-history-3451564

"it’s taken another critical record."http://www.vg247.com/2017/03/08/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-has-the-most-perfect-review-scores-in-metacritics-history/

And you just do not like the fact that numerous critics are calling it the best Zelda game ever.!--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

How closely have you read your sources? Both trace their sources back to Reddit and Neogaf posts. We aren't held to the same "fictional contest" wording used in their message board posts here on Wikipedia, where we're writing an encyclopedia. (The true source material is stuff like this, by the way.) Dissident's wording conveys the same core message just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Both vg247 and gamezone are considered reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources

And record is not necessarily about contest. And whether it is a fictional contest or not is your personal interpretation. This is why we should not reflect editors' thought in the articles and should use the quote from reliable sources. And I know why some people here prefer "one of the best games ever" over "the best zelda game ever". One of the best games ever does not imply it is the best in the series so you can protect your preferred old zelda game. Other than "there are some people opposing to it!" ,there is no legitimate reason to remove the line which is supported by multiple sources.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute the source's reliability or the fact that it has the most perfect scores, I'm merely saying we don't need to adopt the same informal wording that clearly originates from the messageboard posts because we're writing an encyclopedia. Multiple others agree, so it stays out. Additionally, your continued unfounded and unproven accusations that any of this is motivated by anyone's biases for other games will not help you gain a consensus on this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This entire edit war feels overly POV pushy "in favor of" the game, based on subjective opinions on "best Zelda game". The bias push seems to lie with trying to state the game is "the best ever" from as many angles as possible. This is suitably covered already. We have several indisputable facts backed by sources, already covered: That it's highly rated and meets the criteria of "one of the best ever", that it has the most perfect scores on Metacritic, that it's considered a "masterpiece". We can source this, and have. Unfortunately though, when we get to "Best Zelda Game Ever", we're basically tying this to the opinion of two or three individual reviewers and declaring it as fact. This is a subjective position with no measurement we can refer back to. We can easily find sources that still say "Ocarina is still best". We can even still point to Metacritic and say "Ocarina still has a higher average." I recommend イケメン大富豪 drop the stick and stop warring against a clear consensus here on the talk page. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here is disagreeing with the critical reception of the game (being called one of the best ever), or its Metacritic listing (it's notable enough that it has the largest number of perfect reviews), it's all in your WP:UNDUEWEIGHT wording of it; as already explained above multiple times. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, you do not understand the point. Here we are not talking about which Zelda game is the best. That is a fairly subjective matter. But there are numerous critics calling this game to be the best Zelda game ever, and "many critics are calling it the best Zelda game" is not a subjective opinion but a fact. Dissident93, no, not WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in any means. Having the largest number of perfect reviews reflect a majority view, not a minority view.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's from what I can tell the last form you inserted:

Critics universally acclaimed Breath of the Wild upon its release and quickly considered it a "masterpiece", the best Zelda game ever made....

This not a fact. It is broadly written in statement that "Critics universally" consider it the best Zelda game ever made, sourced to 2-3 individual critics. I'm not sure how you're failing to understand this point, which multiple editors have told you. -- ferret (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, you need to read the discussion decently. I have provided a metacritic review listing where numerous critics are calling it the best Zelda game ever, but somehow Dissident93 removed the source. Furthermore, the original sentence in the lead was "Breath of the Wild received acclaim from critics, who deemed it to be the best Zelda game ever, and one of the greatest video games of all time. " which is a fact, but he did not like "the best Zelda game" line so he removed it.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a summation of the reception. It was updated to reflect that the statement was removed from the reception section (If it even existed there before), for all the arguments provided above by various editors. I get it, you disagree, but the consensus is currently against you. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And the reason provided above is "one of the best games ever is more important than the best zelda game ever". Definitely true, nice excuse!--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, I hate to go there, but come on. Outside of your first 2 edits, all of your edits under this name have occurred within the last 10 days. You've got at least 5 long term, experienced editors against your various proposed edits, and zero people agree with you. Do you think maybe, just maybe, you don't quite know what you're talking about here? Please, rather than fighting everyone at every turn, slow down and try to learn more about how the website works. You're make a lot more progress that way, especially if you keep working on such high profile, active articles. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not fighting anyone, just discussing. And being here for a long time does not mean you are better than new editors. All editors are equal. You need to learn the basic guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Stop pretending as if you are a better editor or anything, which is not true. And most of what I see here are just their personal opinions or preference, rather than constructive proposals. So some people here really need to learn wikipedia is not a place to reflect your personal preference in.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No one has "bit" you - we've all very calmly explained to you Wikipedia policy, even despite your continued failure to assume good faith of us by baselessly accusing us of bias. I'm also not saying anyone is better than you either, just that their grasp on policy is stronger. You're still equal as a human and participant. But your arguments don't hold up, and as a result, your stances are unanimously opposed. You just don't have a good grasp on some of the finer points of Wikipedia writing - WP:LEADs, proper attribution and wording, etc. And instead of any sort of self-reflection, you just keep telling us we're all wrong. That's not a good long-term strategy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you feel offended but I am not saying you are inferior or anything. Also I am not looking down on you and some people here either. I am rather gentle and generous. But here some people put more value on their personal opinions than reliable sources. "This is not a record" is just a personal opinion. Reliable sources call it a record. In this case what we should trust is the statement in the reliable sources, not editors' opinions. This is how Wikipedia works. But I no longer care about this because either statement does not make a big difference. So Please stop it here. This is a place for talking about how we should improve the article, not for quarreling.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia mainly works with guidelines, policies, standards, and consensus, all of which you seemed to ignore in favor of your own personal view. How many times have you been told that the "best game of all time" includes by default the "best Zelda game"? How many times have you been told that Metacritic is not a competition where you win medals for getting high scores, and the "record" source would remain as long as it was better written? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained to you, "this is not a competition so it is not a record" is your personal opinion which does not matter. But I agree that it is considered the best Zelda game.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Map size and comparison to other games

Should we point out how Hyrule is 75 percent bigger than Arma 3's Altis, the previous record holder of largest map? This seems like something to mention in the article. T900Kassem (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Are third party reliable sources pointing this out? Or is this some crazy fan-based research thing? Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is considered fan based research, but Bohemia Interactive has confirmed that Altis is 270 square km. I did the percentage myself. T900Kassem (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but Breath of the Wild and Arma 3 aren't record holders of the largest map. Fuel map unlimited beats both Breath of the Wild and Arma 3 with it's map being 14,400 km² (over 5,560 square miles) in size. So, I don't think it would be wise to make the claim that Breath of the Wild is the record holder of largest map, when there is many other games that have maps that are larger. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

By biggest map, I meant one without loading screens. Altis and Hyrule are both loaded all at once. T900Kassem (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, third party reliable sources don't seem to be making this distinction, so we shouldn't be adding it to the article, unless/until sources are provided. "Eggplant.com" would not be what Wikipedia considers a usable source. WP:VG/S is a good compilation of sources commonly considered usable or unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

To clarify for any newer editors here, that list isn't exhaustive by any means, but it's a good example of what to look for to determine whether a source you're looking at is a reliable source. — Gestrid (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also "no loading screen" doesn't mean they are loaded all at once. Modern games load maps seamlessly as the player moves. They don't keep the entire map in memory at all times. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Legacy?

The game's only been out for a month. It can't possibly have a legacy section already. I would change the section name myself, but I can't for the life of me remember what we usually call a section like this for the short-term. — Gestrid (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Gestrid. Fellow Nintendo task force member here! I don't believe Wikipedia's guidelines outline the need to have an alternate section replacing Legacy in a video game based article depending on its release... I do realise what you mean by how the game has only been released for ~a month, but The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, I think, is a very special case. It's had the biggest impact of a Nintendo game and, hell, a general video game since a while, and I believe 'Legacy' is the correct term to use... that is unless Wikipedia's guidelines outline something else. Manfred von Karma (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Gestrid. Its awkward to have a section called "Legacy" that only talks about how the game was made playable on emulators a few days later. Not much of a "legacy" really. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could move that to a brief mention under the Development or Release sections and just get rid of the Legacy section altogether for now. A few years from now, when devs are saying how they were influenced by the game to make such-and-such game, then we can have a Legacy section. — Gestrid (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Great idea, Gestrid. Someone should get to work on that. Manfred von Karma (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't have time to today or tomorrow. I'm typing this in what spare time I do have. I've got church in an hour, schoolwork after that, sleep, my night job, more sleep, and then more schoolwork. — Gestrid (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Living in Australia is great because our time always seems to be opposite to the typical Wikipedian's, haha! I might make a start on creating the section now... that is if I can juggle such activity with finishing schoolwork and playing Phoenix Wright: Justice for All. Manfred von Karma (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• All done! Legacy was edited to reflect only essential information, was molded into Post-release, and I removed some information about a DDoS attack on reviewer Jim Sterling that had nothing to do with BotW. Manfred von Karma (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for removing that. I've removed it on the same grounds on the past. That's more of a Jim Sterling factoid than a BOTW one. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I was the one who changed the section title to "legacy" (it was something long and non-standard before, IIRC), but the current way is even better. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, and I still usually am the type to standardize things with using the "Legacy" section title, I just didn't think it fit in this particular instance. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Bad/shortsighted call on removing the Legacy section yet again. This is a title that had articles written about its legacy the day of its release (and discussed earlier on this talk page...) Anything that discusses the game's impact outside its immediate reception is the stuff of its Legacy. That includes how it promoted Cemu as well as how it impacted the medium/series.[4][5][6][7][8]  czar 19:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If those can be added to the article, then sure, but right now the only thing legacy related is the single sentence about Cemu, which has debatable notoriety anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Czar Little was actually removed, other than a section title called "Legacy" - the content itself was just shifted to the Reception section because there was only a sentence or two of content. Feel free to spin it back out if you want to write an actual legacy section. But no one did before, so it was merged. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Expansion

The expansion packs are post-release, which is why I put them after the "Release" section. (Not to mention that the topics it describes are closer to Gameplay than Development in content, thus why I put it in a separate level 2 heading.) Sources reference them as packs, not as separate creative works, hence why they should be in quotation marks and not italics. The sources also refer to them as the "Expansion", a kind of DLC, but DLC is the technical term—"Expansion" as the section title is straightforward for a general audience. czar 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• I thought any title referring to a creative work goes in italics? What makes this different than, let's say, the expansions of the Witcher 3? And while I don't care what the section is called, it belongs as a subsection of either development or gameplay, not on its own. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit more nuanced than that (WP:VG/GL#DLC). If the DLC is a separate creative work, adding standalone or extended story, then it's a separate creative work. If it's a set of features, it's more of a feature pack, which we quote. Even if we follow the lede of sources in this regard, the expansions are closer to "Dead Money" than Minerva's Den. The expansions are not just extensions of the development/release info, as they contain info from both. They're part of a separate process and are covered separately (and at length) from the game's dev/release, hence why it makes sense to separate their info out as a separate section. czar 01:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot section

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've tagged the plot section for its length. See WP:PLOTSUM, it could be a lot shorter. JOEBRO64 16:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Untagged. Under 700 words, the typical limit applied to films and video games (Per their guidelines and ours). To suggest the plot of Zelda isn't of due importance is a little odd. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's unimportant. It's just that the plot seems very long, seems to be written in an in-universe context, and could use a good copyedit. I'm also going to point out that the guideline for plots being under 700 words is for films, not games. JOEBRO64 17:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:VG/CONTENT. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It could use some cleanup, sure, but it's usually fine being on the high side of the 400 to 700 goals with games with huge open worlds/plot driven games. Games like Sonic or Mario tend to get trimmed way down due to the small relevance to the story (and a fanbase who loves to go into unnecessary detail.) But with your Xenogears and Chrono Cross plot-heavy type games are a little different, because there's so much to be covered. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of plot, I edited the plot section so that it doesn't imply that the only way to beat the game is to visit all four divine beasts, find all of Link's memories and get the Master Sword. Because that isn't the case at all. Jaydude1992 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017

Include the win of game of the year at The Game Awards 2017 24.217.94.80 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

1) It's already included in the accolades section and 2), not sure why people use this copypasted response when they can clearly understand the edit request and could make the effort to do it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

The following content is inaccurate:

The Master Trials adds new gameplay modes, features, and items. In the Trial of the Sword challenge, Link fights through around 45 successive rooms of enemies and must finish each room before proceeding. The character begins with no armor or weapons but is ultimately rewarded with a perpetually glowing Master Sword that does not break if they are able to complete it.

It should be replaced with:

The Master Trials adds new gameplay modes, features, and items. In the Trial of the Sword, a three part challenge, Link fights through 12 (First Trials), then 16 (Middle Trials), then 23 (Final Trials) successive rooms of enemies and must finish each room before proceeding. The character begins with no armor or weapons and must find or steal survival resources and kill all monsters in the room. Any failure to survive takes him back to the first room in the series to start over. Normal weapons in the game "break" after their hidden durability points are used up. They disappear forever and must be replaced. The Master Sword also has has hidden durability points, but instead of "breaking" it "runs out of energy". Like "breaking", it disappears, but unlike "breaking", it returns after recharging (about 10 minutes). It has an attack rating of 30 (rated among the better common weapons). After succeeding at the first trial, its attack rating is raised to 40 and it has more hidden durability points (takes more use before running out of energy). After succeeding the second trial, its attack rating is 50 and again, gets more durability points. After the third trial, its attack rating is 60 and it is extremely durable, but still runs out of energy after lots of use and needs to recharge. 199.111.241.24 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• All of the detailed durability info about the Master Sword is mostly WP:GAMECRUFT. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

The following text could be improved:

New items include the Korok Mask, which helps the player find Korok locations, and other themed cosmetics related to previous Zelda games.

The suggested improvement:

New items include the Korok Mask, which helps the player find Korok locations, Majora's Mask, which allows the player to walk among monsters and interact with them as if he were one of them without being attacked, and other themed cosmetics related to previous Zelda games. 199.111.241.24 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't it already fall under "other themed cosmetics related to previous Zelda games" ? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Power Podcast

Nintendo Power was just recently revived as a podcast. In that episode, information regarding the game's development has been reveled, as seen in a summary article by Kotaku. How should I add this information to the "Development" section? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just simply use the Kotaku article for now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Line about Cemu at the end of the "Reception" section

Is this nessesery or relevent to the article in anyway, Intrest in Cemu has nothing to do with the games reception among critics and journolists, It seems out of place, maybe it belongs on the Cemu page but I feel it does not belong on the Breath of the Wild page, and if otheres feel it does, then it definatly does not belong in the reception sections. 80.5.173.228 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

Please add the Metacritic game of the year template to the bottom of the page; thanks! 2607:FEA8:87E0:D7E:9B:7CC5:41FB:69D1 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Did somebody remove it? I thought it was already here. In any case, that template should probably be deleted, as Metacritic doesn't actually give out awards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Monolith Soft's role - new source

Saw this Siliconera article today. It says that half the company - 50+ people - worked on Breath of the Wild. I don't know what other sources have mentioned, but it seems like their role was a little more than just the typical "asset help" type stuff? Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• A previous article stated their only involvement in the game was assisting with the topographical design of the open world, most likely due to their experience in making the Xenoblade games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is open world a genre?

Bo od chrome (talk · contribs) and Redsparta (talk · contribs) have been reverting each other a bit over whether to add Open world as the genre in the infobox. I think this dispute should be taken to the talk page before it escalates further. TeraTIX 01:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Per the template documentation: "Do not include broad gameplay mechanics that are frequently confused with genres, such as open world". Simple as that. I also wanted to note that Redsparta only reverted the edit once and let it be, so they weren't really involved in much of a "dispute". – Rhain ☔ 02:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There a long-standing consensus that open world is not a genre. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more of a "gameplay descriptor" than genre. It can be used in the article to describe the world, but not as an replacement for action-adventure. "The game is played in an open world environment" is allowed, while "is an open world action-adventure game" is not, if that makes sense. It should also never be placed in the infobox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Generalizing sales information in the lead

Just to be sure, but there wasn't an discussion over this in the past? I could have sworn I saw something that alluded to not including decimal places for sales numbers in the lead (rounding them instead), but perhaps that was just for that specific article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall it. I know there's some consensus over trimming the decimal points used over at aggregates like Game Rankings, which uses multiple decimal points, because it causes all sorts of minor tweaks because it changes a lot around release time. I wasn't aware of anything for sale figures though. I see no harm in the use of "10.4 million" instead of "10 million". Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it was separate from the GameRankings thing. If nobody else can recall it, it may have just been some per-article thing I read and assumed was apart of the general MOS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Post-apocalypse

I noticed that this game is in Category:Post-apocalyptic video games. This seems highly dubious to me as the game is set 100 years after a supposed apocalyptic event that seems to be highly exaggerated, perhaps for dramatic effect. If anything Hyrule seems like a paradise. Nature is thriving, all of the villages are doing well and don't even need walls or fortifications to defend them from monsters since they're mostly minding their own business, or at least not actually attacking settlements. Even small, remote places like the various stables seem to be prospering. There's no famine or pestilence and business is booming; there are merchants who wander the world, there's a construction company that can afford to only employ people whose names end in -son, and the Gorons are expanding their mining operation. Apparently all that happened before the events of the game is that Ganon took control of some ancient high-tech weaponry and killed everyone in the castle and destroyed the town around it. An act of war, certainly, but not really an apocalyptic event. Not to mention that this was followed by a 100-year period of relative peace, not a desperate struggle for hyliankind's survival. Even describing the setting as a post-post-apocalypse would be generous.

The above might be original research, but IMO if there are sources that actually describe the game's setting as post-apocalyptic and a mention of this is added to the article body at some point, it would also be beneficial to investigate whether there are any sources that point out things to the contrary. --Veikk0.ma 20:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Despite most of your arguments being WP:OR, I still agree on removing it due to the lack of direct citations supporting the claim. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)